Residents, organized as a group called the Behr VOC Area Leaders (BVOCAL), have released the following documentary on YouTube called “This our Neighborhood”:
The documentary details the history of the TCE contamination from the Behr Dayton Thermal Plant in the the McCook Field neighborhood in Dayton, OH.
In today’s news, residents are asking EPA for new widespread testing of indoor air in the neighborhood to rule out risks of exposure by vapor intrusion. So far, EPA has not agreed to the testing. In what appears to be yet another dubious, knee-jerk, party-line denial from federal agencies, Stacey Coburn, the U.S. EPA’s project manager for the site, has stated that “she doesn’t believe anyone’s health is at risk from the plume” despite reports of nearby groundwater contamination levels exceeding 900ppb of TCE and previous confirmation that dangerous levels of TCE have already poisoned indoor air in certain homes.
Meantime, a lawsuit has been filed on behalf of the contaminated community who apparently disagree with EPA’s empty reassurances.
(UPDATE: Though we’ve not yet had a chance to review it, here is a PDF copy of the official complaint – not yet including exhibits.)
(UPDATE II: Complaint now also available for download with exhibits)
While we’re working to obtain a copy of the official complaint, here’s what we know so far:
On July 4, 2009, Laura J. Jones, through her attorneys, filed a lawsuit against the the federal government claiming that her health problems, including non-hodgkins lymphoma, resulted from toxic water at Camp Lejeune. A nice touch, we think, filing suit against the government on Independence Day.
The suit was filed under authority of the Federal Tort Claims Act. The act allows citizens to sue the federal government in court for money based on “personal injury or death caused by caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government.” (28 U.S.C.A. § 1346(b))
The official title of the case is Laura J. Jones v. United States of America, case number 7:2009cv00106 7:09-cv-00106-BO.
The case was filed in the Eastern District Court of North Carolina and was assigned to Judge Terrence W. Boyle.
The case is filed on behalf of Jones as a single plaintiff with additional cases expected to be filed in the future. No news on whether a class action filing is expected.
According to a news report from NBC17 in North Carolina:
The suit says the government knew for at least five years that chemicals such as tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene, dicloroethylene, vinyl chloride and benzene contaminated the water supply in high doses, but let the wells stay open.
Lawyers say the toxic water led to cancer and other health problems.
[...]
The suit contends that if the military had followed its own regulations that had been in place since the 1950s, the contamination would not have happened.
According to a CBS News 9 report, Jones lived on the base from 1980 to 1983 and was diagnosed with Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma 20 years later.
Jones’s case will rely, in part, on military documents that outline the military’s policy for maintaining a safe water supply.
Jones currently lives in Iowa and suffers from fibromyalgia and immune disorders. She was not well enough to attend the Monday’s press conference announcing the lawsuit.
Below is a video containing excerpts from the press conference, provided courtesy of NBC17:
This just in. We’re getting more details, will have update next week:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE — LAWSUIT TO BE FILED REGARDING CAMP LEJEUNE WATER CONTAMINATION
The law offices of Anderson Pangia & Associates, PLLC (offices in Washington, D.C. and Winston Salem, North Carolina) and Smorto, Persio, Webb & McGill (of Ebensburg, Pennsylvania), will file on Monday July 6 a lawsuit arising from the toxic drinking water contamination at Camp Lejeune. The lawsuit alleges that the United States Government, through agents within the Department of Defense, knowingly exposed hundreds of thousands of Marines, sailors, their family members, and civilian employees to highly contaminated drinking water on the base at Camp Lejeune, while at the same time actively disseminating disinformation to those exposed in an effort to minimize the significance of the exposure.
The complaint, to be filed in federal court in the Eastern District of North Carolina, attaches numerous documentary exhibits in support of its allegations that the government knowingly, recklessly and/or negligently violated its own standards, rules and regulations by permitting the exposure to continue after the government was specifically warned the drinking water was “highly contaminated with . . . solvents!” and advised that “these appear[] to be at high levels and hence more important from a health standpoint. . . ” The lawsuit will allege that the Department of the Navy had regulations in place as early as 1963 which prohibited the contamination and which would have averted it had those regulations been obeyed; subsequently in 1974 the Commanding General of Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina put in place additional regulations governing the proper disposal of the very same chemicals which were discovered later to be contaminating the drinking water; had these regulations been obeyed, the contamination likewise would have been prevented. This same 1974 base order declared these “organic solvents” to be hazardous, the lawsuit states.
