gets.primecure.net

Category: Dow Norco Leak

  • Community Concerns After the Smitty’s Supply Explosion in Tangipahoa Parish

    Thick smoke and flames rising from the Smitty’s Supply lubricant plant in Roseland, Tangipahoa Parish, after the August 22, 2025 explosion and fire.The Smitty’s Supply plant explosion and fire in Roseland, Louisiana on August 22, 2025 has left the Tangipahoa Parish community shaken. Families were forced to evacuate, businesses were disrupted, and questions remain about the long-term impact of the disaster.

    While officials report that the fire is largely contained, many residents are still facing uncertainty—about their health, their homes, and their future.

    What Residents Experienced

    • Evacuations: Homes, schools, and businesses within a one-mile radius were evacuated immediately.

    • Environmental Fallout: Thick smoke and oily rainfall blanketed the area, leaving behind property damage and health concerns.

    • Lingering Worry: Even after the fire was 90% contained, many locals expressed concerns about possible chemical exposure and contamination of soil or water.

    Why This Matters

    Large-scale industrial accidents don’t just end when the flames go out. They can cause:

    • Respiratory or health issues from chemical exposure.

    • Property damage that requires costly repairs or cleanup.

    • Financial hardship due to missed work, medical bills, or temporary displacement.

    • Stress and uncertainty for families forced to leave their homes.

    These are not just inconveniences—they can have long-lasting effects.

    Do You Have Legal Options?

    If negligence played a role in the Smitty’s Supply fire, those responsible may be held accountable. Victims of this disaster may have legal claims for:

    • Medical expenses

    • Property cleanup or repair costs

    • Lost income

    • Emotional distress

    • Wrongful death claims (in the most tragic cases)

    Our Commitment to Tangipahoa Parish

    As a Louisiana-based law firm, we care deeply about protecting the rights of our neighbors. Our attorneys are already reviewing the situation at Smitty’s Supply and are prepared to investigate potential claims on behalf of affected families and workers.

    We will work tirelessly to:

    • Identify responsible parties

    • Secure fair compensation for victims

    • Provide compassionate support during this difficult time

    Contact Us for Help

    If you or someone you love was impacted by the Smitty’s Supply explosion in Tangipahoa Parish, don’t wait to get answers.

    📞 Call us today at 504-521-6000 or fill out our [contact form] for a free consultation.

    You don’t have to face this alone—we are here to stand by you.

  • Louisiana’s Act 312 and its Impact on the Environment and Oil Exploration

    La. R.S. 30:29 (“Act 312”) was in enacted in 2006 and became effective in June of that year. Act 312 provides a procedure for the remediation of oil field sites as well as oil exploration and production sites. Generally, remediation is “the action of remedying something, in particular of reversing or stopping environmental change.” Before the Louisiana legislature enacted Act 312, most remediation requirements were through private party contracts; therefore, Act 312 did not change the normal trial procedures established by the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure.

    The Louisiana Supreme Court recently discussed Act 312 at length, explaining what it did change, in a case involving the Vermilion Parish School Board. The Court explained that Act 312 was enacted because of serious concerns with the state of the land and ground water after an area was used for oil exploration and production. Parties would use the land and ground water under a mineral lease for several years, and leave the property in terrible shape by the time that they were done. Mineral leases allow the parties to contract for only the minerals or the potential oil that is located on that property. The party with the mineral lease, then, does not rent the entire property, but just the ability to find minerals or oil within or upon that property.

    Before Act 312, parties could still sue if one party left the land in terrible shape. Occasionally, however, it does not make sense economically to force a party to fix the land they damaged. Instead, the renting party would have to give the “landlord” the difference between the value of the land when they received it and the value of the land when it was returned after the lease, under a tort law theory. However, the person who owned the land, the “landlord,” was not required to use the funds to fix damage done to the land. As a result, property that had serious environmental problems often went without remediation because the landlord was not required to fix it. This creates health and safety concerns for the general public.

    When parties file under Act 312, a notice is sent to the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Commissioner of Conservation (“DNR”) and the attorney general. The court cannot issue a judgment unless this notice is filed. After the notice is filed, the DNR and the attorney general can intervene in the case if they so choose; they also retain the ability to bring an independent action through civil or administrative means. Then, the matter proceeds to trial as any normal case would.

