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!

When litigation involves multiple parties, all of which are big national or international organizations, there is a higher likelihood that something is going to end up in the litigation process. The unfortunate nature of insurance coverage is that companies will try to find little nuances to try to argue their case, or will add little nuances to make any future case more difficult for opposing parties. One party to a contractual agreement may cite to these nuances to find a loophole to escape from any potential liability and, subsequently, leave someone who believed they had full coverage with nothing. Despite these loophole efforts, a court can still look at the realities of the circumstances and come to real life conclusions to the exclusion of the argument of either party. This is true in the case of Federal Insurance Company v. New Hampshire Insurance Company, when the court ultimately looked at the reality of a contractual agreement and decided that no matter what the terms of the contract were, the whole contract was in regard to a personal injury case.

Our previous blog post discussed this case but a brief summary is as follows:
The case began when Wayne Robinson was unfortunately hurt by an explosion at a chemical plant. The explosion occurred because there were certain chemicals used by the plant that reacted with each other to cause the explosion. One of the defendants in Mr. Robinson's case was Thomas and Betts Corporation (hereinafter T&B). T&B allegedly manufactured a product that contributed to the explosion that caused Mr. Robinson's injuries. T&B had liability insurance from both New Hampshire Insurance Co., which was the primary insurance provider, and Federal Insurance Co., which was the secondary, or excess insurance provider. Ultimately, Mr. Robinson settled with T&B.

The interest of discussing policy nuances hinges upon the terms of the agreement were between T&B and Mr. Robinson. In that agreement, T&B would give Mr. Robinson $5 million for bodily injuries and an additional $1.2 million for a potential breach of contract claim another plaintiff may have had against Mr. Robinson. In fact, by settling with T&B, Mr. Robinson was breaching his agreement with the plaintiff company. After Mr. Robinson reached his agreement with T&B the other plaintiff sued Mr. Robinson for breach of contract. This breach of contract was supposed to be covered by his settlement agreement with T&B. However, soon after the settlement, Mr. Robinson received a letter from New Hampshire Co., T&B's primary insurer, that it was going to cover his $5 million settlement, but would not cover his $1.2 million settlement because it was for a breach of contract and therefore, outside the scope of its policy covering T&B.

As a separate issue, the court discussed whether the New Hampshire policy covered contractual agreements. However, it came to the conclusion that the use of the phrase "legally obligated to pay" rendered the policy to cover tortious actions. However, the court went on to explain that the entire settlement between T&B and Mr. Robinson did in fact relate to and cover the bodily injury claim. The settlement could only cover the bodily injury claim because the only action for which T&B was liable to Mr. Robinson was the bodily injury. Therefore, the settlement could not be for any breach of contract claim.

The $1.2 million settlement was a by-product of T&B inducing Mr. Robinson to settle his bodily injury claim against T&B. The court held that even though this separate amount is categorized as reimbursement for a breach of contract claim, it is still within the bodily injury claim because the settlement was made in consideration for the bodily injury claim. Therefore, because the bodily injury claim was covered by the New Hampshire policy, New Hampshire was liable for the entire settlement. Mr. Robinson received money from Federal, T&B's secondary insurer, therefore Federal stepped into T&B's shoes in its claim for reimbursement from New Hampshire. Therefore, New Hampshire owed Federal the money it paid to Mr. Robinson.

Even in cases where a contract defines things in a certain manner or when the law defines different terms, the realities of a contract are the ultimate facts that define a contract. Although, the New Hampshire policy only covered tortious actions and even though the settlement between Mr. Robinson and T&B defined two different amounts, one for bodily injury and the other for a breach of contract, the reality was that both amounts were in consideration for the bodily injury claim and therefore the reality was that New Hampshire owed the entire amount as per its policy with T&B.

Continue reading "Nuances of Insurance Policies Crucial When Pursuing Coverage" »

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.

When an insurance company provides coverage to a business, the contract typically includes a duty to defend the inured business against any coverage claims. If an insurer refuses to provide the insured with claim defense, then the insured business may sue the insurance company for indemnification of defense fees. However, a question often arises as to how much an insurance company is required to pay for indemnification. This issue was brought to light in a recent Supreme Court of Louisiana case when insurance company Continental was sued for indemnification by a manufacturing company, T&L.

When an insurance company is sued for indemnification, several options exist for a defense. One defense, which was used in the Continental case, is policy exclusion. Under this defense, the insurance company claims that the individuals seeking damages from the insured business fall outside the policy coverage and thus outside the realm requiring the insurer to defend the insured business. In the Continental case, for example, Continental refused to defend T&L against claims brought by T&L employees because certain time frames of T&L's policy did not cover injuries sustained by employees.