Many scientists have called the drinking water contamination at Camp Lejeune the worst in the nation’s history. The contaminated drinking water was consumed by an estimated one million people.
The lawsuit will allege that exposure to the toxins caused numerous health problems including cancers, reproductive disorders and birth defects, among other maladies.
Joseph Anderson, Michael Pangia and Kevin Persio, the lawyers responsible for filing the suit, will answer questions of the media at a press conference to be held in front of the North Carolina State Capitol building, 1 East Edenton St. Raleigh, NC 27601 at 1:30 p.m. on Monday July 6, 2009. Call (336) 414-7958 for more information.
The Walt Disney Co. has been sued by several groups of plaintiffs for dumping wastewater and contaminating Polliwog Park and the surrounding area with Chromium 6, TCE, and PCE.
As their attorneys shuffle between four similar lawsuits that allege the Walt Disney Co. has for decades contaminated groundwater with cancer-causing chromium 6 and other toxic chemicals, stories of ill health from the plaintiffs are beginning to emerge.
In the latest lawsuit, filed last week in Los Angeles Superior Court by the Sacramento-based firm Kershaw Cutter & Ratinoff LLP on behalf of 16 people with strong ties to the Rancho District, the plaintiffs claim Disney dumped wastewater contaminated with hexavalent chromium from its on-site cooling systems down the centerline of Parkside Avenue, toward Parish Place and across Riverside Drive into the so-called Polliwog, an 11-acre parcel near the studio’s Imagineering facilities.
“The water, without warning, would rush down like a flood,” said resident Bob Bell, who in 1945 paid $25,000 for his home at the corner of Parkside Avenue. “Water hopped the curb and flooded the streets for hours on end.”
The contamination was recently brought to light by Environmental World Watch, a party to one of the lawsuits. EWW claims that Disney has dumped air cooling water and the chemicals into curbside drains every day for the past 21 years.
Plaintiffs are seeking compensation for property damage caused by the contamination. No word yet whether any personal injury claims have been filed.
The Natural Resources Defense Council and two residents of Dickson, Tennessee have filed a lawsuit against the Dickson County and city governments. They allege that trichloroethylene, TCE, an industrial chemical disposed at the Dickson Landfill that has been linked to neurological and developmental harm and cancer, poses an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health and the environment.
Dickson, a town of some 12,000 people is located about 35 miles west of Nashville. [map]
The Dickson County Landfill, 74 acres off Eno Road, sits within 500 to 2,000 feet of approximately 40 homes, most owned by blacks.
This community group is fighting to rid their area of contamination from the Dickson County landfill.
One African American family in particular, the Holts, a family of black landowners, has been especially harmed by the chemical. Many Holt family members are struggling with cancer and other illnesses, and two of its members are plaintiffs in this lawsuit.
The environmental group and Sheila Holt-Orsted and Beatrice Holt allege that TCE pollution has seeped beneath the landfill to underlying groundwater and has spread through a large area of Dickson County.
TCE contamination has rendered water from wells and springs as far as two to three miles from the landfill unfit for human consumption, the plaintiffs claim.
Polluted spring water is flowing directly into the West Piney River, a fishing stream and a major source of drinking water for the Water Authority of Dickson County. Several square miles of Dickson County have been recognized as an ‘imminent threat’ area by the county.
TCE contamination above drinking water limits, and orders of magnitude above U.S. Environmental Protection Agency screening levels for drinking water, has been found in at least one well even beyond that threat area.
In some areas, this TCE contamination may be growing worse, the plaintiffs claim, but the city and county have not done anything to remove the contamination.
“Some two decades after TCE was first detected in nearby drinking water sources, those responsible have not even fully characterized the present extent and likely future spread of the contamination. Defendants have, in effect, surrendered the ground and surface water of Dickson County to the slow spread of an invisible and toxic chemical,” the complainants said in a statement.
The complaint asks the Court to require the defendants to investigate the present extent and future spread of TCE contamination from the landfill in the soil, surface water, and groundwater of Dickson County; to remediate and abate TCE contamination.
Holt-Orsted has undergone six surgeries and chemotherapy for breast cancer. The Holts originally filed lawsuits in 2003 and 2004, naming the city and county of Dickson and the state of Tennessee, and claiming the family was a victim of negligence that resulted in their cancers and other health problems.