    At the trial, the fact finder will determine if there actually is any environmental damage and whether the defendant or defendants were responsible for that damage. If the fact finder finds that there is environmental damage and the defendant is responsible, then the defendant is required to form a “remediation plan.” The remediation plan is submitted to the court for approval; the plaintiff is allowed to submit a suggested remediation plan to the court as well.

    Then, the DNR will hold a public hearing on the submitted remediation plans. The DNR will then determine the most feasible plan to accomplish the remediation of the environmental damage, keeping the health, safety, and welfare of the public at large in mind. After they approve the plan, the plan is sent to the court for further review. Within a certain time frame, parties can submit alternations, comments, or new plans to the court during this time as well. Unless the parties prove that another plan is more feasible, the court will allow the plan approved by the DNR to move forward. In addition, the court will determine how much of the damages amount will be required to be used exclusively for remediation. Then, the legally responsible parties will deposit funds into the court’s registry for remediation purposes.

    One of the many issues in the case involving the Vermilion Parish School Board was whether private parties could seek additional damages apart from the required remediation funds. The Court determined that Act 312 specifically provided that private parties would not be limited by the remediation plan. That is, if they wanted to seek damages beyond what would be required to correct the environmental damages, such as punitive damages (damages that are meant to punish the offending party), then Act 312 did not limit them from doing that.

    The Berniard Law Firm specializes in oil claims, including their effects on the environment. If you have questions about Act 312 or think your mineral lease has been violated, contact The Berniard Law Firm today.

  • Environmental Damage Appeal Focuses on Mineral Lease, Oil

    In January, the Louisiana Supreme Court considered an appeal from the Vermilion Parish School Board. The appeal centered on environmental damage to land that was subject to a mineral lease. The mineral lease allowed those leasing the land to look for and remove any mineral, including oil, that they found on the land. However, once they did this, they left the land in a state that was environmentally hazardous.

    Louisiana has special procedures for dealing with restoring land so that we do not harm the environment, specifically when removing oil. The remediation of the land, this restoring process, was one of the major issues in the Vermilion Parish case. The defendants included Union Oil Company of California, Union Exploration Partners, Carrollton Resources, LLC, Chevron USA, Inc., and Chevron Midcontinent, L.P.

    The Court faced two major issues in this case. The first was whether the parties could receive damages in excess of the amount it would take to restore the property, thereby correcting the environmental damage. The Court determined that the language of the legislation (La. R.S. 30:29) was clear and that the parties could receive a larger amount.

    Under Louisiana law, when a case arises where a party is required to correct an environmental wrong, the funds are deposited into the court’s registry. The court will then disperse the funds to repair the land. This is a relatively new development because this act was put into effect in 2006. The legislature was concerned that parties who received funds to help correct the damage done to their land would not use it for that purpose if they were not so required. Leaving property that is damaged could create serious issues for the health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding population.

    The legislation focuses on the role of the fact finder in determining whether there was environmental damage, and how much that environmental damage will cost to fix. As such, the court determined that the case should continue so that the fact finder could make those determinations.

    The second issue was whether Chevron should be dismissed from the case. According to the facts, Union Oil had the mineral lease first, but Chevron subsequently acquired Union Oil and all of their assets, including the lease. As such, Chevron became responsible for any environmental damage that Union Oil may have caused. Chevron admitted responsibility initially, but then denied that they should be legally responsible later.

    Chevron explained that while Chevron Corp. owns both Chevron USA and Union Oil Company of California, the two sections do not overlap. That is, Union Oil had $18 billion in assets, and should they be found liable for environmental damage, the amount that they will pay will come from their assets and not Chevron’s. Chevron explained that those assets were never transferred out of Union Oil, so Union Oil remained somewhat independent even after Chevron acquired them.

    Therefore, Chevron argued that Chevron USA should be removed from the case so that those assets are not adversely affected. Nonetheless, Frank Soler, the senior liaison in the subsidiary governance unit of the corporate governance department for Chevron Corp. admitted that Union Oil does not have any employees and there may be service agreements between the two sections for day-to-day activities.