One way to defeat a policy exclusion defense is to prove that the insurance company waived its right to the defense. Typically, a waiver occurs when an individual, or in this case a company, has an existing right, knowledge of its existence, and an intention to relinquish that right. However, even if there is no intention to give the right up, conduct that creates a reasonable belief that the right has been relinquished will constitute a waiver of that right. Therefore, if an insurance company undertakes a defense on behalf of its insured against claims that the insurance company knows do not fall under the insurance policy, and does not reserve its rights to withdraw defense, then it is likely that the insurance company has waived its right to a policy exclusion defense. This means that if the insurance company was to back out of the defense it would be held liable for indemnification to the insured because the insured relied on the insurer's actions to defend them.

However, it is important to make a distinction between waiver and breach of duty to defend in the insurance context. While a waiver involves an insurer relinquishing its rights to deny coverage under a policy, a breach of a duty to defend expressly denies coverage under a policy. In essence, the two are complete opposites. If an insurance company waives its right to deny coverage, then the insurance company, if they withdraw from defense, is likely to be forced to indemnify the insured for all defense costs for all claims. On the other hand, as was the holding in the Continental case, a breach of a duty to defend falls under contract law, and would find the insurance company liable for reasonable defense costs. In addition, if the breach was made in bad faith, statutory penalties will be imposed upon the insurer. Liability for such claims is also allocated on a pro rata basis between all insurance policies. This lowers the costs incurred upon insurers, which, for Continental, decreased from over four million dollars to just shy of two-hundred thousand dollars.

If your business is at odds with an insurance company over policy claim defense, be sure to consider whether or not the insurance company has waived its right to a policy exclusion defense. If the insurer has, then it is likely that the insured will be able to recoup costs paid to all claimants. If, on the other hand, the insurer has simply breached a duty to defend, you may only be able to recoup reasonable defense costs.

Even if you find this article helpful, insurance law is a complicated matter that should not be approached without consultation from a practicing insurance attorney.

Continue reading "Limits of Insurer Indemnity Clarified in Parish of St. Bernard Case " »

As previously discussed in Part I, the case of Charles Ebinger, et ux. v. Venus Construction Corporation, et al. focuses on the time period in which a claim for damages can be brought against a contractor and the time period in which a contractor may bring an indemnifying action against a subcontractor. This Part, however, focuses on the Louisiana Supreme Court's reasoning as to how it interpreted the applicable statute of limitations.

The Ebingers moved into their newly built home in April of 1997. On October 9, 2003, the Ebingers filed suit against Venus Construction alleging defects in the home's foundation had caused cracks in the drywall, tile, brick walls, and floor. Venus Construction filed its indemnity claim on September 22, 2006 against the engineer and subcontractor that supplied the foundation.

First the Court determined when the cause of action arose. The Court determined that "regardless of the length of the peremptive period, it [the peremptive period] began when the owners took possession of the house or filed an acceptance of the work." In this case, a certificate of occupancy issued on April 22, 1997, and therefore, that is when the peremptive period began. At the time the Ebingers moved into their home, the original statute was in place and thus the Ebingers would have ten (10) years to file a claim.

Second, the Louisiana Supreme Court looked at the language of the statutes to determine whether the superseding statutes were written to act retroactively or have prospective application. Though the peremptive period was ten years at the time the statute of limitations began to run, the legislature amended the governing statute in 1999, substituting 'seven' for 'ten' years as the peremptive period. Further, this Act stated "the provisions of this Act shall have prospective application only and shall apply to contracts entered into on or after the effective date of this Act." Thus, at this time, the Ebingers would still have a valid claim through the original ten year peremptive period because the amended statute had only prospective applicability, not retroactive applicability, as specifically written in the Act by the legislature. Next, the Court looked at the second revision of the Act in 2003 which substitute 'five' for 'seven' years and did not maintain the 'prospective application' language. The Court states that the legislature's actions in drafting a law are knowing and intentional, and thus, if the legislature meant for the 'prospective application' language to continue, then the legislature would have included it in the Act. However, because the legislature did not, the Court's interpretation is that the 2003 Amendment supersedes the original statute and makes the peremptive period five years, even for those causes of action that arose back when the ten and seven year periods were applicable.