Attorneys for the county and state deny the claims in the earlier lawsuits.
Though the meetings announced in this article have since passed (the article was originally dated March 10), this Rochester Democrat & Chronicle article highlights 3 separate site clean-ups that are under way:
Costly taxpayer-financed plans to address toxic-chemical contamination in residential pockets of northeast Rochester and central Brighton will be detailed at separate public meetings this week.
The state Department of Environmental Conservation has scheduled a meeting for Tuesday evening to discuss a $1 million proposal to remove tainted soil and take other steps to address contamination at a now-closed business at Fernwood and Portland avenues in northeast Rochester.
The DEC first learned in 2000 that Preferred Electric Motors had spilled solvents and other potentially harmful materials in the course of its work refurbishing electric motors. Trichloroethene (TCE), tetrachloroethene (PCE) and other solvents are contaminating groundwater near the former business, prompting the state to install ventilation systems in two homes to guard against the build-up of toxic vapors.
The proposed cleanup would remove about 450 cubic yards of contaminated soil and include steps to speed the degradation of solvents in the groundwater. The floor of the building, which is contaminated with cancer-causing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), would be cleaned and sealed.
The building was purchased three years ago by a Greece carpet company that stores product there, according to the DEC.
On Thursday, another group of state officials will convene a meeting in Brighton to discuss a proposed $3.7 million plan to address a complicated PCE contamination problem underneath a section of Brighton just southeast of the Twelve Corners.
The solvent contamination there first came to light during investigation of a 2003 petroleum spill at a service station at the corner of Brooklawn Drive and Monroe Avenue. Officials first pointed the finger at Carriage Cleaners, at that same intersection, as the source of the PCE, a common dry-cleaning solvent.
Then last year, DEC said they had found high levels of PCE in soil and groundwater near a former Speedy’s Cleaners just across Monroe Avenue from the other two businesses. It also was identified as a likely source of the solvents. Vapor ventilation systems had been installed in at least 11 structures to address petroleum vapors. PCE vapors prompted installation of systems in three residential and one commercial building.
As part of its long-term cleanup plan, the environmental agency now proposes to install systems that would extract both air and groundwater from below the surface for treatment to remove any solvents. About 720 cubic yards of tainted soil also would be excavated.
Both central Brighton and northeast Rochester are served by public water, meaning no one should be drinking the contaminated groundwater. But in recent years, officials have recognized that solvents can evaporate underground and rise through the soil — and can, in some cases, the vapors can accumulate inside homes or businesses above.
Both TCE and PCE may cause cancer or other serious health problems in people exposed to high levels. The affects of low-level exposure are less clear — but the DEC and the state Department of Health have given special attention in recent years to possible intrusion of solvent vapors.
Both cleanup projects would be paid for with money from New York’s Superfund, which finances work at hazardous waste disposal sites when the responsible parties do not step in. The DEC’s written cleanup proposals, provided by the agency Friday, indicated that companies judged responsible for the Rochester and Brighton contamination have declined to pay for the work. The DEC may pursue legal action against them to recover its costs, the proposals said.
Residents of the neighborhood affected by the petroleum and PCE spills in Brighton filed a civil suit in 2004 against the companies that owned the service station and the two dry cleaners, as well as the town of Brighton.
The plaintiff’s lawyer, Alan Knauf, could not be reached for comment late Friday. But a January letter from Knauf in the case file in U.S. District Court said the plaintiffs had reached a settlement agreement with all the defendants except for Speedy’s.
Several readers have informed us of difficulties they have had in reaching the Camp Lejeune plaintiffs’ lawyers that we mentioned in previous posts. We have recently learned why. According to the Anderson Pangia website:
Anderson Pangia & Associates, together with liason counsel Kevin Persio, continues to aggressively prosecute cases on behalf of those injured as a result of the water contamination at Camp Lejeune. However, due to limited resources and the need to focus on cases best positioned to test the legal and scientific issues in the litigation, please note that NEITHER ANDERSON, PANGIA NOR MR. PERSIO ARE ACCEPTING NEW CAMP LEJEUNE CASES AT THIS TIME. Please check this website periodically as this status may change. Thank you for your patience.
At this time, we are not aware of any other firms who have agreed to represent Camp Lejeune plaintiffs. We are, however, keeping our ear to the ground. We will provide an update here if we learn of any other firms getting involved. If you would like to be alerted directly when we learn more, drop us a quick note with your email address via the contact link above or send an email to tceblog [at] gmail.com.
