Industry Spill

Understanding Class Action Lawsuits in Louisiana

Published on: June 16, 2011 | By Berniard Law Firm

Class actions are a common and popular legal tool for cases involving a large group of people who share the same grievance against a defendant. Specifically, the plaintiffs have to have a real and actual interest in order to join a class action. An issue may arise however, if a plaintiff’s interest is called into question. In particular, whether the plaintiff belongs to the class of persons to whom the law grants the cause of action asserted against a defendant. Essentially, the plaintiff’s have to share the same type of complaint and injury in order to form a proper class action. Many times, defendants will allege that the class action was improperly certified (allowed) in order to invalidate any complaints against them.

In a recent Second Circuit Court of Appeal Case in Louisiana, the court explored the certification of a class action in order to determine whether or not it was proper. The facts of the case include the plaintiff, representing a class of individuals, who all share a grievance against a funeral home, owners of the funeral home, and numerous banks. The gist of their complaint is that the funeral home sold prepaid funeral expenses to the plaintiffs and other putative class members. The owner of the funeral home then deposited their payments into certificates of deposit (COD) with one or more of the banks named as defendants. The bulk of COD’s were under names which included the Funeral Home, followed by either “payable on death,” or “for the benefit of” followed by the name of the individual whose prepaid funeral funds were being held on deposit. The issue became that without presentation of a death certificate as required by Louisiana statute, the law governing prepaid funeral services, and in breach of the banks’ contracts, namely, the certificates of deposit, the funeral home was allowed by the banks to withdraw the funds which they converted and appropriated for their own use. The plaintiffs argue that by accepting the deposits, the defendant banks became commonly liable with the funeral home. Yet, the appellate court is charged with the responsibility to determine whether the class action should be certified, despite the fact the trial court denied the class’s certification.

A class action must have certain definite characteristics. First, the class must be so large as to make individual suits impractical. Second, there must be a legal or factual claim in common between all the plaintiffs involved. Third, the claims or defenses must be typical of the plaintiffs or defendants. Fourth, the representative parties must adequately protect the interest of the class. Further, in many cases, the party seeking certification of a class must also show that common issues between the class and the defendants will predominate the proceedings, as opposed to individual fact-specific conflicts between class members and the defendants and that the class action, instead of individual litigation, is a superior vehicle for resolution of the disputes at hand. Here, the class certification, the plaintiffs sought to certify a class defined as “all individuals from whom the funeral home appropriated and converted funds collected by them for prepayment of funeral expenses.” Additionally, the motion asserted common questions of law and fact including:

Fire Rages After New Iberia Chemical Plant Explosion

Published on: June 14, 2011 | By Berniard Law Firm

With little details available, the residents of New Iberia sit and wait to find out more about an explosion that took place at the Multi-Chem plant. Conflicting reports exist regarding harm caused by the incident, though the most recent release states all plant employees are accounted for and there were no reported injuries.

A 1-5 mile evacuation has taken place with residents encouraged to leave or, at worst, remain inside.

More information will be available on our Personal Injury blog as it becomes available.

Chemical Release Ruling a Helpful Guide for Recent Spills/Leaks

Published on: April 1, 2011 | By Berniard Law Firm

In Oakdale, Louisiana, on March 8th, 2000, a pressurized tank owned by Arizona Chemical Co., Inc., containing a heat transfer fluid over-heated. The tank had a safety shut off valve which failed, resulting in the short-term release of chemical vapor into the air. The vapor, containing biphenyl and phenyl oxide, drifted toward the home of a nearby resident, Ms. Edna Miller. The release was short lived and was contained within 30 minutes but caused very real damages. Edna and Bruce Miller sued Arizona Chemical Co, Inc., for personal injuries following the chemical release. As a result, Edna Miler was awarded $12,5000 in damages. However, Bruce Miller’s claim was denied as a verdict in favor of Arizona Chemical was issued.

