gets.primecure.net

Category: BP Oil Rig Explosion/Leak

  • Understanding Class Action Lawsuits in Louisiana

    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.

  • Fire Rages After New Iberia Chemical Plant Explosion

    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.

  • Chemical Release Ruling a Helpful Guide for Recent Spills/Leaks

    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.

    (more…)

  • BP Oil Spill Blog for Gulf Coast Residents Looking for Claims Information

    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.

  • Breaking News: BP Fund to Finance Claims Process for Gulf Oil Spill

    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.

    While the fact money has been set aside will be welcome news to many, some may fear that a lack of review may lead to problematic denials by BP. The White House, however, reports that the claims process will also include a three-member panel to review and handle claims that are refused. Further, the $20B fund will be paid into over four years by BP and the amount is not a cap.

    Even though these remarks demonstrate an effort on the part of the oil giant and the government, people have raised issue with a remark made by the BP chairman that he had heard “comments sometimes that large oil companies are greedy companies or don’t care, but that is not the case with BP. We care about the small people.”

    Justin Taffinder of New Orleans was not amused.
    “We’re not small people. We’re human beings. They’re no greater than us. We don’t bow down to them. We don’t pray to them,” Taffinder said.

    While this poor choice of words is can obvious gaffe, the news of a block of money now conclusively tied to the claims process is a great step towards making the people of the Gulf Coast harmed by this disaster whole. The encouraging nature of $20B not being a “capped amount” furthers the positive sentiment due to the fact it shows a true determination that BP will be held fully responsible for any hardship caused.

    More information regarding this BP oil spill claims breaking news will be provided when it becomes available.

  • Legal Issues Surrounding Gulf Coast Oil Spill Get More Complicated

    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.

    Cleanup itself creates new liability issues because the chemicals used to try to disperse the oil are dangerous to the fisherman who are trying to help. If these volunteers are injured the companies may face additional personal injury lawsuits in the future.

    It is not unusual for an oil spill like this one to create a huge legal mess. Following the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989, there were 17 categories of lawsuits filed against Exxon, with each representing thousands of aggrieved parties who ended up collecting $507 million in compensation plus the same amount in punitive damages. This oil spill could have even greater legal implications since the population of the Gulf Coast is 10 to 20 times greater than the population of the Alaskan coast with a maritime economy that is much bigger.

    Some questions exist as to how much BP, as the major player involved, will be forced to pay for the economic repurcussions of the spill. The Oil Pollution Act (OPA) caps some of BP’s liabilities at $75 million. This number is so low that some Democrats in Congress have proposed retroactively raising the cap to $10 billion. According to analysts, the actual liability will lie somewhere in between, possibly around $3 billion, a fraction of the estimated cleanup cost of up to $20 billion. Following the Exxon Valdez spill, cases trying to collect higher punitive damages were argued for years, going as high as the Supreme Court only to be unsuccessful. In the end, maritime law proved to be fairly stingy in providing for costs beyond hard financial damages. With this legal precedent set, it will be an uphill battle for plaintiffs to collect more in an effort to be made whole this time around. However, given the far reaching economic implications of the spill and increased number of people affected, anything is possible.

    In any event, BP will probably not even pay all of the damages awarded. While BP has pledged to pay for the cost of cleanup and legitimate damage claims they will most likely try to offset their cost by going after the other companies involved in the construction and operation of the Deepwater Horizon rig. This can be accomplished through contribution lawsuits, which are claims brought by a defendant (like BP) to a lawsuit for money damages owed to a plaintiff. Typically one defendant will sue other defendants or third parties and claim that they are required to “contribute” to help pay the cost of damages owed to the plaintiff.

    To navigate these complexities, a qualified attorney is necessary. With so many different defendants and a wide variety of legal recourses available for both side to utilize, legal representation will be key to the financial awards people receive. Further, the wide variety of plaintiff classes and issues will make it important each individual looking to make a claim is represented properly. With damages that some people might not even be aware they can claim, hiring a lawyer capable of making the best case for you is an important choice to be very careful with. Doing so not only ensures no claims are missed but also that adequate provisions like venue, class and statute of limitations are followed.

  • Recent Interview Highlights How Oil Recovery May Be Hampered By Tax Problems

    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.

    In the event of Katrina, insurance companies and loan groups often asked for proof of earnings that small business owners struggled to provide. In those instances, the owners were forced to either accept little to no assistance or hire an attorney that would be able to get them the money they needed. Using a variety of processes including getting records from employers, customers, average yields of similar fisherman, etc., hiring the right attorney can mean a world of difference.

