Common Defense Tactics Used in Mesothelioma Cases

Mesothelioma, a rare and aggressive cancer most often caused by asbestos exposure, has led to thousands of lawsuits over the past several decades. Victims, often workers in construction, shipyards, or manufacturing, have sought compensation for medical bills, lost income, and pain and suffering. These lawsuits typically target the manufacturers and distributors of asbestos-containing products.

However, winning a mesothelioma lawsuit isn’t always straightforward. Defendants—often large corporations with significant resources—employ a range of legal tactics to avoid or minimize liability. Understanding these common defense strategies is essential for anyone involved in, or considering, a mesothelioma case. Below are some of the most frequently used defense tactics.

Denial of Exposure

One of the most common and fundamental defense tactics is the outright denial that the plaintiff was ever exposed to asbestos from the defendant's product. Because mesothelioma can take decades to develop after exposure, it can be challenging for plaintiffs to pinpoint where and how the exposure occurred. Defense attorneys capitalize on this uncertainty by arguing that their client’s product was not involved or present at the plaintiff’s job site or home.

To counter this, plaintiffs must often rely on detailed work histories, witness testimony, or even employment records from decades ago. In some cases, expert testimony is used to reconstruct the likely sources of asbestos exposure.

Blaming Other Parties

Another key defense strategy is to shift the blame to other companies. Many mesothelioma cases involve multiple defendants, and it is common for companies to argue that other manufacturers or contractors were responsible for the plaintiff’s exposure. This tactic is known as “the empty chair defense,” where a defendant blames an absent party who is not part of the current trial.

In jurisdictions that allow for apportionment of fault, this strategy can significantly reduce a defendant’s financial liability—even if the court finds them partially responsible.

Challenging Medical Causation

Even when asbestos exposure is proven, defense attorneys may dispute whether that exposure actually caused the plaintiff’s mesothelioma. This is particularly common in cases where the plaintiff had multiple sources of asbestos exposure or where other health issues might be at play.

Defense teams may present medical experts who argue that the plaintiff’s condition could have been caused by other factors, or that their particular asbestos exposure was too minimal to have caused the disease. This tactic seeks to create doubt in the minds of jurors or to reduce the damages awarded.

Statute of Limitations Defense

Every state has a statute of limitations, which is the legal deadline for filing a lawsuit. In mesothelioma cases, the clock usually starts when the plaintiff is diagnosed, not when the exposure occurred. However, defendants may argue that the plaintiff missed the filing deadline by claiming the plaintiff should have been aware of the asbestos exposure earlier.

This is a particularly potent tactic in cases where plaintiffs were diagnosed with other asbestos-related illnesses (like asbestosis) years before developing mesothelioma. Courts sometimes interpret those earlier diagnoses as the starting point for the statute of limitations, even though mesothelioma is a distinct disease.

Questioning Product Identification

Product identification is crucial in asbestos litigation. Defendants often argue that the plaintiff cannot prove they used, were near, or even saw the defendant’s specific asbestos-containing product. This strategy is especially effective in cases where exposure happened decades ago, and records or witnesses are hard to find.

To combat this tactic, plaintiffs often rely on coworkers' testimonies, photographs, shipping records, or corporate documents to prove the presence and use of the defendant’s product.

Bankruptcy Trust Disclosure

Many asbestos manufacturers have declared bankruptcy and established bankruptcy trusts to compensate victims. If a plaintiff has already filed claims with such trusts, defense attorneys in current lawsuits may try to use this to their advantage.

The defense might argue that the plaintiff has already been compensated or should have pursued claims against other, now-bankrupt companies. In some jurisdictions, they may also request to reduce any verdict by the amount already received from these trusts, thereby lowering their client’s liability.

Minimizing Damages

Even if a defendant concedes some responsibility, they may still try to reduce the damages awarded. This can involve challenging the amount of medical expenses, questioning the extent of the plaintiff’s pain and suffering, or arguing that the plaintiff had a short life expectancy regardless of mesothelioma.

Defendants may bring in economic experts to present lower damage estimates or challenge the qualifications and conclusions of the plaintiff’s expert witnesses.

Claiming Secondary Exposure Doesn’t Count

In many cases, plaintiffs develop mesothelioma not from direct occupational exposure, but from secondary or “take-home” exposure—often from family members who brought asbestos fibers home on their clothes. Defendants may argue that they had no duty of care to protect non-employees from asbestos exposure.

This defense can be effective in jurisdictions that do not recognize liability for secondary exposure, though some states have started to shift toward greater protections for these victims.