Both parties appealed the decisions in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed Edna Miller’s award for $12,500 and refused to award her additional damages. Bruce Miller’s claim on appeal was also denied, and he was awarded no damages. Edna Miller was awarded damages while her son Bruce was not because he could not meet his burden of proof to show that the chemical release caused him any harm.
At the time of the exposure Edna was inside her home. Her son Bruce was at work, as a groundskeeper at a nearby high school. Mr. Miller left work to check on his mother when he heard about the chemical release. He found Edna outside on the lawn, nauseous, and about to leave the area. He helped her into her car and she drove away. Bruce Miler stayed on the property for several minutes, went in the house, had a glass of water and washed his face. He said his eyes and throat were burning and he felt shortness of breath.

Later that day Mrs. Miller visited the emergency room with heart palpitations, shortness of breath and nausea. She was released when she no longer had symptoms from the chemical release. Arizona Chemical company paid her medical bill and the bills of four other people that day who complained of symptoms related to the chemical release. Mr. Miller did not seek medical attention that day. He stated that five hours after the exposure he developed a rash on his hands. This rash was later found to be caused by his taking Celebrex and by his long time smoking habit, not from the chemical release. He has suffered skin rashes many times before in his life.

In order to recover damages for personal injury the injured party must prove that the other party was the primary, if not only, cause of the injury. Mr. Miller’s treating family practitioner testified that his breathing problems, rashes, and other symptoms were related to the chemical exposure. However, the physician did not know until the day of trial what chemical the Millers were exposed to, nor the type of ailments that particular substance could cause. The doctor said that the timing of the chemical release and Mr. Miller’s symptoms were what led him to that conclusion. The Defendant presented opinions of expert toxicologists who testified that Mr. Miller’s continuing symptoms could not have been caused by the brief transient exposure to the chemical vapor on March 8, 2000. Because Mr. Miller could not show that the cause of his symptoms was due to the chemical release, the Court of Appeals affirmed that he was not entitled to damages from Arizona Chemical Co., Inc.

Showing that an action by one party caused injury to someone can be complicated. The inured party must prove that their injury was caused by the other party and that the injury caused them some harm. In this case Mrs. Miller suffered some harm, but not harm requiring compensation more than the $12,500 the court said. Mr. Miller was not able to meet his burden of proof showing that the chemical release was the cause of his injuries and thus failed at his claim.

If you have suffered an injury due to chemical release or some other action of another party, you may be entitled to damages if you can meet the proper burden of proof. Whether or not a party has met their burden of proof is a question for the judge or jury and is essential to receiving compensation for personal injury. If you or someone you know has suffered an injury due to another party, an experienced attorney can help you determine if you may be able to meet the burden of proof to be awarded damages by the court.

Bossier Parish Police Jury Ordered to Repair Faulty Pipes

Published on: March 15, 2011 | By Berniard Law Firm

A recent ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeal for the State of Louisiana ordered the Bossier Parish Police Jury to repair the pipes running under the land that the plaintiffs, Steven and Melanie Petchak, own in Bossier Parish. It was also ordered to pay damages to the plaintiffs for damage to their house.

Mr. and Mrs. Petchak bought Lot 363, which was part of a subdivision plat (Subdivision No. 5), in 1994. In the conveyance records for Subdivision No. 5, several drainage easements, or rights of way, were referenced. These included a 25-foot easement running north to south and a 10-foot easement running east to west. The 10-foot easement extended 5 feet into the Petchaks’ lot. In 1978, the Bossier parish Police Jury had enacted a resolution which agreed to maintain the drainage facilities of Subdivision No. 5. Additionally, Ordinance 509 of Bossier Parish stated that the Police Jury were to forever have a right of way in order to maintain the drainage channels, and that no buildings were to be erected on the right of way.