    The Plaintiffs in the case were only allowed to discover a very limited amount of information from Chevron regarding this case. The court restricted the information until they determined whether or not Chevron should remain in the case a defendant. As such, many facts remained unknown regarding the relationship between Chevron and Union Oil. Therefore, the court determined that Plaintiffs should be allowed to gather more information and the case should continue.

    Both of these issues failed the summary judgment test. The test is whether there is an absence of material facts in the case. If there is such an absence, then the court will only determine the questions of law and one side will receive a summary judgment. In this case, however, the court determined that there may be facts in dispute because they did not have enough information; therefore, the case continued.

    (more…)

  • Attorney Jeffrey Berniard makes New Orleans Magazine top lawyers list

    Licensed attorneys in New Orleans were asked which attorney they would recommend to residents in the New Orleans area. Attorney Jeffrey Berniard, of the New Orleans-based Berniard Law Firm, LLC, was named one of the best mass litigation and class action attorneys in New Orleans in the November 2012 issue of the magazine. Propelled into success by holding insurance companies accountable in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Berniard has built the Berniard Law Firm into one of the premiere personal injury law practices in not only New Orleans, but the entire state of Louisiana. Since Hurricane Katrina, Berniard Law Firm has focused on insurance disputes and class action litigation.

    Jeffrey Berniard has been involved in several high-profile cases, solidifying his expertise in complex high risk litigation. He worked on the highly publicized Deep Water Horizon oil rig case in the Gulf Coast, representing a very large group of individuals affected by the sinking oil rig. In 2008, Berniard Law Firm secured a $35 million dollar settlement for a class of 70,000 members seeking bad faith penalties for tardy payments by a Louisiana insurance company in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. In 2009, the Berniard Law Firm participated in five class actions against insurance companies and corporations. In the process of these major claims, the firm also helped many residents of the Gulf Coast with their personal injury concerns, insurance claims and business disputes.

    – What is Mass Tort Litigation? –
    Mass tort litigation involves a class of civil actions involving multiple plaintiffs who are injured by a defective product, a hazardous substance or some type of disaster. Mass tort actions can be against one or many defendants in either state or federal court. This type of litigation allows several attorneys or even a group of attorneys to represent several injured parties within an individual case. This becomes a much more effective form of litigation that allows for the pooling of resources and ideas.

    Mass tort typically involves a smaller group of individuals typically limited to a certain geographic area. This differs from the class action, which is one lawsuit that is filed by an individual or a small group acting on the behalf of a large group. Class actions tend to be much larger suits and are represented by one class representative who represents the entire class. In mass tort, each individual is treated as such–as individuals. In a class actions, the entire class is treated as one individual. Attorney Jeffrey Berniard and the Berniard Law Firm have extensive experience with both class action and mass tort litigation.

    Contact the Berniard Law Firm today at (888) 550 5000 if you feel that your rights have been violated.

  • What is a Class Action? Who is the “Class?”

    In Jane Doe v. Southern Gyms, LLC arising out of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, a class action suit was filed involving a local branch of the national gym, Anytime Fitness, was accused of taking pictures of 250-300 women changing in a locker room. The plaintiffs filed on behalf of all women who’d used the gym during the time period and the class was certified to proceed to trial.

    To understand what “the class was certified” means, it is important to understand what a class action suit is the reasons why we allow class actions in the first place. Class action suits are a useful tool in litigation in that it can bring together large numbers of substantially similar or identical claims into a single proceeding. This contributes to judicial efficiency as often times the type of cases litigated as class actions can have as many as thousands of plaintiffs. Assuming each of these cases was large enough to be worth bringing to court individually, there would be substantial amounts of duplicated effort by each party. However, the real value of class actions is in allowing cases that normally would be too small to litigate individually to have their day in court. If a case involves a real injustice to thousands of people, but the actual per person damages is relatively small it would be too costly to vindicate their claims.

    In this case, the class proposed was:

    all females who physically entered the women’s restroom/locker room/ changing room at Anytime Fitness, 200 Government Street, Baton Rouge, LA 70802 from November 1, 2009, through and including April 5 2010.