A second wave of legal claims seeking damages from IBM Corp. related to pollution in Endicott has been filed in state Supreme Court in Binghamton, bringing the total to more than 240 plaintiffs, with more on the way.
The 82-page document representing 151 property owners and residents was filed electronically late Friday afternoon by Philip Johnson, an attorney with the Vestal law firm of Levene Gouldin & Thompson. Johnson is part of a team of seven law firms representing more than 1,000 clients in the massive toxic tort case against IBM seeking more than $100 million in damages for a range of hardships related to the pollution. They include cancer and other illnesses, property devaluation, loss of business, medical expenses and related monitoring, and hassles of dealing with the pollution.
The first wave of claims, representing 94 plaintiffs, was filed early last month.
Given the inability or unwillingness of the nation’s regulatory apparatus to address workplace hazards, litigation by [...] workers is a logical alternative. In fact, it may be the only means of compelling employers to protect their workers.
Not only is this true of workers, but it is true of communities as well.
Given the inability or unwillingness of the nation’s regulatory apparatus to address residential contamination and exposure hazards, litigation by TCE-impacted residents is a logical alternative. In fact, it may be the only means of keeping people safe from future harm.
In that spirit, and in support of TCE-impacted workers and residents nationwide, we have added a new feature to our right-hand sidebar: the names of (and links to) law firms that represent plaintiffs in TCE cases. Please note: The cities indicate where their practice is based, however many of these firms handle cases nationwide.
If you have questions about finding a TCE attorney, please fee free to contact us.
If you are an attorney who handles TCE cases (including toxic torts) and would like your firm listed, please let us know.
They include video interviews with plaintiffs and with attorneys for both sides, map of the contamination area, documents associated with the lawsuit (including an important expert report from Redpath’s Dr. Sidney Finkelstein that we will highlight at another time) and more.
For those interested in McCullom Lake, the causal connection between brain cancers and TCE/vinyl chloride/chlorinated solvent exposure, and legal actions for personal injuries caused by chlorinated ethylenes, we highly recommend you check it out.
Warning: The title of the presentation is “Coincidence or Cluster?” We believe this is a poorly-chosen title and it does not properly reflect the main issue in these suits. The main issue, as we understand it, is whether or not the defendants’ chemicals caused the individual plaintiffs’ cancers. Whether McCullom Lake’s cancers can be considered a cancer cluster is a red herring. So please ignore the overly simplistic title, but do check out the presentation.
(Boston, Mass. – Jan. 25, 2008) – The U.S. District Court in Massachusetts on January 9 entered a settlement agreement (Consent Decree) for the 850 acre Groveland Wells Nos. 1 and 2 Superfund site in Groveland, Mass [see map].
Settling with the United States, on behalf of EPA, is Groveland Resources Corp. and Valley Manufacturing Products Co.
Under the terms of the agreement, the Settling Defendants will pay 100 percent of the Net Sale or Net Lease Proceeds in the event their property on the Site is sold or leased to reimburse the United States for costs incurred at the site. The Settling Defendants will also be required to impose certain deed restrictions or institutional controls on the Site in order to protect EPA’s cleanup actions at the site.
The Groveland Wells Site is located within a residential area in the southwestern part of the Town of Groveland. Valley Manufactured Products Co. manufactured screw products as well as metal and plastic parts from 1963 until 2001. The site is contaminated primarily with trichloroethene (TCE) which was used to clean (degrease) finished parts. TCE was released into the ground from a variety of sources including, underground storage tanks, underground disposal systems and intentional dumping. The Groveland site was added to EPA’s National Priority List in September 1983. EPA has been conducting cleanup actions at the site that address the contamination in the soil and groundwater.
In 1997, the Rialto-Colton Groundwater Basin, a source of drinking water to tens of thousands of San Bernardino County residents, was found to be contaminated by TCE and perchlorate. According to EPA, “the contamination has forced the closure of numerous public drinking water supply wells and caused hardships for Rialto, Colton and neighboring areas dependent on the basin for their drinking water.” Ever since, the City of Rialto has attempted to treat the contaminated wells, remediate the perchlorate and TCE, and also recover costs for its efforts from a number of potentially responsible parties (PRP’s).