The house that the Petchaks bought was built between 1983 and 1985, and the Petchaks purchased the home in 1994. They soon noticed a sinkhole developing on their property, and found out that the previous owner had noticed a different sinkhole, in a different place. The previous owner had called the Police Jury, who filled in the sinkhole twice, first with dirt and later with concrete. The Petchaks called the Police Jury about the new sinkhole, which was then filled in with dirt.

Ten years later, in 2005, the Petchaks began to notice problems with their home, including broken windows, sticking doors, and damaged flooring, walls, and woodwork, which were concentrated at the part of the house closest to the sinkholes. A new sinkhole appeared, and the Petchaks hired a civil engineer to inspect the house, who recommended that the drainage system be repaired before attempting to repair the home’s foundation.

In January 2006, the parish engineer offered to fix the drainage system, but only if the Petchaks would agree to sign a release for any past and future damages associated with the problem, which the Petchaks refused to do.

After more investigation, it was discovered that the pipe was not constructed in accordance with good engineering practices. Despite the pipe changing direction, the parish had not installed junction boxes, which would have stabilized the joint and prevented the separation of the concrete. Because the pipe did not contain any junction boxes, experts believed that either water was escaping or dirt was infiltrating in, causing destabilization of the soil around the drain. The drain was likely bedded in a granular fill, which is a quick-to-erode material, instead of the usual clay. All of this together caused a massive loss of support soil from under the foundation of the house and resulted in damage to the house.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeal decided that the recordation of the easement and Ordinance 509 created duties on the part of the Police Jury to maintain the drainage system as well as a burden on the owner of the land to let the Police Jury onto the land when required. Although the suit would not have been allowed if it were a tort suit under sovereign immunity, it was allowed to go forward because it was based on the special relationship between the Petchaks and the Bossier Parish Police Jury created by the easement. The court also pointed out that prospective owners usually do not conduct underground surveys of the condition of the utilities in easements. Additionally, the Petchaks knew that the right of way existed, could see the manhole cover which was evidence of the right of way, and trusted that the easement would not make the condition of their property worse. The court also found that the Police Jury constructively knew of problems with the drainage system by 1992, when the first sinkhole was reported, so it could not at this time claim lack of knowledge.

Court Rules that Survival Suits Exists Against Insurance Company of a Dissolved Corporation

Published on: January 6, 2011 | By Berniard Law Firm

The death of a loved one can obviously be a hard time for a family. Families have to deal with many issues after the death of one of its members, and the financial implication of the death is a hard to handle issue. Many times financial issues may take a long time to materialize. When the death of a loved one is due to an accident or an effect from something on the job, many families have to sift through the complex legal system to see if they have any rights against the employer, or any third-party. Many people in the past have been impacted by exposure to asbestos. Many illnesses can occur due to this exposure, icluding malignant mesothelioma. Many families attempt to bring survival suits against employers when their loved one was exposed to asbestos during employment. The impact of asbestos exposure may not manifest itself for many years, or decades in the future. What if the corporation has changed hands? What if the corporation no longer exists? This last question was answered in a recent decision by the Appeals Court of Louisianna, Fourth District.

In Marcel vs. Delta Shipbulding Co.(Delta), the plaintiffs were survivors of a man who died due to malignant mesothelioma after exposure to asbestos while working for Delta. The plaintiffs were suing Delta’s insurance company, Continental Insurance Co.(Continental). The issue in the case was that the company went out of business in 1969. The employee worked there between 1948 and 1949. Continental argued that there could be no cause of action because the corporation was no longer in business. In trial court, Continental was able to successfully argue that due to today’s law, which states that all suits against a corporation are null and void three years after the dissolution of the corporation, the cause of action did not exist as a matter of law. Plaintiffs took their case to the appellate court arguing that the trial court was wrong to conclude that there was no cause of action.

