Property Rights

Johnson & Johnson, Parent to DePuy, Under Scrutiny for Manufacturing Practices

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

In August 2010, DePuy recalled thousands of its ASR hip implant units after medical watchdogs discovered the product was structually unsafe and caused many recipients metallosis, substantial loss of mobility in joints, and other symptoms. Thousands of lawsuits immediately followed, with most still pending.

Hip implants aren’t the only product produced by DePuy, and its parent division, Johnson & Johnson, that have contained flaws. According to a January 2011 New York Times story, 288 million Johnson & Johnson products, including 136 million bottles of liquid Tylenol, Motrin, Zyrtec and Benadryl, have been pulled from store shelves. Foreign bits of metal and moldy odors are among some of the chief reasons behind removal of these items. And in December 2010, 13 million packages of Rolaids, another Johnson & Johnson product, were pulled from shelves after they were contaminated with metal and wood particles.

Johnson & Johnson’s manufacturing errors have led government regulators to more closely scrutinize the company and its subdivisions. The F.D.A., for instance, has expressed that it is baffled as to why company executives have not been able to identify, prevent, or explain the recent emergence of problems that plague the medical manufacturer’s products. Even the State of Oregon has filed a lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson, claiming the company has misrepresented the quality and efficacy of its products. A shareholder’s lawsuit was filed against the company’s board of directors in December 2010 in response to the billions of dollars lost in damages payments to victims of Johnson & Johnson’s defective products.

Homeowner Liability Insurance Coverage Upheld for Harmful Accident

Published on: February 10, 2011 | By Berniard Law Firm

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans recently affirmed that a policyholder was covered by his Homeowner’s policy for injuries inflicted during a brutal accident where another was seriously injured. While leaving a party, Hurst – the policyholder – fashioned a lock pick out of wire to open the door of his truck in which he had locked his keys. After gaining access, he flung away the wire and it bounced off the back of his truck and into the open window of another departing guest, Ms. Baker, injuring her severely.

Hurst held two liability insurance policies with Liberty Mutual: a $300,000 Homeowner’s policy and a $30,000 Automotive policy. The injured Baker sued Hurst, Liberty Mutual Insurance, and her own Uninsured Motorist carrier: Allstate. Through procedural motions, both Baker and Liberty Mutual asked the lower court to make a determination as to whether Hurst was covered by the higher limit homeowners’ policy at the time of the accident.

The Homeowners’ policy included a provision excluding coverage for personal liability and medical payments for bodily injury “arising out of the ownership, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of motor vehicles.” The heart of the issue became whether Hurst’s use of the wire to gain access to his vehicle and throwing it into his truck bed was “use or loading of the vehicle” such that it would bar the coverage of the Homeowners’ policy.

The lower court ruled that Hurst’s throwing of the metal object onto the hard surface of the truck bed had no connection to the use of the truck; it was the disposal of the object itself that was negligent. This is because courts consider the role the vehicle played in the entire scheme. Here, the Fourth Circuit reasoned that the vehicle must be central to the theory of liability and that here it was not – the flinging of the wire was at the heart of Hurst’s liability for injuring Baker. Applying the relevant legal standard from a case called Carter, the Court considered whether (1) the conduct of the insured was a proximate cause of the injury (it was); and (2) whether it was a use of the automobile (it was not). The Court therefore ruled that the exclusion for automobile use did not apply and Hurst’s conduct at the time of the accident.

Homeowners’ policies often include higher limits for liability than do automotive or other policies that people who injure you might have. Given the tragic nature of Ms. Baker’s injury, it is somewhat clear why she sought the Homeowners’ $300,000 policy coverage and why Liberty Mutual sought to deny coverage on that claim.

Legal expertise is very often required to achieve the best outcome for your injuries because insurance companies like Liberty Mutual will skillfully and zealously attempt to limit the amount payable to injured persons – as they did here.