In a 2005, when EPA granted the affected cities more than $400,000 towards the cost of clean-up, the San Bernardino Sun (CA) explained why this money was “just a drop in the bucket”:
It costs more than $1 million to install perchlorate filters on a well, and about $500,000 a year for maintenance.
…
Fontana Water Co. General Manager Mike McGraw said the city spent about $3 million to set up treatment for two contaminated wells.
…
[Colton] has spent more than $4 million to date treating three wells for perchlorate, Medina said. He wouldn’t rule out a rate increase.
…
Rialto is suing the Department of Defense and 42 of its contractors, as well as fireworks manufacturers, for perchlorate contamination. One defendant, B.F. Goodrich, gave $4 million to the cities and district.
Rialto has spent about $7.6 million on legal fees and cleanup. It is treating two of its wells for perchlorate contamination.
Fast forward to 2008. After spending nearly $20 million trying to “hold dozens of suspected polluters responsible,” Rialto has just fired their city attorney (Bob Owens, who allegedly was quarterbacking Rialto’s strategy for recovering costs from other polluters) and is facing significant uncertainty as it prepares to determine what’s next.
Meanwhile, on the City of Rialto’s website, in addition to tracking the latest clean-up/lawsuit news and developments, the following declaration appears:
The City will continue to provide the citizens of Rialto with clean, safe, and affordable drinking water. It will also pursue parties that are responsible for the perchlorate pollution to pay for the clean up of the Rialto-Colton Groundwater Basin. It will repay Rialto’s ratepayers for the costs incurred in forcing the polluters to clean it up.
In researching a recent court decision in a TCE case (more on this later), we stumbled across this paper [PDF]
from the William Mitchell Law Review, Vol 32, Issue 3, 2006. Written as guidance for the Minnesota Supreme Court, it reviews the legal concept of medical monitoring and identifies states where this claim is allowed in absence of physical injury or illness:
In “toxic tort” lawsuits, or claims brought as a result of exposure to hazardous substances, a typical plaintiff “alleges he has developed a disease because of exposure to a toxic substance negligently released by the defendant.” In some cases, however, the plaintiffs “seek to recover the costs of long-term diagnostic testing and medical examinations, which they claim are necessary to detect latent diseases or ailments that might later develop as a result of toxic exposure.” This novel theory of recovery is frequently labeled “medical monitoring.” Plaintiffs bringing claims for medical monitoring “seek post-exposure, pre-symptom recovery for the expense of periodic medical examinations to detect the onset of physical harm.” Plaintiffs who bring actions seeking the establishment of a medical monitoring fund may not suffer any current physical injuries and often do not even exhibit symptoms of disease as a result of their alleged exposure.
States That Allow Medical Monitoring in the Absence of Present Physical Injury
Abuan v. Gen. Elec. Co., 3 F.3d 329 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1116 (1994)
Illinois
Lewis v. Lead Indus. Ass’n, 793 N.E.2d 869 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003)
Montana
Lamping v. Am. Home Prods., Inc., No. DV-97-85786 (Mont. 4th Dist. Ct. Feb. 2, 2000)
New Jersey
Ayers v. Twp. of Jackson, 525 A.2d 287 (N.J. 1987)
New York
Patton v. Gen. Signal Corp., 984 F. Supp. 666 (W.D.N.Y. 1997)
Ohio
Day v. NLO, 851 F. Supp. 869 (S.D. Ohio 1994)
Pennsylvania
Redland Soccer Club, Inc. v. Dep’t of the Army, 696 A.2d 137 (Pa. 1997)
Utah
Hansen v. Mountain Fuel Supply, 858 P.2d 970 (Utah 1993)
West Virginia
Bower v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 522 S.E.2d
The article goes on to identify states where medical monitoring is not allowed absent a physical injury and also those states where the issue has not yet been decided (or where no test has been articulated).
Read more in Note: A Fifty-State Survey of Medical Monitoring and the Approach the Minnesota Supreme Court Should Take When Confronted with the Issue by D. Scott Aberson [PDF].
Ok, well, not exactly. But we realized our old link to the map is no longer active. And we noticed lots of people arriving here while looking for a map of the plume/contamination area.
For now, this’ll have to do. It’s a map of the location of the offending IBM facility provided by NYS DEC:
Click the link or the pic for a better version at the source. If we find a better map, we’ll update it here.