The appellate court took the case as a matter of first impression. The Court had never dealt with a case where the corporation had went out of business prior to the enactment of legislation creating a cause of action in such circumstances. The new legislation was passed in 1969. The Court stated that the cause of action accrues in a long-latency occupational disease case when the tortious exposures are significant, such that they will later result in the manifestation of the disease. This meant that the cause of action accrued when the exposure occured back in 1948-49. The Court cited a Louisiana Supreme Court case for the proposition that a survival action accrues simultaneously with the tort, i.e. the exposure, and is transmitted to the heirs of the victim upon death. Based on this, the Court found that the appropriate law was the law that existed at the time of exposure, not the law that exists as it stands today. The statute in effect at that time was act 128. This act discussed the procedure of bringing an action against a dissolved corporation, but it did not discuss causes of action. Although the current law, which states that after three years a cause of action is barred against a dissolved corporation, would have barred this case, the law as it existed at the time of exposure would not bar the current suit, and that law is the law that applied to the current case. Continental brought forth case history that stated that any case against a dissolved corporation is abated at the time of dissolution. The Court was quick to state that even if that law would bar a case against Delta, it does not extend to parties other than the dissolved corporation like Continental. Therefore, the survivial action is not terminated due to Delta’s dissolved status.

In hard times, the last thing anyone wants to deal with is a difficult legal question regarding one’s rights. However, it is pertinent that potential legal issues be discussed with a lawyer as soon as possible. Each case has a time period in which it can be brought. It is essential that if you have a claim, or your think you have a claim, you should seek the advice of legal counsel as soon as possible so that time does not run out on your ability to take any kind of action on your claim.

For more information on asbestos exposure and mesothelioma, feel free to browse our blog dedicated to the topic.

Mineral Leasing May Have Negative Long Term Effects for Landowners

Published on: December 21, 2010 | By Berniard Law Firm

Owning property can be fulfilling for individuals but, with this sense of accomplishment comes extensive legal responsibilities. Owning non-residential property, in particular, can be stressful, particularly when a landowner is seeking compensation for property damage. In a recent case, the Court of Appeals for the state of Louisiana evaluated potential benefits of landowners suing for property damage. More specifically, the court evaluated whether landowners had a right to sue for damages caused by a party who obtained a mineral lease from prior landowners. The Court of Appeals agreed with the findings of the lower court and held that the plaintiffs could not recover because they were either: not the party who was entitled to compensation or that too much time passed and it was too late to sue.

In 1945, Chevron obtained three mineral leases from the Pasternack family for a 193-acre tract of land located in the Lake St. John Oil and Gas Field in Concordia Parish, Louisiana. Operations on the property were commenced by Chevron in 1945 pursuant to three mineral leases obtained from the previous owners, the Pasternack family. The Pasternack family sold the property in June 1999 and, after several conveyances, the property was owned by the Wagoners when the lawsuit was commenced. Still, the Pasternacks reserved their mineral interests in the land. Eventually, the Wagoners discovered that the subsurface of their property was contaminated with exploration and production waste, particularly through the use of unlined pits. As a result, they filed suit in August 2008, claiming that their property was contaminated by the oil and gas exploration and production activities of Defendants.

Through a complex timeline, Chevron leased and conducted oil and gas operations on the property from 1945 to 1992. Throughout the years, the lease was assigned to several entities including Devon, Merit, LSJ Exploration and Oil & Ale LSJ, Smith Operating and Management Company. Beginning in 2004, McGowan Working Partners leased and operated the shallow oil–producing subsurfaces beneath the property while the deeper subsurfaces were leased and operated by Denbury Onshore after 2004. Numerous exceptions were filed by various Defendants and the trial judge sustained the following exceptions filed or adopted by all Defendants: (A) Vagueness; (B) No Cause of Action for Strict Liability for Nuisance; (C) No Cause of Action for Strict Liability for Garde or Custody; (D) No Cause of Action for Abnormally Dangerous or Ultrahazardous Activity; (E) No Cause of Action for Breach of Contract or Warranty; (F) No Cause of Action for Punitive Damages; (G) No Cause of Action for Unjust Enrichment; and (H) No Cause of Action for Civil Fruits.