Insurance Dispute Lawyer Blog

The Berniard Law Firm would like to wish everyone a Happy Holiday.

Regular posting will resume in 2012! Have a happy, and SAFE, holiday season!

The terms in a contractual agreement between parties can have the effect of changing entire meanings of contracts. This is especially true in more complex litigation and more complex business agreements. If a business agreement requires the participation of multiple partners or parties, an ambiguously defined contract can have the effect of increasing the amount of litigation which will occur every time there is a legal dispute between any or all of the parties. The clear practical effect of writing clear-cut and well defined contracts is that, in the long run, there will be less of a chance that any dispute will require a long, drawn-out litigation process which has the effect of draining the wallets of all the parties involved.

This is most important where one or more of the parties is a single individual with limited resources, and in some situations, is represented by smaller firms that have much less financial resources compared to bigger business entities with more resources and financing at their disposal. As a legal practice, any person that becomes part of a contractual agreement should clearly define any type of ambiguous terminology in an effort to save the agreement from getting the definitional application of common law or practice. Never is this more necessary than when an individual is pushed up against an insurance agency that holds their financial future in their hands. The importance of defining a contract can be clearly seen in the case of Federal Insurance Company v. New Hampshire Insurance Co.

Both Federal and New Hampshire insurance companies became involved in litigation because they both insured Thomas and Betts Corporation (hereinafter T&B). T&B made a product which contributed to an explosion at an aluminum processing plant in Gramercy, Louisiana, leaving employee Wayne Robinson with injuries. Ultimately, Mr. Robinson sued T&B, which had liability insurance from both Federal and New Hampshire. Thus, when the suit began, Federal and New Hampshire's policies kicked into effect. New Hampshire was the "first insurer" for T&B. Federal, on the other hand, was T&B's second layer excess insurer. On the eve of the trial, Mr. Robinson came to an agreement with T&B which had the effect of potentially extinguishing the law suit. T&B was going to pay Mr. Robinson $5 million dollars in damages for his unfortunate bodily injuries, and an additional $1.2 million in consideration for a potential breach of contract claim by another plaintiff company against Mr. Robinson. Subsequent to this settlement, New Hampshire notified Mr. Robinson that it was going to pay him the $5 million, but that it would not pay him the $1.2 million promised by T&B. When Mr. Robinson then received a letter from the plaintiff company, he sent the notice to Federal to show the demand made of him. Federal ended up giving Mr. Robinson $990,000 for the potential breach of contract claim against Mr. Robinson. The pertinent part of the agreement between T&B and Mr. Robinson is as follows:

"Thomas and Betts and Its Insurers agree to hold harmless, indemnify and defend Wayne Robins, et al, The Fields law Firm and Cleo Fields for any amount owed to AXA, Kaisers Subrogated Property Reinsurers, Caleb Didriksen and the Didriksen Law Firm, not to exceed 1.2 million dollars."

Eventually, Federal sought the $990,000 from New Hampshire arguing that the amount should have been given to Mr. Robinson as part of T&B's policy with New Hampshire. New Hampshire argued that this amount was not within T&B's policy with it. The pertinent part of T&B's policy with New Hampshire was that New Hampshire, "becomes legally obligated to pay by reason of liability imposed by law or assumed by [T&B] under an Insured Contract because of Bodily Injury." This seems simple enough, however there was no definition of "legally obligated to pay." In the world of contracts, the contracting parties have the ability to define things in any manner they see fit. These definitions should, however, be included in the contract itself in the index of terms. When a contract does not define any of the material terms, the terms should be filled in by the court. In this case, the court decided that since the phrase was not defined, it should be filled in with what was commonly used in Louisiana. It Louisiana, it was well settled that the use of the phrase was for damages arising out of tortious actions and not from a contractual obligation. Therefore, on the face of the assertion, Federal would be out of luck because it sought money from New Hampshire for money it gave Mr. Robinson due to a breach of contract. Even though the court sided with Federal for other reasons, Federal would have been dealt a strict blow because it did not read the policy between T&B and New Hampshire clearly enough to see that the term was not defined.

Therefore, before taking any action any party should clearly read any existing agreement between relevant parties and should make sure any contract it signs has clearly defined terms that will not lead to unnecessary litigation which will only serve to drain resources.