    The rules that govern class actions require that several hurdles be met before a class can be certified (allowed) to proceed: there must be enough members that litigating separately is impractical; the questions of law and facts in the case common to the parties; the class representative’s claims must be typical of the claims of the class; they are able to protect the interests of the entire class, and finally the class must be able to be adequately defined so the court can be satisfied that the suit will end the dispute.

    This case is noteworthy because the actual size of the class is fairly small. The gym operator admitted to videotaping on only 10-15 occasions. While any number of women may have been victims during these periods, the class itself was certified for any woman using the gym during a nearly 6 month period. There is no rule that states the minimum number of plaintiffs required for a class action, but the appeals court did not give a rousing endorsement for the “numerosity” (size) of the class in this case, they merely deferred to the trial court judgment on the matter. What was particularly noteworthy was the court weighed concerns beyond just the actual numbers of women involved. An additional factor was evidence that the gym allowed members from around the country to use it and thus the plaintiffs might not all have been locals which would have substantially increased the burden to litigate separately. Had all the women been locals, it is possible the court would have required “joinder” or just combining separate cases rather than allowing a representative in a class action suit.

    Most people have been involved in a class action suit and may not have even been aware of it. Generally, each member of the class is required to be notified to give them the opportunity to opt-out of (or into) the class. This will typically be done via a postcard by mail. Thousands of these cards are thrown away without being read yearly but they can entitle plaintiffs to small to moderate cash settlements without ever setting foot in a courtroom, as you are being represented by the person bringing the suit!

    (more…)

  • Happy Mardi Gras!

    As a Louisiana law firm, our practice takes great pride and enjoyment from Fat Tuesday and all of the history that follows. For all of our readers in the New Orleans area, have a safe and happy holiday.

    Postings will resume shortly. In the meantime, laissez les bon temps rouler!

  • Difficulty in Setting Aside Insurance Release Forms and Settlements

    Settlements are an important part of the legal process. They save time, money, allow the parties to negotiate their own terms, and, above all, they keep the parties from having to go to court to litigate their claims. In the case of settling with insurance companies, the companies like to avoid court because it not only costs them time and money, but also may negatively affect their reputation in the community. As such, it is common practice for an injured person to sign a release form after they receive settlement money. This release form bars the person injured from any future claims against the insurance company. Both parties usually end up happy in this situation because the person who was injured gets some compensation and the insurance company avoids the negative effects of going to court.

    What happens if an injured person settles and signs a release form before they realize how badly they are injured? For example, perhaps an individual thinks they only bruised their ribs, but actually suffered from more long term effects such as kidney injuries. In that case, the injuries are likely to be much more expensive than both parties originally anticipated. Then, the injured individual does not have enough money to cover medical expenses and the insurance company gets out of paying for the extra expenses.

    In Louisiana, a general release will not necessarily bar recovery for aspects of the claim that the release was not intended to cover. However, most releases are very broad in that they cover any existing injuries and injuries that may occur because of the accident in the future. Louisiana law only allows settlements to be set aside if there was an error when the settlement was signed. Two major mistakes could set aside a settlement: 1) the injured party was mistaken as to what he or she was signing even if there was no fraud involved, or 2) the injured party did not fully understand the nature of the rights being released or that they did not intend to release certain rights. A settlement can also be set aside if there is fraud or misrepresentation involved.

    Louisiana Civil Code Article 1953 defines fraud as “. . . misrepresentation or a suppression of the truth made with the intention either to obtain an unjust advantage for one party or to cause a loss of inconvenience to the other. Fraud may also result from silence or inaction.” In order to determine if there is fraud involving a release, which is also a contract, the court will only look to the document itself to determine if fraud is evident. Evidence of fraud in this situation could include any intentionally incorrect statement of material fact, such as stating items that are not covered by the insurance company when those items are actually covered.

    A recent case gives an excellent example of a settlement with an insurance company. In that case, an individual fell off a tractor and injured himself. Two insurance companies provided compensation for injuries relating to his fall. Once each insurance company provided compensation, they each had the injured party sign a release form to keep him from filing claims against them in the future should the injuries be worse than originally anticipated.

