Asbestos Litigation Defense

Protecting companies from asbestos litigation requires a thorough analysis of a plaintiff's history of work and medical records, as well as testimony. We often employ the bare metal defense, which focuses on arguing that your company didn't manufacture or sell the asbestos-containing products that are at issue in a claimant's case.

Asbestos cases are unique and require a tenacious approach to achieving successful results. We serve as local counsel, regional and national.

Statute of Limitations

The statute of limitations is a time limit within which most lawsuits must be filed. For asbestos-related cases, this means that the deadline for filing a lawsuit is between one and six years after the victim is diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease. It is crucial for the defense to show that the alleged injury occurred after the deadline. This typically requires a thorough examination and analysis of the plaintiff's employment background, including interviews with former coworkers, as well as a thorough review of Social Security and union records, as well as tax, tax, and other documents.

Defending an asbestos case involves a number of complex issues. Asbestos victims may develop a less severe disease, such as asbestosis, before they are diagnosed with a fatal illness such as mesothelioma. In these situations an attorney for defense will argue that the limitation period should begin when the victim was aware or reasonably should have known that their asbestos exposure caused the disease.

These cases are made more complex by the fact the statute of limitations can differ from state to state. In these instances, a seasoned mesothelioma lawyer may try to file the case in the state where the bulk of the alleged exposure took place. This is a difficult task, as asbestos victims often move around the country to find work and the alleged exposure could have occurred in a variety of states.

In addition, the process of discovery is difficult in asbestos litigation. Contrary to other personal injury cases, which typically contain only a few defendants, asbestos-related litigation typically involves a number of parties. It can be difficult to get relevant discovery when there are multiple defendants, and the plaintiff's case is spanning decades.

The McGivney, Kluger, Clark & Intoccia team has extensive experience in serving as National Coordinating Counsel in multi-district and multi-jurisdictional asbestos litigation. We work closely with regional and local counsel to develop litigation strategies and manage local counsel and achieve consistently cost-effective results while coordinating with client goals. We frequently appear in front of coordinating and trial judge, as well as litigation masters, across the country.

Bare Metal Defense

In the past, manufacturers of turbines, boilers, pumps and valves have defended themselves from asbestos lawsuits by arguing what is known as "bare metal" doctrine or component part doctrine. This defense asserts that a manufacturer is not responsible for asbestos-related injuries caused by replacement parts they did not design or manufacture.

In the case Devries v. Devries, a Tennessee Eastman Chemical plant employee was suing several equipment manufacturers for his mesothelioma. The plaintiff's job included the removal and replacement of insulation, steam traps and gaskets from equipment like valves, pumps, and steam traps. He claimed that he had been exposed to asbestos during his work in the plant and was diagnosed with Mesothelioma several years afterward.


The Supreme Court's decision in Devries has altered the face of asbestos litigation, and could affect how courts in other jurisdictions deal with the issue of liability for third-party components that are incorporated to equipment by manufacturers. The Court declared that the application of the bare-metal defense was "cabined" in maritime law, but left open the possibility of other federal circuits to apply this doctrine to cases that are not maritime.

This was the first time that a federal appeals court has applied the bare metal defense in a lawsuit involving asbestos, and is quite a departure from the norms of product liability law. The majority of courts have interpreted the "bare metal" defense as a way of avoiding the obligation of a manufacturer to warn about harm caused by replacement parts that it did not manufacture or sell.

The McGivney, Kluger, Clark & Intoccia Team is regularly serving as National Coordinating Counsel in multi-jurisdictional asbestos lawsuits that affect the entire industry. We assist our clients to develop strategies for litigation, oversee regional and local counsel, and provide an efficient, cost-effective defense in accordance with their goals. Marietta asbestos lawsuit at industry conferences on important issues affecting asbestos litigation. Our firm's experience includes defending clients across the nation and collaborating closely with coordinating judges and trial courts as well as litigation special masters. Our unique approach has been effective in reducing our clients' exposure and legal costs.

Expert Witnesses

A person with specific expertise, skills or experience is an expert witness. They offer independent assistance to courts by providing an objective opinion on matters within their area of expertise. He must be able to clearly articulate the facts or assumptions on the basis of his opinion and should not be oblivious to consider matters which might affect his conclusions.

In cases that involve allegations of exposure to asbestos, medical experts are often required to assist in the evaluation of the claimant's illness and the determination of any causal link between their condition and the identified source of exposure. Many of the illnesses caused by asbestos are extremely complex, and require the expertise of specialists in the field. This can include nurses and doctors, pharmacists, toxicologists or epidemiologists, occupational health specialists and pharmacists.

Experts are there to provide an impartial technical support, whether they represent the defense or the prosecution. Experts should not be an advocate or try to influence the jury to favor his client. He should not attempt to convince jurors or promote an argument.

The expert should collaborate with other experts to address any issues that are peripheral and narrow down any technical issues. The expert should also work with the experts who instruct him in identifying areas of agreement and disagreement to serve the purpose of the joint statement of experts ordered by the court.

After his examination in chief the expert should be able to be able to explain his findings and the reasons for them in a clear and comprehensible way. He should be prepared to answer questions from the prosecution or the judge and be prepared to address any points which are raised during cross-examination.

Cetrulo LLP has extensive experience in defending clients involved in complex asbestos litigation that involves multiple parties and jurisdictions. Our lawyers can counsel and manage national and regional defense counsel as well as regional and local experts as well as witnesses. Our team is regularly in front of the coordinating judges, trial judges, and special masters of asbestos litigation throughout the country.

Medical Experts

Expert witnesses are extremely important in cases that involve asbestos-related injuries because of the time lag between exposure to asbestos and initial symptoms. Asbestos cases typically involve complicated theories of injury that stretch for decades and link dozens or even hundreds of defendants. It is nearly impossible for a plaintiff to prove their case without the assistance of experts.

Experts in the field of medicine and other science are required to assess the extent of a person's exposure and medical condition and also to give insight into the future health issues. These experts are crucial to any case and should be well-vetted and familiar with the relevant field. The more experience an expert in medicine or science has the more persuasive he will be.

Asbestos cases often require an expert from a medical or scientific field to examine the medical records of the plaintiff and conduct a physical exam. These experts can testify as to whether the claimant's exposure asbestos was enough to trigger an illness that is specific to him, like mesothelioma, lung cancer, or other types of scarring in the respiratory tract and lungs (e.g. the pleural plaques).

Other experts like industrial hygienists could also be needed to assist in establishing asbestos-related exposure levels. They can employ advanced analytical and sampling methods to evaluate the asbestos concentrations in the air at the workplace or at home to legal exposure standards.

These types of experts can be extremely useful in defending companies that produced or distributed asbestos-related products, as they can often be able of demonstrating that the exposure levels of plaintiffs were within the legal limit and that there was no evidence of negligence by the employer or manufacturer liability.

Other experts in these instances include occupational and environmental specialists who can offer insights into the quality of safety protocols at a specific workplace or business and how these protocols relate to asbestos manufacturers' liability. They can, for example, establish that the materials used in a remodel project may contain asbestos, or that shaking contaminated clothing could cause asbestos dust and asbestos fibers to escape.