Continue reading "The Importance of Defining Terms in a Contract" »

In order to avoid extreme costs incurred from accidents, some businesses purchase two types of insurance policies. The first and most common type of insurance is primary insurance. Under this policy, business assets and liabilities are covered in exchange for the payment of a premium. This coverage, however, is capped in order to protect the insurance company from excessive claims. For this reason, many businesses, especially those dealing with expensive equipment and goods, will carry a second insurance policy that provides coverage beyond what is offered through the primary insurer. These policies are known as excess insurance. Premiums for these excess policies are often lower and provide a much higher cap on claim amounts. Excess insurers are able to provide such cheap, yet extensive coverage because the chance of such a catastrophic accident occurring that exhausts the primary insurance cap is minimal. However, as is evident in Indemnity Insurance Company of North America v. American Commercial Lines, L.L.C., where multiple boats collided on the Mississippi River, maritime accident costs sometimes extend beyond primary insurance coverage, bringing questions of how excess insurance money should be handled by courts.

When insurance disputes arise, many times the insurance company will concede the full policy amount, deposit it with the court, withdraw from the proceedings, and leave the claiming parties to battle out their rights to the money in court. Statutory provisions guide the timeline for when primary insurance policies must be deposited with the court, but what is the protocol for an excess insurer that wants to follow the primary insurer's footsteps? This was the main question in the American Commercial Lines case. The plaintiffs sued the excess insurers claiming that the excess insurers deposited the policy amount with the court too late, resulting in the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars in interest that could have been distributed amongst the victims. In deciding the case the court had to analyze a couple different issues.

The first issue dealt with determining what law applies to the case. Since the case involves maritime insurance, the court had to decide between maritime law and state law. Statutes provide that if no federal maritime law controls the issue, then state law applies. Because no specific maritime provision covers when an excess insurer should deposit policy amounts with the court, Louisiana court applies. This means, as mentioned above, that excess insurance will not kick in until after all primary insurance funds have been exhausted. This essentially answers the question the second issue poses: when does the excess insurer need to deposit policy amounts with the court?

Though there is some precedent for not allowing an insurer to unreasonably delay depositing with a court and creating unjust enrichment as a result of such delay, the court must still adhere to the contract created between the excess insurers and the policy holders. Through these contracts, policy holders have agreed that excess insurance will not be paid until all primary policy amounts have been exhausted. The court in American Commercial Lines held that policy holders cannot place undue burdens upon excess insurers that were not bargained for in the contract. For this reason, excess insurers are not required to deposit policy amounts with the court at the time of initial court actions. Excess insurers can instead wait until all primary policy money has been paid out before taking action.

Insurance law is complicated and, though this single aspect seems straightforward, it is best left to a licensed attorney. If you have any questions regarding an insurance dispute, please contact the Berniard Law Firm for a consultation.

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:

1. whether the funeral home appropriated and converted funds of the class members in violation of La. R.S. 37:861; 2. whether the defendant banks released the class members' funds in violation of La. R.S. 37:861 and the banks' contracts; and 3. whether the defendant banks released funds belonging to the class members without obtaining death certificates.

The trial court denied the plaintiff's motion for certification of a class action as a result of a weighing and balancing determination. The trial court found that the plaintiff's did not satisfy the class action requirements, stating that the evidence was insufficient to show that the class was so numerous and geographically dispersed that joinder would be impracticable, that the class representatives would adequately represent the putative class members, or that their claims are typical of those of the putative class members. Essentially, the trial court felt that each claim was too individual, and that it would be difficult to consolidate the claims and form one basic legal grievance against the defendant funeral home. The appellate court analyzed each of the trial court findings in order to determine whether or not the plaintiffs actually had a class action, concluding that they indeed did not have a proper class action.

The appellate court concluded after exploring all of the factors that the plaintiffs failed to fulfill all of the requirements to have a proper class action. Specifically, the plaintiffs never alleged a relationship with the banks involved with the funeral home. Absent any connection of dealings with the banks, the plaintiffs do not have a real and actual interest in a suit against the banks. Only those persons whose prepaid funeral funds had been deposited by the funeral home with a specific bank would have a real and actual interest in a suit against such bank. Further, the appellate court denies class certification based on the plaintiffs argument that a plaintiff may have standing to sue a defendant with whom he has had no business contact or dealing, if the defendant's conduct is part of a conspiracy. Yet, no conspiracy was alleged among the defendants named in the action. In conclusion, the appellate court, as did the trial court, found that the plaintiffs did not belong to the class of persons to whom the law grants the cause of action asserted against the banks in the suit. Thus, the class action was denied. Class actions are a great tool for many cases, however, they must be properly formed and fulfill all of the legal requirements in order to move forward.

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.

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.