    The injured individual did have complications with his injuries and tried to get the settlements set aside so that he could get more money based on the coverage, but because he signed the release forms and there was no evidence of fraud, the court would not set aside the settlement agreements. The court stated that the injured individual knew exactly what he was releasing and there was no mistake in the settlement. The insurance companies both provided clear statements of what they did and did not cover and provided compensation for the things they did cover. The release statements specifically said that the injured party could not sue again for the same fall even if the injuries got worse, so he could not file claims again.

    One lesson to take away from this example is that it might be helpful to find out the extent of your injuries before you enter into any settlements or sign any release forms.

    (more…)

  • Court Explains the Requirements of a Settlement Agreement

    Recently, in the State of Louisiana Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit, a case was decided that effectively laid out the requirements of a settlement agreement. These requirements are especially important because many cases are settled before they get to court. In fact, settlement is often preferable because it saves a significant amount of time, money, and it allows the parties to reach a compromise that they not only come up with themselves, but that is also acceptable to both parties. That way, the parties share the benefits instead of there being a clear-cut loser and clear-cut winner as is usually the situation should a case go to trial.

    In this case, an individual was seeking to enforce a settlement agreement with an insurance company regarding a life insurance policy. The life insurance policy involved three beneficiaries; however, it was unclear as to when the money should go to each beneficiary. There may have been a contingent beneficiary. That is, the policy was set up so that if one of the beneficiaries had passed away prior to the money dispersion, then it would go to a different beneficiary. However, the insurance company was unsure of this stipulation, so they did not give out any money at all.

    As a result of all of this confusion, one of the beneficiaries entered into negotiations with the insurance company in order to get at least some money out of the life insurance policy. Louisiana Civil Code, Article 3071, defines compromise as “a contract whereby the parties, through concession made by one or more of them, settle a dispute or an uncertainty concerning an obligation or other legal relationship.” Therefore, the parties in this case sought to compromise regarding the payment of the insurance policy.

    In addition to defining compromise, the Court also points out that the settlement agreement must be in writing and signed by both parties as required by Louisiana Civil Code Article 3072. In this case, there was an oral agreement, but when the parties attempted to put the terms in writing, there was still dispute regarding the agreeability of quite a few of the terms of the settlement. They created drafts and sent them back and forth, but nothing was ever finalized by way of a signature from either party. The Court recognizes that there are no other cases where a settlement was validated even though neither party signed the final settlement agreement.

    The Court also goes on to explain that contracts, which are the basis of a compromise, require that there be a “meeting of the minds.” That is, both parties should completely understand and agree to the terms in the contract. The contract embodies the intention of both parties and if the intention of both sides is not fully included in the settlement, then that settlement cannot be valid. In this case, both sides described other terms that were either not included in the agreement or that appeared, but they did not approve of their inclusion in the settlement. The Court notes that there was no “acceptance and acquiescent from both parties” in this case.

    Although the settlement agreement can be included in more than one document, it is apparent that there was no such agreement. It based this conclusion on the testimony of both parties, lack of signature on the settlement agreement, and other communications between the parties at the negotiation stages in this case (such as letters between the attorneys that expressed displeasure with terms in the agreement). Therefore, the Court concluded that a settlement agreement did not actually exist and that it could not enforce a settlement agreement that does not actually exist.

    Obtaining settlement agreements can be somewhat complicated because they involve getting both sides to agree to many different terms. However, they are very valuable because they allow the parties to avoid trial and get their conflicts resolved quickly. The Berniard Law Firm is always interested in solving our clients’ problems quickly and effectively.

    (more…)

  • Drilling Accident Shows Standards for Reasonable Care

    A field service technician sued a crew boat operator and several entities related to the drilling operations when he was injured during a personnel basket transfer and a mobile drilling unit. The trial court, applying a “reasonable care” standard, granted summary judgment in favor of the drilling companies and the service technician, Callahan, appealed the decision.

    Callahan, an employee of Cooper Cameron Corporation, was hired to help install, repair and replace equipment on the offshore oil well. While transferring the mobile drilling unit, the ship moved abruptly, causing Callahan’s back to pop and sharp pain to shoot through it. Callahan returned to his cabin and later executed a successful personnel basket transfer. Once he arrived on the barge, he reported his injury to the medic. Callahan argued various claims of negligence, revolving around the decision to transfer him to the barge in unreasonably dangerous conditions. However, according to the district court, since no employee of the crew boat directed Callahan to leave his cabin for transfer, these companies could not be held liable, particularly given Cooper Cameron Corporation’s “stop work” policy which gives employees the right to stop working if they find the conditions to be unsafe. Callahan clearly knew of this policy since he has used it before, but did not apply in these circumstances.