Third, the Court examines Constitutional rights to Due Process and determines that the statute of limitations is a procedural law and as long as it does not disturb a vested legal right, a right that at the moment may be expressed, then the statute of limitations (peremptive period) may be applied retroactively. In the end, the Ebingers' claim is not perempted even though it was filed two months after the 2003 Amendment because the Ebingers' right to sue had vested the moment they attained the certificate of occupancy. However, as for Venus Construction, "the mere expectancy of a future benefit," for Venus Construction in this case the right to file a claim for indemnification, "does not constitute a vested right." Therefore, Venus Construction's right to file a claim for indemnification did not vest until a judgment was entered against Venus Construction, and thus the peremptive period has run for Venus Construction to file a claim for indemnification against the subcontractor.

Continue reading "Keeping Up with Your Louisiana Home's Construction Defects (Part II) - Understanding Statutes " »

Being able to be involved in the design and building of a new home can be an exciting experience. But there is nothing more special than seeing the home's construction completed and fully furnished. After all of this, there can be nothing more upsetting than the discovery that the new home has building defects. Imagine settling in and noticing some part of the home's structure misshapen or cracking at the seams of walls or floors, or perhaps even a foundation or structural supports that have improperly settled or misplaced. The focus of Charles Ebinger, et ux. v. Venus Construction Corporation, et al. focuses on the time period in which a claim for these damages can be brought against a contractor and the time period in which a contractor may bring an indemnifying action against a subcontractor.

The crux of this follows what happens from the time that the building has completed through when litigation is brought against the contractor, and in the event the contractor is found liable, then the indemnification proceeding the contractor would most likely bring against any subcontractor who may be at fault for the imperfect work. However, this is complicated by taking into account the statute of limitations that exists to bring about such a suit. And this is further complicated when taking into account the revisions of the statute of limitations by the legislature.

In short, and to be clear, 'to indemnify' means to compensate for damages or losses sustained and to pay for expenses incurred through the litigation. Thus, in the event that a contractor, one who oversees and employs the various subcontractors for a specific job, is found to be liable for damage that exists in a specific construction unit, then, if it is through no fault of the contractor, but is the fault of one of the subcontractors and his or her oversight of his or her unit and specific job, then the contractor may seek to have his or her losses, in this case through litigation and a damages award against the contractor, paid by, or reimbursed by, the subcontractor.

A statute of limitations is a specific statute enacted by the legislature that basically states when it is too far away in the future of when an event originally happened to seek legal recourse. Usually, the statute of limitations begins to run when the complainant knew or should have known of the event or damages, as is often seen in torts cases. In this case, as will be later discussed in more detail, the statute of limitations until peremption began at ten (10) years and over the course of two revisions, became five (5) years.

Peremption, which is a large focus of this case, is the extinguishment of the right to bring a cause of action against another. Peremption is synonymous with a statute of limitations in that both, in this case, would prevent either the homeowner from bringing an action for damages against a contractor, or the contractor from bringing an action for indemnification against a subcontractor. Reading this, one may ask, why wouldn't the homeowner just bring a suit for damages against the subcontractor. There are two answers to this question, neither requiring an in depth discussion:

A. The contractor is the one hired to perform the job. In this case, that job is to build a house. In turn, however, because the contractor is usually unable to perform all the necessary duties, the contractor hires subcontractors to perform the separate duties (foundation, carpentry, electrical, plumbing, etc.). Thus, it is the contractor who has a contract with the homeowner while the subcontractor has a contract with the contractor.

B. Because the homeowner has a contract with the contractor and not the subcontractor, the party who may in fact be the cause of the damage, a party may bring an action against the contractor for any construction defects because the Law allows the contractor to, in turn, bring a suit for indemnification against the subcontractor who may in fact be at fault for the defect or damage.

Now that the background information has been laid down and described, it is time to turn to the legal issue of when is a cause of action perempted when the statute of limitations has been revised twice. For this discussion, please continue on to Part II. If, however, instead more information or legal services are required at this moment please contact the Berniard Law Firm for further information or legal services.

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.

Sony announced yesterday that the Playstation Network (PSN) is set to return by the end of this week. Reports indicate access began to be provided to users starting on May 15 with different regions being incrementally phased in worldwide. Questions remain, however, as to the extent of previous breaches of the gaming network's security and just how safe gamers are from having the incidences of May occur again.

With its restoration of access to Playstation and Qriocity users in US, Europe and Asia, Sony is ending a month of outage that was first spurred by a breech of the networks' security. As we explored previously, that Sony has admitted that the breech occurred due to the exploit of a known vulnerability opens a rather clear inquiry of just how negligent the electronics giant was in the matter. Down since April, the Playstation gaming network and Qriocity, a movie and music service, have been sorely missed by users that frequently accessed the services for their entertainment needs. However, with that access came the disclosure of information that is now likely in the open. What this information can be used for, and the subsequent ramifications for the users, remains to be seen but there is no doubt the courts will begin seeing discussion on the damages caused.