Continue reading "Chemical Release Ruling a Helpful Guide for Recent Spills/Leaks" »

For those Louisiana residents, whether you live in Lake Charles, Shreveport, Baton Rouge, New Orleans, Kentwood or any other of the great cities across this state, looking for more information on their possible personal injury claim, check out our blog dedicated to these legal matters:

Louisiana Personal Injury Blog

This blog discusses the legal issues relating to Admiralty/Maritime law, Animal/Dog Bites, Car Accidents, Chemical/Industrial Spills, the intricacies of Expert Testimony, Insurance Disputes, employee rights under the Jones Act, Legal Duty, Civil Lawsuits, Criminal prosecution, Medical Malpractice, Mesothelioma/Asbestos, Motorcycle Injury, Negligence, Offshore Accidents, Product Defects, Chinese Drywall, Strict Liability, Workers' Compensation and Wrongful Death. All of these issues are crucial to citizens rights and residents of Louisiana.

To better understand the complexity of the law, contacting an attorney is crucial. However, to get a better understanding of the general issues, we hope this resource is invaluable. Feel free to browse this legal resource dealing with a variety of harms or damages you may have suffered in order to understand how your issue matches up with the law.

If you would like to speak with an attorney, check out our contact information. We represent Louisiana residents across the state and would be happy to discuss with you how to move forward with your unfortunate circumstances.

According to Baton Rouge's Advocate, the chemical fire earlier reported is currently under control by the roughly 100 firefighters on the scene. Firefighters from Ascension Parish, East Baton Rouge Parish and others responded promptly to the incident and represent the multi-Parish effort being undertaken to combat the giant blaze.

Photo courtesy of The Advocate

The blaze, reportedly visible from as far away as Baton Rouge, was caused by a fire that sprang up within a chemical factory located in Denham Springs. Flames are reported to have risen as high as 30 or more feet into the air even after some three hours and the fire, for the most part, dying down. The fire was fueled by some of the man 55-gallon drums of chemicals being stored at the facility.

The Department of Environmental Quality in both New Orleans and Lafayette were on standby in vase they were needed. Coco Resources, the facility the fire occurred at, stored a number of chemicals in the factory and remixes recycled chemical materials and sells them to customers. These products include general chemicals, oilfield soaps, and oil and fuel additives.

According to Jeffrey Meyers, division administrator of the Emergency and Radiological Services Division, the variety of chemicals produced at the Coco facility makes air monitoring difficult to conduct.

Per the aforementioned article, the facility has had its share of attention from regulators

However, Simms [DEQ environmental inspection agent] noted in the narrative portion of the inspection report that the facility had been the subject of several enforcement actions in the past but had not been considered a “generator of hazardous waste” by DEQ

These incidences date back as far as 1996 and include two incidences in October of 2001 when odors were detected emanating from a warehouse and led to subsequent DEQ violations.

As of this time, more than 100 people have been evacuated from the area, while no injuries have been reported. The article quotes Perry Rushing, chief of operations for the Livingston Parish Sheriff's Office, as saying

People living and working in a half-mile radius around the fire had been evacuated. "You basically look at where the fire is on Eden Church Road and the railroad tracks and then make a half-mile radius around it and that’s what we’re evacuating," he said.

One item of note comes from State Fire Marshal Butch Browning, who describes the Coco Resources facility as possessing a "high inventory of petroleum distillates."

While this incident is still being handled, more information will be posted to this blog as it becomes available. In the meantime, the Berniard Law Firm has experience in chemical leaks and is aggressively pursuing a class action against Dow for the leak in Hahnville in June of 2009. With hundreds of clients represented in the aforementioned class action, our firm is willing to discuss the legal rights of anyone affected in this recent incident.

A huge fire has broken out in Denham Springs at a chemical warehouse. 200 people have been evacuated and approximately 100 firefighters are reportedly on the scene combatting the inferno.

The explosion, occurring around 2 p.m. alarmed the local community. Visible from over 20 miles away, even as far as Baton Rouge, firefighters hope to contain the blaze.

More information will be provided as it becomes available.

New Orleans' Gambit had an impressive editorial a little while back that outlined how the Dow Hahnville chemical leaks demonstrate the need for a more prevalent presence on the part of state government in overseeing the safety habits of such plants. The Gambit's editorial staff writes

The first Dow leak also exposed communication gaps between emergency officials in St. Charles Parish and their counterparts in Orleans and Jefferson parishes, who said they were not notified until several hours after the event. The leak further revealed that too few residents have registered contact information with the St. Charles Parish emergency alert system. That's a cautionary tale for all residents this hurricane season. Earlier, a power outage at Cytec caused the release of a toxic ammonia vapor, plant authorities say. West Bank residents reported eye and throat irritations before the company gave the all-clear signal.