Chinese Drywall Still a Major Issue Throughout Gulf Coast

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

For thousands of homeowners, an unwelcome companion lives with them every day, without their consent and sometimes without their knowledge. This unwelcome housemate is known as Chinese drywall. This dangerous defective material was utilized in a multitude of homes between 2001 to 2007, when it was imported from China. The drywall has created an unhealthy and dangerous atmosphere for homeowners, who have to deal with not only symptoms of failing health, but also their actual possessions showing evidence of exposure to Chinese drywall. One couple in particular describe the chain of events that led them to the discovery that they were living in hazardous circumstances as a result of the Chinese drywall being used in the construction of their dream home.

Chinese drywall is not the type of danger that is instantly apparent; rather, it is hidden in the home, being that it is sheet rock which is later covered and painted over. However, this hidden hazard releases toxic fumes into the air which causes health effects as well as deterioration in objects exposed to such toxins. According to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, “the drywall releases hydrogen sulfide and possibly other gases causing corrosion of wiring and appliance and possible health problems.” A couple who detail their experience with the defective, hazardous material, stated that their first inclination that something was seriously wrong was when they had to replace their air conditioning compressor and coils twice, within a three month time span. Upon speaking with their friends and neighbors, they discovered that numerous homeowners in the area had to replace their air conditioning compressor and coils often as well, which is not normal for such equipment. The trauma continued when the couple described smelling rotten egg in their home on a daily basis, to such an extent that when they left their home, co-workers and friends would mention that the couple themselves smelled like rotten egg. As further indication of the danger that lurked in their home, the silver jewelry and dishware turned black after sitting out for a mere week and half. Pretty soon, friends, relatives, and neighbors stopped coming to their home, the smell was too much to handle and the couple was at a loss of what to do. Hiring a home inspector to come help them discover the root of their problems, the inspector discovered their house was built with Chinese drywall. Scared and unsure of what their options were, the couple turned to legal guidance and support for answers.

Lawsuits have been filed against the Chinese drywall manufacturer, Knauf Drywall, and the distributor, Interior/Exterior Building Supply. In fact, to date, over 5,000 cases have been filed in a multi-district litigation in Louisiana under federal Judge Eldon Fallon. These lawsuits were pressed by those looking to recover the money it would cost to replace their drywall with a safer version. Since this process involves major construction, the costs are high and these people rightfully felt like they should not have to pay for unknowingly being exposed to contaminants by the manufacturer.

The health risks are extremely important to understand and take into consideration. According to Dr. Patricia Williams, a University of New Orleans toxicologists, “highly toxic compounds have been found in Chinese drywall and prolonged exposure to these compounds can cause serious problems. Strontium sulfide may be dangerous to developing children; affecting bone growth. Chronic exposure to these gases may affect the central nervous system (including visual and sensory changes), cardiovascular system, eyes, kidney, liver and skin.” These risk cannot be ignored, thus, seeking legal advice to understand all of the issues involved is strongly advised.

Chinese drywall is a hazardous material that thousands of homeowners have had to live with for years. Throughout this time period they were constantly barraged with toxic fumes which affected their health, lives, and enjoyment of their homes. Legally, homeowners have an action against the manufacturer and distributor of such a defective product and should seek legal advice as soon as possible. Homeowners need to understand how Chinese drywall impacts their health and environment. Monthly status calls are available for homeowners to listen to, that detail settlement discussions as well as liability issues. Homeowners are encouraged to listen in and can call the conference call number at: 1800.260.0702, with the access code 183730. The next scheduled status meeting will be January 20, 2011. Homeowners are strongly advised to seek legal support to protect their rights; if you live in a home with Chinese drywall, contact an attorney immediately.

Lake Charles Payment Delays Cost Insurer in Court

Published on: January 27, 2011 | By Berniard Law Firm

Lake Charles resident Ginger Hinch Durio sued her Insurer, Horace Mann, over the extent of payments she received for the damages she sustained during Hurricane Rita. Durio’s house was severely damaged, including her garage where her family’s belongings were being stored while they were in talks to sell the house. The ceiling inside the garage collapsed onto their stored belongings. Additionally, an engineering report obtained by Durio four months after the hurricane indicated the structural and mechanical integrity of the house was compromised, and the HVAC, electrical, and plumbing systems had failed.