Sony has been adamant about the upgrades they have made to their system, stating they have "been conducting additional testing and further security verification of our commerce functions in order to bring the PlayStation Network completely back online so that [their] fans can again enjoy the first class entertainment experience they have come to love." This statement, made by Sony Executive Deputy Vice President Kazuo Hirai, also came with an expression of gratitude for the patience and support offered by fans. The reality of the situation, however, is that those whose information was disclosed have zero patience for an invasion of their privacy.

Preliminary reports from Sony claim that 100 million accounts were affected by the recent breech, though if this number is accurate remains to be seen. It is obvious, though, that this number of accounts is staggering and was definitively avoidable. This availability touches upon the definition of negligence in American law; what makes this case exceptionally unique is that accounts in Asia and Europe were affected as well. Regardless of its reach worldwide, the PSN breech has, according to Sony, led to 'considerable' security upgrades to the free service. What these upgrades involve remain a secret, obviously, but many in the technology industry question how many additional vulnerabilities Sony may be aware of and what action, if any, has been taken to shore them up.

Understanding your rights in a negligence case in which personal information is disclosed is important for people in Louisiana and across the country. Those 100 million users whose accounts were exposed should undoubtedly pursue legal representation as essential private details now lie in ill-intending hands. However, should the breech have included even more than the hundred Sony claims through connected networks or other system breeches, anyone affected should quickly position themselves to protect their legal interests immediately. By contacting an attorney, someone affected in a negligence claim can begin legal proceedings that protect their claim from timing out (prescription) or being handled without them (class actions, etc.).

Contact our offices today for more information regarding this case.

Infomercials, commonplace in the wee nights for insomniacs, often push the envelope of how groundbreaking and innovative their products are. Using notions of mystery and incredible results, these product "debuts" draw the viewer in by promising results, and features, that commonplace items cannot. While most people would take these promises with a grain of salt, the notion that the product may not even resemble the claims presented is something that seems improbable. In the case of "As Seen on TV" product Smooth Away, this actually is the case as plaintiffs have begun to voice their displeasure of the false reality surrounding this hair removal item.

Smooth Away is a hair removal product that is pitched through the premise that it is a pain-free solution for hygiene purposes. Advertised as an instant and painless manner to tackle shaving needs, Smooth Away has had a very solid sales cycle due to these very attractive promises. The truth, however, behind the New Jersey-based corporation's product is not so simple. While their claims are smooth, the truth is much more rough and cloudy.

Marketed online and in local stores like Walgreens and others, it is without question that Smooth Away has found a niche in the marketplace. What's more, sales appear to be solid as buyers, mostly women, are looking for what is being promised: a simple, painless and easy way towards hair removal. The cost of trusting this product, though, is enough to be concerned with.

Current research reveals that the Smooth Away product is not a miraculous new substance that is revolutionary to the world. Instead, it appears to be a rehash of a product many people use everyday. Smooth Away, instead of being composed of the "flex crystals" the company purports, appears to actually be made up of a material texturally similar to 3M sand paper. What's more, this item purported to be relatively "pain free" often leaves users with burning sensations and chafed skin.

While additional charges against the company involve the fact that their claims of instant hair removal and pain free utilization fall dangerously close to medical 'promises' that require FDA approval. All in all, however, the very fact that a hardware store staple is being marketed as a beauty tool is dangerously close to the sort of misleading sales pitch that leads to a lot of distrust. At best this is merely a company taking advantage of fancy language. At worst it's an example of a company making claims that it cannot substantiate. It is our position that this is a matter for the courts to decide.

The video game world was rocked recently by the shutdown of the Sony Playstation 3 Gaming Network. While a free service, the fact that gamers were unable to connect to the network and play their favorite games against both friends and strangers added a wrinkle to an already complex competition between the electronics giant and Microsoft's X-Box system and network. However, a more significant wrinkle much less publicized exists: Sony was forced to shut down their network due to a breach by external individuals that exposed their personal data.

Most likely ending as a Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) situation wherein the litigation will be handled in one court and affect the rulings and settlement opportunities of people across the country, this situation affects hundreds, if not millions, of Americans. Headquartered in California, Sony still does not have a definitive answer for its customers regarding this situation. Yesterday's news that 10 million credit card numbers may have been exposed in a data breach that involved a known vulnerability is all the more staggering.