  Last week's incidents raise public concerns about potential toxic ammonia leaks from a cold-storage warehouse the Port of New Orleans wants to build on the riverfront near the historic French Market. In addition to trying to keep 500 jobs in the city while raising $40 million for the project, officials at the port and New Orleans Cold Storage Inc. (NOCS) must now assure the public that 40,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia can be safely transported, stored and used to blast-freeze chicken packages on the Gov. Nicholls Street Wharf. The proposal has pitted French Quarter and Faubourg Marigny residents against port officials and business interests.

  Unfortunately, the "frozen chicken" fight comes in the wake of a major environmental victory — the closing of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MR-GO). By the time the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers closed the manmade shipping channel to navigation — on Earth Day — it was difficult to find any opposition to the move. It's been much harder to find leaders with a vision for offsetting the loss of 1,000 maritime-related jobs and other fallout from the closing of the MR-GO.

For more information on the Dow-Hahnville leak, visit this blog's section dedicated to the incident or click here for a legal timeline of our firm's actions against Dow Chemical.

Yesterday afternoon, a New Orleans judge appointed Berniard Law Firm attorney Jeffrey Berniard to the steering committee for the class action lawsuit against Dow Hahnville case. The committee, including attorneys Madro Bandaries, Rico Alvendia, Gregory DiLeo and Jennifer Eagan will be in charge of and handle all of the major pretrial matters relating to the case. As such, our firm will be at the forefront of issues as they come up and will be looked to by the court to help focus the Plaintiff case.

If you have not already done so, go to our website at DowLeak.comfor more information about joining the class action or having your individual damages looked into by our legal staff.

The Hahnville chemical leak that took place at the Dow Chemical plant is a story that has been getting a lot of traction in New Orleans, throughout the state and even nationally. As residents were exposed to an unknown amount of the dangerous gas without even knowing it, answers are being demanded and true responses should be coming from the company. The state of Louisiana is showing initiative in investigating Dow Chemical for their part in the leak of ethyl acrylate from a tank into the air, thereafter affecting countless people in the Southeastern Louisiana area. The Times-Picayune reports

A state Department of Environmental Quality official said Monday that an investigator has been at .Dow Chemical's Hahnville plantnearly every day to investigate the cause of the the July 7 leak of ethyl acrylate fumes that irritated the noses eyes and throats of residents for miles around.

"He's meeting with Dow people and asking some very tough questions about what happened, how it happened and how can we prevent it from happening again," said Mike Alegro, manager of the DEQ's southeast regional office, Monday afternoon.

The remarks came after an environmental watchdog group is charging that state DEQ officials allowed a problem with three previous leaks of the chemical, starting in October and ending June 15.

"These reports provide further information that Dow has had an ongoing problem with ethyl acrylate and apparently with this tank, and that the Department of Environmental Quality has known about it" said Randy Caruso, a Spatial Analyst for the Bucket Brigade.

"Both Dow and DEQ have failed to take the appropriate steps to get to the root of the problem and protect the public."

State officials said the July 7 release was well below the toxic threshold of 25 parts per million over an eight-hour period.

Hopefully with state action in full force, answers will begin to come forward on how many of these incidences have been happening without Dow disclosing them and just how safe Louisiana is from companies that produce such hazardous chemicals. More information as it becomes available will be posted at DowLeak.com and this blog.

This morning's Times-Picayune released a highly important timeline for the Dow chemical leak on July 7th in Hahnville, as well as provides insight into just how inattentive Dow may have been to the matter at the point of the leak and hours after. The article reports

The EOC's telephone log from the early hours of that morning shows parish personnel wrestling with the decision of whether and where to close off River Road in Hahnville as Dow employees attempted to dampen the fumes.

The parish got the first indication that something was amiss at 3:57 a.m., when an employee at the Shell Chemical plant in Norco, across the Mississippi River, called the EOC and said he smelled an acrylic odor, but that no alarms had sounded at his plant.

Dow personnel initially said they didn't smell the sharp acrylic odor that began wafting over the river toward Norco, but started to look into it.

They later found a fire alarm sounding in a tank holding ethyl acrylate that apparently had begun heating in a chemical reaction that led to the release.