Durio’s policy with Horace Mann provided for several categories of damages for which the Insurer would pay her up to their respective policy limits: Structure ($173,300), Adjacent Structures ($17,330), Contents ($103,980), and Additional Living Expenses ($103,980). After Durio submitted a claim in September of 2005, Horace Mann made several payments to her that fell far below the category policy limits. Despite Durio’s submission of re-evaluation materials, Horace Mann ultimately honored in full only her Contents claim (for all the belongings contained in the garage) of $47,061.44. This, however, was after the Insurer issued her a “sarcastic” check for $6.90 for a broken flowerpot.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed the damages awarded by the Trial Court for a total in excess of $1.5 million. Durio received Contractual damages for the difference between what she was paid by Horace Mann and the policy limits for Structure and Adjacent Structure damages. In addition, the Court affirmed an award of $39,000 for thirty-eight months of living expenses based on Durio’s own estimation for the period in which the Insurer worked on the claim.

Louisiana Legislature Extends Period to Bring Suit in Home Fire Damage Cases

Published on: January 2, 2011 | By Berniard Law Firm

While Louisiana law has not always been a beneficial reliance for residents to fall back on, changes in the last 5 years have helped change that and make financial recovery in the wake of a disaster possible. The previous law in Louisiana stated that, after a fire to a home, the homeowner had 12 months in which to bring a case against the insurance company. A new law passed in mid-2007 extended the period to 24 months. This is a break for many families who felt the impact of such a disastrous event. It will give these individuals and families more time to figure out whether the insurance company’s offer is sufficient. As with every time a new law is passed, there are certain questions that remained to be answered as the situations arise. One such question is how the new legislation impacts those whose claim arose prior to the enactment of the law and had not expired by the time the law was enacted.

In Eric Holt vs. State Farm Fire Casualty Co., such a situation arose for Mr. Holt (Holt). In January 2007, Holt’s home was damaged in a fire. He was insured by State Farm Casualty Co. (State Farm). State Farm refused to pay for any of the damages under the policy. In February of 2008, Holt sued State Farm due to dissatisfaction with its ultimate decision. State Farm filed for summary judgment arguing that (1) the claim was barred because state law, at the time the claim arose, allowed only 12 months in which the claim could be filed for fire damage to a home and (2) the claim was barred because the policy stated that any claim must be filed within 12 months. State Farm argued that because of these two reasons, and the fact that the claim was filed more than 12 months after the fire, the claim is barred by the prescriptive period. The trial court refused to grant summary judgment and State Farm appealed.

In terms of State Farm’s claim that the policy between it and Holt barred any claim beyond a 12 month period, the policy also states that if the policy conflicts with state law, state law will control the issue. The appellate court then had to figure what state law governed the issue at hand. Act 43 of 2007 was enacted On August 15, 2007. The act increased the time in which to bring a home damage claim, including fire damage, from 12 months to 24 months. State Farm argued that because the act was enacted after the damage to Holt’s home, the act did not apply to Holt. Under Louisiana law, the difference comes down to (1) whether the legislature clearly identified if an act will apply retrospectively and (2) if the act does not clearly so state, if the act is substantive in nature, meaning that it creates or impacts a cause of action, it will only apply proscriptively, on the other hand, if the act is procedural in nature, meaning it impacts only how a cause of action can be brought, it can apply retrospectively.

Act 43 does not clearly state whether it applied retrospectively. The Appellate Court concluded that because the act only increased the time in which to bring a claim, and not the type of claim or any elements of the claim, that the act was procedural in nature. Under Louisiana law, it is a well settled issue that procedural acts can be applied retrospectively. The only exceptions to this are that if applying an act retrosepctively (1) impacts a vested cause of action, or (2) revives an already expired cause of action, the retrospective application would violate constitutional rights and would be unjust to apply. However, neither of these exceptions apply in the application of the law in Holt’s case. Therefore, the Court decided that Holt’s claim was not time barred by the prescriptive period.

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 .

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.