When someone puts their faith, and personal information, in the hands of a company, let alone a giant like Sony, they believe this data will be kept secure. However, for this breach to occur, and for the company to admit it was a known issue, provides the legal basis for judicial recovery. Only time will tell what becomes of this privacy and information issue but the protection of secure data is paramount. What Sony will do to reassure its customers that they can continue to trust them remains to be seen.

The courts have consistently found there is a strict liability on the part of corporations to maintain the information of its clients in a secure manner. When they breach this duty, the courts have followed suit in holding reasonable accountability in place as to how the company should have acted while taking into account unforeseeable circumstances. The twist is the aforementioned admission on the part of Sony that the breach involved an existing and known vulnerability of the system. Proponents of suing Sony for damages would see this as a red flag similar to an automobile company, for instance, continuing to sell a car with a weak brake system.

As time goes on more and more people will begin to realize the significance of this network shutdown goes well beyond a delay in their favorite games. While the immediate impact for many has been missing out on all of the features of their favorite games, very serious breaches of corporate policy and expectations. Attorneys have begun to investigate this matter and the Berniard Law Firm is at the forefront.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact our offices immediately.

Nearly ten years ago, consumers sued Sulzer Medica for producing defective hip and knee implants. The company ultimately settled with the affected parties. Although the underlying facts of the Sulzer Medica litigation are technically different from those of DePuy, the Sulzer Medica outcome is nevertheless instructive. If anything, the outcome of the Sulzer Medica recall may reflect the outcomes that will emerge in forthcoming DePuy litigation.

For those unfamiliar with the Sulzer Medica situation, here is a brief synopsis:

Sulzer Medica is a Swiss company that produces artificial joint replacements. It has since changed its name to Centerpulse. In December 2000, the company discovered that machinery oil had contaminated some of its knee and hip implant parts. Consequently, affected joint replacement units failed to adhere to the bone of recipients. Sometime in 2000, the company recalled the defective units. affecting approximately 32,000 people in the United States. Many had to undergo revision surgeries to remedy the problem.

After several years of litigation, Sulzer Medica agreed to settle for a collective $1 billion. Depending on the severity and class of each affected patient's injury, the company doled out as much as $206,000 to impacted individuals. The settlement amounts offered to recipients decreased as the level of associated injury lessened in severity. In some instances, spouses of recipients received payments. Ultimately, Sulzer Medica obtained the settlement funds through a combination of stock sales, bank borrowing, and insurance.

While there is no guarantee that pending DePuy lawsuits will yield similar settlement results, Sulzer Medica may be a useful guide because the situation in Sulzer Medica was very similar to that of DePuy. In both instances, medical manufacturers failed to safeguard their products, and consumers suffered as a consequence. Because strict liability is the governing standard in both situations, the courts will likely hold DePuy to a much higher level of care as they did in Sulzer Medica. Accordingly, settlement amounts comparable to Sulzer Medica will probably be necessary to make recipients whole for the harms they have suffered at the hands of DePuy.

Certainly, in regard to pending DePuy lawsuits, there is much left to be fleshed out. Plaintiffs' attorneys are still in the process of subpoenaing records and deposing DePuy officials on what level of knowledge they had pertaining to faulty manufacturing processes and whether they could have feasibly implemented a safer alternative design. Moreover, DePuy attorneys are still busy researching and mounting defenses. Only until all facts are revealed can the likelihood of DePuy settlement amounts be adequately estimated.

Stay tuned to this blog for more developments relating to the nationwide DePuy ASR hip implant recall. Additionally, if you believe you have been affected by the DePuy recall, please contact Berniard Law Firm for a free consultation.

In a recent decision, a Palm Beach County, Florida, judge ruled that because homebuilders did not manufacture the defective drywall that eventually caused damage to homes, and because they were not within the “chain of distribution,” they could not be held strictly liable for the alleged defects. Strict liability would make it easier for a potential victim to recover money from the homebuilder because the victim would not have to prove that the homebuilder had been negligent in any way. The victim would merely have to show that a product standard was not met along the supply line that led to their injury.

In this case, the homeowner, Marlene Bennett, sued the homebuilder under several theories: 1) breach of contract, 2) tort law, and 3) private nuisance law. The plaintiff asserted damages against the homebuilder, installer, supplier, and manufacturer of the drywall for installing faulty materials, economic losses for declines in home values, and personal losses for the alleged nuisance caused by the drywall emitting fumes. All of these claims, and defendants, are designed to cover the wide spectrum of expenses and responsibilities that can develop as a result of this caustic material being installed and slowly ruining a family home.