By 4:56 a.m. Dow told the parish that it had the situation under control and was pumping water onto the tank.

But by 6 a.m., residents from Hahnville and New Sarpy were calling the emergency operations center about strong odors that were irritating their eyes.

In addition, the piece notes people are still being affected by the leak physically. It is advised that anyone experiencing health problems contact a health professional immediately. For those involved, we also recommend you looking into DowLeak.com for more information as it becomes available.

Dow-Hahnville's chemical leak may be a returning reality for residents of Southeast Louisiana with bad weather looming. As the 10-day forecast shows thunderstorms in the New Orleans area's future, area officials are warning the smell associated with last Tuesday's chemical leak by the Dow company may return. Per the Times-Picayune,

Stormy weather passing through St. Charles Parish may increase odors from the Dow Chemical ethyl acrylate tank, parish officials said in an recent e-mail alert to residents.

Dow is taking continuing actions to suppress these odors, but residents should call the parish Emergency Operations Center at 985.783.5050 to report an odor.

While this seems unhappy enough news already, a press conference yesterday revealed the Dow chemical leak may be bigger, and more severe, of a problem than first thought. A local activist group brought to the media's attention that leaks have been occurring over several months at the Hahnville plant and leaves a lot for Dow to answer for. Within the same Times-Picayune article is the following

The Louisiana Bucket Brigade said citizens need to be aware of how much of the chemical, which can cause eye, nose and throat irritation, was in the air during the early hours of the incident, which began sometime around 4 a.m. on July 7.

"Dow has tried to play down this release by calling it a bad odor," said Anna Hrybyk, the organization's program manager. "The facts show that people were treated at the hospital because of this accident and that Dow has a serious, ongoing problem with this chemical."

The group held a press conference in St. Charles Parish at the West Bank Bridge Park in Luling earlier today to discuss the incident.

In addition to last week's incident, the company reported airborne releases of fumes from the chemical on Oct. 20, 2008, April 22, 2009, and July 2, 2009, Hrybyk said, citing the organization's inspection of Department of Environmental Quality records.

This mess just keeps getting worse. As always, this blog can be considered a source for news and updates on the matter as they become available so feel free to Bookmark the site for future reference.

The Times-Picayune breaks the following, which details that Dow's Hahnville leak a week ago was not only a surprise incident to the company but, instead, one of a series of leaks that very well may have been avoided. In an article posted on NOLA.com, the Times-Picayune writes

An environmental watchdog group says foul-smelling ethyl acrylate fumes escaped from Dow Chemical's Hahnville plant twice before the July 7 release that sent the odor over much of the New Orleans area.

The Louisiana Bucket Brigade will hold a news conference at 9 a.m. to discuss its findings that fumes from the plant have escaped three times since October including last week's event.

The organization claims the company downplayed the effects of the release which irritated the noses and eyes of many residents in the area.

Company officials said fumes from the storage tank containing the chemical were not life-threatening.

Ethyl acrylate is used in the manufacture of plastics and resins.

As more information becomes available, it will be posted on this blog. Obviously this news conference, which is taking place right now, will shed more light on Dow's practices in the Southeastern Louisiana area.

Buried under the news of Dow's chemical leak and cleanup and more people being hospitalized for demonstrating symptoms of exposure to ethyl acrylate, WDSU reports MORE chemical vapors were released during cleanup. Pockets of the ethyl acrylate were again released, adding to the existing smell blanketing parts of St. Charles Parish. In their report on the cleanup taking place at the Dow-Hahnville plant, WDSU mentions

Workers at the plant have been trying since Tuesday to neutralize the chemical and move it to sealed containers. It was during that process that more was released.

"This morning what happened is some of these small amounts of EA that are let out that did not neutralize became exposed to the environment," said Rodney Mallet, of the Department of Environmental Quality.

Officials at the plant said the process could play out for several more days, but no one would commit to a timeline.

To say this is unacceptable is an understatement as it still is unclear just how much damage is done through exposure to this hazardous chemical. More news will be released, surely, as the week goes on.

In further developments regarding the Hahnville chemical leak by Dow Chemical, the tank responsible for releasing unknown amounts of hazardous chemicals into the air has been drained by the company. The Times-Picayune's article on the issue has two interesting points worth noting:

"One drop of [ethyl acrylate] would send everybody running from this room," company spokesman Tommy Faucheux told reporters at a news conference Thursday.

This point is odd because just as Dow keeps insisting no major damage has occurred, their spokesman speaks candidly on just how offensive and harmful the chemical could be in the form of a mere drop.