    On appeal, Callahan claimed that the trial court made a mistake in finding that the conduct of the drilling companies (Diamond, Golf Logistics, Eagle Consulting, and LLOG) was reasonable and therefore in granting them summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate if “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact”. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). A material fact is one that might affect the outcome of the case if it is found in favor of a particular party.

    To prove a tort claim, Callahan must prove that these companies owed him a duty, that there was a breach of that duty, that those companies were responsible for the breach, resulting in a need for damages. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment motions in favor of LLOG, Diamond, and Eagle Consulting. However, it reversed the summary judgment order against Gulf Logistics.

    While neither LLOG, nor Diamond were either directly or indirectly involved in providing a safe method for boarding and disembarking from the vessel, and were not exerting any control over this procedure. While Eagle Consulting was theoretically allowed to terminate conduct that its employees believed to be unsafe, this alone is not enough to create an issue of material fact as to the company’s liability for the actual decision to transfer Callahan. There is no evidenced that the company either knew of the rough sea conditions or was involved at all in the decision to transfer personnel under those conditions. Therefore, the summary judgment motion in favor of Eagle Consulting was properly decided.

    However, Callahan’s evidence of the hazardous nature of the sea conditions is enough to create a material fact issue as to a breach of duty on Gulf Logistics part by setting up an unsafe personnel transfer. Therefore, the district court should not have granted summary judgment to Gulf Logistics. The appellate court reversed this decision and remanded it back down to the trial court.

    If you believe your case was improperly dismissed due to a summary judgment motion, please contact the Berniard Law Firm for assistance.

  • BP Refinery Sued for Negligence in Gas Release

    Contractor company employees working at a British Petroleum (BP) refinery sued the oil company for negligence. Workers at the refinery reported a “weird” gas smell while they were employed at the factory. None of the gas monitors about the refinery sounded an alarm. About 100 employees went to the hospital but none showed any injury due to gas exposure.

    The employees claim that the substance was carbon disulfide gas. The mask of one of the plaintiffs tested positive for traces of carbon disulfide gas but the lab technician who took charge of the mask noted that the mask had not been well maintained enough to be tested properly. When the district court found for the plaintiffs, BP appealed the verdict. BP argues that it was wrong for the trial judge to have instructed the jury on res ipsa loquitur and that without that instruction, the plaintiffs could not have shown that the company to be negligent.

    Res ipsa loquitur is a doctrine used in certain types of cases when the circumstances surrounding the accident constitute sufficient evidence of the defendant’s negligence to support such a finding. Basically translated, the doctrine concludes that if an accident could not have come about by any other method than the one claimed, then the fact that the event happened is proof enough that it happened in the manner claimed; in other words, “the thing speaks for itself”. Res ipsa loquitur is applicable only when: (1) the character of the accident is such that it would not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence; and (2) the cause of the injury is shown to have been under the management and control of the defendant. Using res ipsa loquitur, negligence can be inferred by the jury without evidence of wrongdoing.

    The appellate court reversed the district court decision after concluding that a res ipsa instruction was inappropriate in this case. In a very similar previous case against Marathon Oil, the Texas Supreme Court found a res ipsa instruction inappropriate under the facts because escaping gas in the vicinity of a complex plant could be due to an unexpected and unforeseeable mechanical failure instead of necessarily being negligence.

    None of the plaintiffs’ experts could identify where the odor came from or even if it was coming from BP’s property. The employees weren’t able to prove that the character of the accident is one that would not usually occur absent negligence or that the cause of injury was under BP’s control. Since neither of the two elements necessary for a res ipse loquitur instruction was satisfied, the district judge should not have instructed the jury on the doctrine. Without a res ipsa instruction, the plaintiffs were unable to meet their burden of proof as to negligence and the district court’s judgment was reversed.

    If you believe you have a res ipsa loquitur negligence case, please contact the Berniard Law Firm for assistance.