Upon going to trial, the case hit its first roadbump when the judge did not let the private nuisance claim go forward. Usually, nuisance law claims are used when someone is unreasonably interfering with the private property rights of another. The judge analyzed Florida law and decided that nuisance law usually had to do with things tied to the land itself, not parts of the house like drywall. The plaintiff may still be able to claim under a breach of contract claim (for breach of implied warranty or other claim) but because there are so many parties involved from the manufacture of the drywall to its installation, it is difficult for plaintiffs to recover damages.

It is important, however, to note that this is only one case, and was in a Florida court, not a Louisiana court. It has not yet been adopted by other judges or upheld by higher courts, and the case law is still developing in this area. It is possible that a Louisiana court could decide the case completely differently. The proper attorney with the most thorough understanding of product liability and insurance dispute (like those at our firm) will use legal theories and tools like this to navigate the judicial process.

In addition to this case, there are a number of ongoing legal efforts in the courts right now in Louisiana, Virginia, California, and Florida dealing with the issue of whether builders can be held liable for defective drywall. Much of the drywall involved in the litigation was manufactured during a specific period of time in China and believed to cause damage to electrical wiring and fire safety equipment.There has been a settlement in federal court involving Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin, which produced one-fifth of the defective drywall, recently settled in federal court to help pay to fix the damage their defective drywall caused. Homeowners may choose to have their homes repaired or to sue for money damages and do the work themselves.

Our firm has made steady progress within the courts and continues to take on clients looking to receive the damages they deserve due to this defective wallboard. If you are a homeowner with defective drywall that is emitting fumes, lowering your home value, or other damage, we may be able to help you.

Continue reading "Chinese Drywall Claims Continue as Thousands Still Face Problems" »

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.

Continue reading "Bossier Parish Police Jury Ordered to Repair Faulty Pipes" »

Reuters News Service reports that Johnson & Johnson has blamed "lax cleaning procedures" for its massive recalls of over the counter medicines and artificial joint replacements. "Insufficient equipment cleaning procedures and instances where people failed to adequately document cleaning procedures" are among some of the identified cleaning issues. The company has cited to "label irregularit(ies)" as well.

Johnson & Johnson has recalled nearly 200 million bottles of over the counter medicine products in the past year. Benadryl, Tylenol, and Rolaids are among the brands affected. Some batches of Softchews Rolaids were found to have wood and metal bits in the tablets. What's more, odors have been reported in some of the other products. In light of Johnson & Johnson's lack cleaning procedures, one may wonder what sort of research went into the DePuy ASR hip implants. DePuy, a division of Johnson & Johnson, announced in August 2010 a nationwide recall of the ASR hip replacement systems. The artificial hips contain design flaws stemming from too-shallow cups that don't properly house the ball associated with the joint replacements. Complications of this design flaw include metallosis caused by microscopic metal shavings and substantial loss of mobility, to name a few symptoms. Moreover, pseudotumors have been reported in some recipients of DePuy's ASR joint replacement products.

In light of Johnson & Johnson's quality control flaws, and resulting defects, the federal government is beginning to pay attention. The Justice Department is considering potential charges against the corporation. The F.D.A. has initiated an investigation. Congressman Darrell Issa has expressed concern, too. At least one shareholder has filed suit against Johnson & Johnson's board of directors in response to the manufacturing errors the company have committed recently.

It is not yet fully clear how consumers will react once news of the various recalls become more publicized and well known. U.S. sales of Johnson & Johnson consumer brands diminished by as much as 25 percent in the third quarter, and it can be expected that this trend will continue into the future so long as the company's faulty practices continue to endanger consumers. And with a flurry of private lawsuits currently being filed against the company for the August 2010 DePuy recall, the total financial impact upon Johnson & Johnson remains to be seen. Although, legal experts estimate billions of dollars worth of damage will be charged against the manufacturer.
Because of Johnson & Johnson's pervasive influence upon worldwide markets, it may seem impossible to hold a manufacturer of such size responsible for the harms it causes the public. Contrary to this initial belief, private lawsuits are one way to hold Johnson & Johnson and DePuy responsible.

The Berniard Law Firm is busy filing suits on behalf of injured consumers everyday. If you feel you have been adversely affected by one of Johnson & Johnson's defective products, call Berniard Law Firm for a free consultation.