The second item worth noting is

Parish and company officials say nearby residents may still occasionally get a whiff of the chemical, which is being moved into tank cars to be treated at the company's on-site waste disposal facilities.

Again, this outlines just how harmful and residual the chemicals appear to be, while everyone claims there's nothing to worry about. Not everything seems to add up on the issue but this blog will continue to keep up to date on developments.

Dow has now begun publicly discussing the chemical leak that occurred Tuesday and caused a number of physical ailments throughout the Southeast Louisiana and Metro New Orleans area. In an article by the Times-Picayune, the company takes measures to do damage control and downplay the harm and danger caused by this avoidable incident

Dow Chemical plant spokesman Tommy Faucheux said that "minute pockets" of ethyl acrylate left in a storage tank continue to react and send bursts of the pungent odor into the air in St. Charles Parish.

"It could be days before the air clears completely, he said during a press conference on Thursday at the parish courthouse in Hahnville.

"A reaction in the tank caused it (chemical) to start venting through a seam in the tank, " leading to the smell that resurfaced Thursday and spread to several communities across the parish, Faucheux said.

This blog will be updated as more information becomes available.

In response to the recent chemical leak in Hahnville, Louisiana, by Dow Chemical, the Berniard Law Firm has filed a Class Action complaint on behalf of residents of Southeast Louisiana affected by the leak of dangerous chemicals that occurred on July 7th.

Representing all individuals affected physically, be it through headache, dizziness, nausea, burning of the eyes or other ailments, the class action looks to require Dow to take responsibility for the release of ethyl acrylate into the air from its St. Charles Parish plant. The actions the plant has taken in addressing the public's risk to harm and the closing of River Road in parts demonstrates that an active and dangerous agent was released by Dow and the company bears responsibility for the harms this leak has caused.

According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, ethyl acrylate is a strong irritant of the eyes, skin, mucous membranes, respiratory system and gastrointestinal tract in humans. As there is no way of knowing the level of ethyl acrylate Dow has exposed the Greater New Orleans area to on the morning of July 7th, action was necessary so as to demand accountability.

Members of the class have been determined to be any persons throughout Louisiana who were exposed to a release of any chemical by Dow on or around July 7th and said release caused to that person injuries, emotional distress, loss of income or the loss of the beneficial use, enjoyment, and exclusive possession of their property, or any other damages that may have been suffered.

For more information, contact the Berniard Law Firm at 504-527-6225 or visit our website at LAClaim.com

The Dow Chemical Plant in Hahnville experienced a chemical spill on Tuesday, leading residents of Southeast Louisiana to experience a myriad of physical ailments while nearby residents were forced from their homes.

Per a NOLA.com article, the spill/leak involved ethyl acrylate, "a chemical used in the manufacture of a wide variety of household and cleaning products." The leak led to a horrific smell that carried all the way into the downtown/metro area as winds and storms carried across the state. According to reports, the plant was notified of the leak around 6 a.m. Tuesday morning and employees and cleanup crews worked through the night to control the matter. However, nearby residents are still unable to return to their homes.

The article further profiles concerns relating to the leak

St. Charles Parish authorities did not say what those safety concerns were, but officials say the chemical can cause nose and throat irritation, nausea or headaches.

Plant and parish officials have not said how much ethyl acrylate leaked after a vent on the 640,000-gallon tank apparently malfunctioned.

"We were getting calls from as far away as St. Bernard Parish," said Anne Rolfes, executive director of The Louisiana Bucket Brigade, an environmental watchdog group.

The leak resulted when "the structure of the tank became an issue," according to a Dow news release.

WWL TV reports today that "as of [this morning], Dow officials said they are still working to neutralize the chemical." The article also features a helpful way for New Orleans, Hahnville and other area residents to keep informed on updates regarding this story:

Scott Whelchel, director of Emergency Preparedness for St. Charles Parish, said they have several ways of informing St. Charles Parish residents when they are notified of an alert: they post the information on their website, www.stcharlesparish-la.gov; they post updates on twitter at www.twitter.com/stcharles.gov; they broadcast the information on 1370 AM, the local AM radio station, and they also post the information on the St. Charles Parish government access channel, which is channel 6 on television stations in St. Charles Parish.

One thing very important to note

Parish officials say if the odor is stronger in your home than outside, you should air out your home by using fans to push the odor out. You also can set your air conditioner to stop pulling in air from the outside.

Attorneys at the Berniard Law Firm are still investigating the matter. This blog will follow updates as they become available.