John Gilbertson, AVX Corp.’s chief executive officer, said Thursday his company will not seek money from residents of a neighborhood where the manufacturer has contaminated groundwater with a toxic chemical.
Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP’s) are by nature retaliatory lawsuits. They are designed to stop people from speaking out or taking action. As Wikipedia tells us:
This form of litigation is frequently filed by organizations or individuals to intimidate and silence critics or opponents by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense so that they abandon their criticism or opposition. The acronym was coined in the 1980s by University of Denver professors Penelope Canan and George W. Pring [
Canan and Pring, cited by Wikipedia as coiners of the phrase, describe typical targets of these suits in their book, SLAPPs: Getting Sued for Speaking Out:
Our study confirms that these suits are a growing legal threat for concerned Americans who speak their minds on issues of importance to their communities, state, or nation:
every citizen who takes a stand on a public concern;
everyone who has ever been tempted to ‘fight city hall’;
everyone who has ever worked in a political campaign;
everyone who has ever felt like speaking up on a neighborhood issue;
everyone who supports a cause;
everyone who has ever stepped on powerful toes
everyone who cares if “government by the people’ works in America.
Despite the potential initial shock value of a SLAPP, we learn from the Florida Specifier that SLAPPs are a poor strategy choice for industrial facilities facing citizen suits:
What not to do
One reaction to avoid when confronted with a citizen suit is filing a “strategic lawsuit against public participation.” These SLAPP suits are legal actions that companies file against environmental groups or individuals that have no merit, and are instead filed to intimidate the plaintiffs into leaving the facility alone. If one of the plaintiffs happen to be a large national environmental group, such a lawsuit is not going to accomplish anything.
A long time ago, the national environmental groups adopted policies of never backing down to SLAPP suits. Even for small groups, their lawyers have likely been through the drill before and know that the only option is to continue to fight. In addition, the environmental community has considerable resources available to defend SLAPP suits and usually rallies around these situations. There is also the fact that SLAPP suits are an anti-democratic, bully tactic.
[T]he case [against IBM] already stands as a warning for communities and businesses elsewhere. During America’s industrial heyday, TCE was a commonly used solvent for degreasing machinery. Only in recent years has the vaporous form of the chemical been recognized as a threat. It could be present in thousands of former industrial sites, where TCE vapors can pool under foundations and seep into basements.
The Environmental Protection Agency has concluded that such vapor pollution could be a problem in 852 of its Superfund cleanup sites. “We think this is a big issue that could affect communities’ health,” says Mary Mears, an EPA public outreach officer.
File this under questionable legal tactics: According to The Sun News (Myrtle Beach, SC), AVX filed recent court documents seeking to stick residents and other property owners, some of whom have sued AVX, with part of the tab from AVX’s TCE investigation and clean-up:
The electronics manufacturer filed a proposed amended complaint last week in federal court that would make those property owners subject to federal laws that require shared liability for environmental contamination.
That means property owners living near AVX could be forced to pay the manufacturer a prorated share of whatever amount AVX spends for “investigations, containment, removal or mitigation of the contamination at the properties,” according to the proposed complaint.
That amount could be measured in the millions of dollars.
AVX also wants property owners to pay “interest at the maximum rate allowable by law” for any amount they might owe to the manufacturer.
A judge has not made a ruling on the proposed complaint.
Gene Connell, a lawyer representing property owners near AVX’s headquarters at 801 17th Ave. S., said the proposal is an unconscionable scare tactic.
“It’s audacious that AVX would try to blame its pollution on the poor people who’ve worked all their lives for their homes,” Connell said. “These are innocent landowners.”
[...]
AVX, in its proposed complaint, wants a federal judge to rule that contamination has not damaged any property near the manufacturer’s headquarters because the TCE eventually can be removed from the groundwater.
[...]
AVX also wants a judge to rule that property owners are entitled to no compensation for any possible damage to their land or property values resulting from the contamination.
Though we’re reluctant to play armchair legal quarterback without seeing the court-filed documents (yeah, we’ll do it anyway), we’d say the first part of the complaint, the move to pin costs on property-owners, may be designed to discourage public participation in litigation against AVX (almost as if to say, “Hold us accountable and you’ll literally pay for it.”)
The latter two issues, that no property was damaged and that owners aren’t entitled to compensation for certain damages, sound to us like they depend on questions of fact that a trial must ultimately decide. But we are not attorneys nor familiar with all the applicable facts or laws in this case, so really, what do we know?