In a recent post, we reviewed the Nolan v. Mabray case which discussed the requirement under Louisiana law that an insurance company must mail a written notice of its intent not to renew an existing policy at least thirty days prior to the policy's expiration. La.R.S. 22:636.6. The purpose of the notice is to provide the insured sufficient opportunity to obtain insurance with another company before the existing policy expires. In the event of a dispute, the insurer faces the initial burden to prove that it mailed the required notice. Then, the property owner may rebut this presumption by offering evidence that the notice was never delivered. The ultimate factual determination must be made by the jury. The recent case of Johnson v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. offers another look at the rule's application.

In 2001, Janice Johnson bought a homeowner's insurance policy from the Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company ("Farm Bureau") for her home in Campti. She set up a bill-pay debit arrangement with her bank under which her monthly premiums were automatically paid to Farm Bureau. In 2006, after completing a routine inspection of Johnson's property, Farm Bureau decided not to renew the policy when it expired the following July. Accordingly, on May 2, 2007, Farm Bureau mailed a written notice of non-renewal to Johnson and the policy expired on July 10, 2007. Tragically, Johnson's house was destroyed by fire on November 7, 2007. Farm Bureau rejected Johnson’s subsequent claim for total loss on the grounds that she did not have a policy in place at the time of the incident. Johnson filed suit on July 24, 2008 seeking monetary relief for the losses she sustained in the fire. In her petition, Johnson asserted that she was covered by the
policy and that she was not notified that the policy had expired until after the fire. Farm Bureau responded with a general denial, arguing that Johnson was provided with written notice of non-renewal and that the policy was not in effect at the time of the fire. At the conclusion of a jury trial, the jury found Farm Bureau had properly mailed the non-renewal notice on May 2, 2007 as required under Louisiana law. However, it also found that the notice had not been delivered to Johnson. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Johnson and awarded her damages in the amount of the policy limits: $297,000 less a $500 deductible. Farm Bureau appealed, contending that the jury "committed manifest error" and was "clearly wrong" in determining that the non-renewal notice had not been delivered.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeal reviewed the trial record which contained the evidence Johnson offered to rebut the presumption of delivery. Johnson testified that she always opens every piece of mail she receives except for her bank statements, and that she never received the notice Farm Bureau. Johnson's testimony was corroborated by her sister, who often picked up Johnson's mail from the post office box which was Johnson's registered address on her insurance policy. In response to Farm Bureau's argument that Johnson should have known that her policy was expired because the company stopped withdrawing payments in May 2007, Johnson stated that she did not routinely open mail from her bank or reconcile her checking account. The court noted that "the jury was able to take [all of this] testimony into consideration" in making "a determination of the credibility of the witnesses." Mindful of its duty to "afford great deference to the factfinders' determinations," the court concluded that, "although some of the testimony presented is questionable," it could not find "manifest error in the jury’s credibility determination nor in their determination that the notice of non-renewal was not delivered to Johnson."

The Johnson case, much like the Nolan case, turned on the critical role that the jury plays in settling issues of fact. Even if an appellate court believes after reviewing the record that its credibility determination is more accurate than the jury's, it cannot substitute its own view unless it finds that the jury's conclusion was based on testimony "so absurd that a reasonable person would not credit it." Clearly, in this case, Johnson's even somewhat suspect testimony did not rise to this level.

Continue reading "Natchitoches Parish House Fire Ignites Dispute Over Insurance Coverage" »

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.

While one might attribute the failure of just one Johnson & Johnson product as an isolated incident, such defenses lose merit once the other failed products are added to the picture. Indeed, the company has produced faulty over-the-counter medicines, hygiene products, and joint replacement devices--products that cover the entire spectrum of medical retail. Based on such observations, Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries, such as DePuy, appear to have a pattern of producing low-quality, high-risk products as of late.

In light of the above developments, it is clear that current safeguards have failed to protect the consumer against Johnson & Johnson's mistakes. Government regulations have had nominal effect. And Johnson & Johnson's self-regulations have certainly failed as well. Accordingly, the legal system remains the only method by which consumers can seek to hold Johnson & Johnson and its subdivisions responsible for the harm its faulty products have caused various people.

Keep checking this blog daily for more information on how law firms like Berniard Law Firm have been using the courts to help consumers achieve recovery against Johnson & Johnson and DePuy. Additionally, don't hesitate to contact Berniard Law Firm for a free legal consultation relating to injuries you may have suffered as the result of a failed Johnson & Johnson product, such as the DePuy ASR hip implant.