    Because bigger businesses can often afford to have a professional tackle their taxes year in and out, this problem will likely be dealt with by small business owners who work in a cash-heavy industry. Berniard also noted that “eligibility for damages claims typically requires paperwork from the Internal Revenue Service to prove yearly earnings.” This is another area where larger businesses with complex filing systems will come out of the claims process easier than those businesses who might not be able to afford the proper storage or formatting required to keep complex and lengthy paper trails for the sake of proving earnings. Without proper representation, this may lead to small businesses closing shop merely because they had kept their buying and selling on a cash basis.

    Oil Spill Pollution Act claims will be a prominent issue as Gulf Coast workers struggle to make ends meet during restrictions in fishing because of the miles upon miles of floating crude oil. While these problems with income proof will likely not be an issue for most of the small businesses in the area, years of delays from storm damage have shown that the claims process will likely be a difficult one. Local individuals wishing to pursue a claim for lost wages or damage to their property are advised to keep close records of business before and after the spill as well as to begin collecting as much financial data as possible from previous years. While an attorney like Mr. Berniard could be able to achieve results without such records, the more assistance you can provide to an attorney helping manage your claim the more likely the claims process will move forward successfully. By being prepared with extensive records in the event of any sort of audit or claims investigation that can come from their claim, local victims may successfully prove their claim.

    Our firm will be releasing more information on how to file an oil loss claim. Feel free to bookmark our site and check in often for more news and helpful directions as they become available. If you feel you have a claim to make, contact our offices and an attorney will help advise you on your rights in this matter.

  • New Claims Office Opened in Terrebonne Parish

    Terrebonne Parish has announced that BP has opened an additional claims office within the parish. Located at 5703 Highway 56 in Chauvin, the office is slated to take claims between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. any days of the week.

  • What does a Charter Boat Captain need for a Gulf Oil Spill Claim?

    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;

    1. Photo Identification
    2. Tax Returns from 2007- 2009- However claims representatives have indicated they will take fewer years.
    3. Any appropriate licenses (captain licenses, etc.) that someone in that line of work would normally have.

    Louisiana boat captains will also need to provide the following for an oil loss

    1. Log Books with cancellation information
    2. Contact information for clients who cancelled trips
    3. A list of continuing expenses

    Boat captains will undoubtedly be affected for years to come by the negligent parties associated with this oil spill. Once a claim determination is made, a claimant must either accept or reject the offer within 60 days. If the offer is accepted, a release must be signed. If no action is taken within 60 days, the offer to pay the oil spill claim will be voided and the claim is closed. If the boat captain decides to reject the offer this can start an entirely new review process. Another claim determination will be made as a result of the reconsideration and the final determination on the matter becomes final. The claims adjusters do not consider the reconsideration process to be a negotiation.

    The problem with this process is that, once a release is signed, boat captains potentially will not be able to make claims for losses incurred over the next few years for their oil spill claim losses. If a boat captain decides to sign a release in the next few months and the oil spill causes his business to fall next year surely the responsible parties will deny his claim by asserting the release caused all claims to be settled at the time it was signed. For this reason alone it is important that individuals have a legal expert inspect the claim and make sure that their rights are protected for years to come.

    The Berniard Law Firm is currently handling oil spill claims for boat captains and is advising against signing any and all releases that will cap damages at only this years losses. If you want to speak with a lawyer today about your oil spill claim as a boat captain call 504-521-6000 for a free consultation.

  • What Do Deckhands Need to Do to Make an Oil Spill Claim?

    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
    2. Tax Returns from 2007- 2009- However claims representatives have indicated they will take fewer years.
    3. Any appropriate licenses (captain licenses, etc.) that someone in that line of work would normally have.

    In addition to the above referenced items that are required for all claims a deckhand will also need to have

    1. The vessel name on which they were employed.
    2. The vessel registration
    3. Captain’s name and phone number- to verify they are employed on the vessel.

    After an individual has submitted this information, the claims department will process the documentation in the order that it was received. The oil spill loss claim will be reviewed by a claims adjuster to see that all the information is included. If additional information for verification of the oil spill claim loss is required the adjuster will request that such information be forwarded to them. If the adjuster does not receive the requested information 90 days, the adjuster will complete his decision on the claim with the information in hand. It is possible that the adjuster could deny the claim on the basis of lack of information.

    By being thorough and providing as much information as possible, claimants may be able to better their chances to receive a solid response. It is important, however, that any possible financial settlement or compensation in response to a claim that a deckhand receives be reviewed by an attorney in order to preserve future rights to damages. It’s quite possible that all settlements offered by BP will come with a requirement that all future claims be limited or prevented outright. As no one knows how long this oil spill will be an issue, to sign away rights to future claims is dangerous and ill advised.

    If you need assistance with your oil spill claim the Berniard Law Firm’s attorneys are happy to represent you in these matters. Our firm is actively and aggressively pursuing claims against the responsible parties for deckhands as well as all other claimants who need assistance. Call the Berniard Law Firm today at 504-521-6000 to discuss your legal rights in pursuing your oil spill claims against BP or any of the responsible parties.