Articles Posted in BP Oil Rig Explosion/Leak

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:

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

If you are a Gulf Coast resident looking for more information on how to make an oil spill claim against BP, please visit our blog dedicated to this topic.

http://www.bpoilspilllawyersblog.com

This blog contains a wealth of information on how to make a damages claim, whether you own a business or have simply been financially harmed by this ecological disaster.

The Associated Press is now reporting President Obama and British Petroleum have come to an agreement regarding the establishment of a fund to help pay off claims. This fund is expected to be over $20 billion and will be tied to the claims process that has already begun in the Gulf Coast area. Meeting for some four hours, BP officials set aside an additional $100 million for the families of the 11 sailors who died in the explosion.

The news comes as welcome to an area that has been besought by financial difficulties as a result of the various closures caused by the BP oil spill. The Press reports

The claims system sets up a formal process to be run by a specialist with a proven record. Instead of vague promises by BP, there will be a White House-blessed structure with substantial money and the pledge that more will be provided if needed. The news was applauded in the Gulf — a rare positive development in a terrible two-month period since the April 20 explosion that killed 11 workers and unleashed a flood of oil that has yet to be stemmed.

Dozens of class action lawsuits have already been filed in the Gulf Coast region (including Louisiana, Florida and Texas) against the companies who may hold some responsibility for the oil spill disaster-BP first, followed by Transocean, Cameron, and Halliburton, among others.

BP and Transocean are dealing with wrongful death lawsuits from families of the 11 victims who died in the explosion as well as lawsuits from those injured. Survivors of individuals who have died due to the negligence of someone else can recover a multitude of damages in a wrongful death suit, such as medical expenses, burial expenses, compensation for pain and suffering and loss of consortium, and even punitive damages in some cases.

Those who have lost revenue in the aftermath of the blast such as fisherman, restaurants, charter boat companies, even homeowners could also bring class action suits. Even municipalities may sue for lost tax revenue. In addition, shipping companies could sue if traffic along the Mississippi river gets disrupted. The trail of liability these companies will most likely face is long and complex because the effects of the disaster are far reaching and anyone adversely affected may be entitled to compensation from those deemed responsible.

Having taught Continuing Legal Education (CLE) seminars on a variety of topics including Chinese drywall and, soon, oil leak litigation, lead attorney Jeffrey Berniard has been a relied upon expert on matters relating to claims and the wide variety of problems and delays claimants, and their attorneys, often face in such processes. Interviewed for his expertise relating to the recent Deepwater Horizon oil leak, Berniard highlighted a little considered problem that commercial workman like fisherman and others who make a living in the Gulf might face. Given that the nature of their job involves extensive self-reporting and tax analysis, the flexibilities or evasions of tax income that those who work off the coast might have carried out might significantly limit their ability to collect damages. If that is the case, careful legal analysis and work by an experienced attorney may be the difference between thousands of dollars in compensation.

While talking to New Orleans City Business (articles available to subscribers only), Berniard was asked about the difficulties some might face in collecting damages caused by the oil spill

“It’s the same issues we dealt with after Katrina in terms of (Small Business Administration) loans,” he said.

There is an availability of funds under the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) and the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) for Louisiana residents who have suffered property damage because of the crude oil washing ashore. Oil damage to boats is treated differently from other forms of personal property damage under the guidelines of the OPA. As required by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, certain information must be provided to the responsible party to submit an oil spill loss claim. Just one example includes a provision that boat captains from Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. Bernard and Terrebonne Parish will need to present the following information to BP and other responsible parties will filing their oil spill claims.

The U.S. Coast Guard’s National Pollution Funds Center website details that a boat’s owner can submit claims relating to the removal of oil stains from the vessel (interior furnishings upholstery and carpeting included) so that the vessel may be restored to its condition before the oil damage. Claims may also be filed for the damage done to a boat’s motor, rudder, anchor winch and other mechanical parts of the vessel harmed by oil.

In general, all claimants, regardless of what losses they are claiming, are required to provide the following;

Deckhands are just one of the many affected employment groups that are facing hardship as a result of the BP oil leak. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) (33 U.S.C. 2701 et. seq.) is the law that established the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and covers incidences such as the current Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill. Deckhands from Lafourche, Jefferson, St. Bernard, and Plaquemines Parish and all of the effected areas should take note of the following information which will be required when presented an oil spill claim to the responsible parties.

First, every claimant, no matter their employment category, needs to provide the following to the claims center:

1. Photo Identification

Contact Information