In January 2011 the Washington Post reported on the recent trend of younger patients opting for joint replacement surgery. In 2008, of the 277,000 hip replacements performed in the United States, 27 percent were conducted on patients ages 45 to 64. That represents an increase of 78 percent for that age group.
One orthopaedic surgeon believes the trend stems from younger peoples' proactive approach to pain and aging. "Younger people are less willing to accept physical disability than older generations," Dr. Mary O'Connor, president of the American Association of Knee and Hip Surgeons, said. "[Younger people] don't want to hear that they should use a cane or they can't walk or play golf..."

But with increased joint replacement surgeries comes increased risk. Because most replacement joints are expected to last 15 to 20 years, many younger patients will outlive their artificial knees and hips. And when the usefulness of those joints diminishes, a second surgery, known as a revision, is necessary to replace the failing artificial joint with a new one. Revision surgery carries with it increased complications. "If you need a [revision surgery], that surgery is a little more difficult," Dr. Mary O'Connor explained. Usually when [the implant] fails, it fails because one of the parts loosens...every time you have to revise it, there's a higher risk of complications."

The perils of revision surgery were reported firsthand when this blog posted the story of Eugene O'Neal, a relatively younger client of the Berniard Law Firm, and a recipient of a defective DePuy ASR hip implant. On the eve of his revision surgery to extract and replace his failed DePuy ASR hip implant with a functional unit, Eugene shared with readers his fears regarding the revision operation. Denied the usual 15 to 20 years of expected durability, Eugene's hip lasted only a couple of years before it began to fail as a result of a design flaw in the DePuy manufacturing system. Had Eugene known his DePuy ASR hip implant was going to fail so soon, it is doubtful he and the thousands like him would have opted for hip replacement surgery to begin with.

Because there has been such an increase of younger patients receiving joint implants in the last decade, it is likely that an increased number of younger patients have been adversely affected by the defective Depuy ASR hip implant units and subsequent recall. For these younger patients, DePuy's suspect manufacturing processes are especially troubling because such patients are often still working jobs and remain active in extracurricular sporting activities. A failure of the DePuy hip implant for these younger patients translates into an entire lifestyle change, since work and sporting activities have to be replaced with necessary revision surgery and physical rehabilitation.

As the Washington Post article shows, DePuy's nationwide recall affects patients of all ages. If you would like a free consultation regarding your legal right to recover against DePuy, please contact Berniard Law Firm today.

Medical literature has showcased several problems with metal-on-metal hip implants, such as the DePuy ASR line that was recalled in August 2010. Among the various problems, soft tissue reactions and high risks associated with metal-on-metal implant materials emerge to the top. For example, some hip implant recipients are especially sensitive to cobalt and chromium, two metal alloys commonly found in metal-on-metal hip implants. Doctors have observed "soft tissue breakdown and pseudo-tumors" in patients who exhibit these types of sensitivities, as well as other symptoms. Further discussion of these symptoms can be found here.

Additionally, physicians are beginning to balk at the use of metal-on-metal implants due to the newly uncovered information on the devices just now bubbling to the surface. As a result of recent lawsuits against DePuy in relation to the company's flawed manufacturing processes, physicians are just now realizing some of the inherent risks associated with the metal-based units. Some medical observers predict the popularity of metal-on-metal implants could decrease as a result. Not only are physicians worried about personal liability for implanting a faulty metal-on-metal product, they are increasingly concerned with the proper maintenance of their patients' wellbeing and health as well. Certainly, the use of metal-based devices in patients can run counter to such goals.

As metal-on-metal implants have been subjected to much scrutiny, physicians are turning to alternative joint implant materials, such as ceramics or plastic. One plastic model, known as the ADM X3 Mobile Bearing Acetabular System, has a ninety-four percent reduction in wear compared to metal-on-metal implants. Although the potential risks associated with plastic hip devices are not entirely known, they do not seem to carry the same risks of metallosis or soft-tissue poisoning that occurred in the DePuy metal-on-metal implants.

While the future of metal-on-metal implants is not entirely certain, physicians' newfound lack of faith in metal-based medical products are surely attributable to the discoveries attorneys involved in the DePuy ASR recall litigation have made in the course of their lawsuits. Without these lawyers' efforts, it is likely physicians would continue to remain in the dark when it comes to metal-on-metal implants. Indeed, attorneys are uncovering new truths everyday in the course of handling lawsuits against DePuy for their clients.

Keep following this blog for new details on the problems associated with the DePuy ASR hip implant, as well as other metal-on-metal implant devices. Furthermore, if you believe you have been harmed by a metal-on-metal implant, contact Berniard Law Firm for a free consultation on the matter.

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.

Continue reading "Chinese Drywall Still a Major Issue Throughout Gulf Coast" »