A new article is out regarding problems with asbestos bankruptcy trusts, which are the antithesis of transparency, as previously described here and here. In a prior article last year, three Cozen O'Conner lawyers (they represent insurers) wrote a significant Norton Bankruptcy Journal article detailing the lack of transparency in the asbestos trusts. The authors are William P. Shelley, Jacob C. Cohn and Joseph A. Arnold. You can obtain the full article here at Cozen's website.
Now, Messrs. Cohn and Arnold are back with an updating June 22, 2009 article titled: New Generation of Asbestos Trusts Encourages Double Dipping. The article is published at the Daily Journal, which requires a subscription.
Among other things, the article describes two recent events that are helping focus more sunshine on the asbestos trusts and give trial defendants the benefit of offsets. Thus, they describe a Washington state court decision in which a trial judge allowed "asbestos defendants "a setoff for amounts: "received to date," "agreed to and to be received," "that can be obtained by application to existing bankruptcy trusts" and "that can be obtained from bankruptcy trusts expected to soon become available" Coulter v. AstenJohnson, 2008 WL 4103199 (Wash. Super Ct., May 30, 2008). The authors also address developments in Los Angeles where the judge presiding over asbestos cases issued a May 27 Third Amended General Order No. 29 requiring plaintiffs to file a case report disclosing basic product identification and exposure information, and to attach a "copy of each bankruptcy proof of claim relating to asbestos exposure which plaintiff(s) has submitted to any bankruptcy Trust."
As simple as those steps sound, most trial courts have not yet entered similar orders. Why? Some plaintiff lawyers have too often managed to defeat letting sunshine make a its way into asbestos trusts. Much more sunlight is needed.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Sunday, June 28, 2009
GM Agrees to Assume Future Product Liability Claims and Asbestos Plaintiffs File Deposition Notices for Treasury Department and GM Spokerspersons
The Wall Street Journal for June 29 is reporting that GM agreed to assume the financial burden of future product liability claims. The article, by Mike Spector. is here.
Meanwhile, Docket Number 2609 is a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice from counsel for an asbestos creditor to take depositions of persons designated to speak by the Treasury Department and GM regarding various facts, including the reasons for the structure of the GM deal. The deposition notice is well worth reading. It call for depositions beginning Monday morning at 10:00. The same lawyers at Caplin & Drysdale previously issued notices calling for depositions of persons submitting declarations on behalf of the government.
Meanwhile, Docket Number 2609 is a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice from counsel for an asbestos creditor to take depositions of persons designated to speak by the Treasury Department and GM regarding various facts, including the reasons for the structure of the GM deal. The deposition notice is well worth reading. It call for depositions beginning Monday morning at 10:00. The same lawyers at Caplin & Drysdale previously issued notices calling for depositions of persons submitting declarations on behalf of the government.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
More from NYT/ Ms. Kolata on Why Our Nation Fails to Find Multiple Ways to Manage or Cure Cancer
Ms. Gina Kolata is back with another important but depressing New York Times article on the failure of our national policy for addressing cancer. Her series started with a late April article. I mentioned it here in a post that provided links to sources showing that more people die in the US every two days due to cancer than died on 9/11/01, and that a careful, extended study showed that the direct costs of cancer treatment are exceed by indirect costs of cancer at a ration of about 2.3 to 1 by the indirect costs.
The gist of her new article is to demonstrate that our nation fails to fund research on new ideas and instead strongly tends to fund new research in old areas. Doing so of course has its advantages in that little risk is taken, but the article also explains that taking risks and following new ideas is often how we make real progress. Indeed, just think of where we might be if Dr. Salk had been stuck thinking in conventional ways. Ironically, the later online version of the Sunday NYT includes a new article reporting on success in battling cancer in animals through some unusual techniques developed in Australia that take advantage of leaks in tumor blood vessels to deliver minicells that mark the area for treatment.
For a dramatic, detailed and easy to read example of why new thinking is a MUST for cancer, read Dr. Folkman's War. http://www.amazon.com/Dr-Folkmans-War-Angiogenesis-Struggle/dp/0375502440
The book tells the story of how a stint doing pathology and seeing tiny tumors throughout bodies ultimately caused Dr. Judah Folkman to reach the profound insight that all solid tumors need blood vessels to grow, and that something in the body must turn on and off the ability to generate blood vessels. As the book details, Dr. Folkman and his ideas were rejected and indeed even ridiculed. But after many years , his unorthodox theories ere proven correct. Research continues today into how to delay or stop tumor growth using some of the principles he developed, and some promising results have been obtained.
In short, there is much to be done to create a strong national or global strategy for solving or managing the myriad types of cancer. Indeed, I've come to the view that all the walkathons and charities are in a way counterproductive. Why? Because they implicitly send the message that cancer has to be solved through relatively modest hard-earned donations instead of through a massive national and international funding of efforts to find cures for cancers.
Finding ways to cure or manage cancer should be a priority of our government for both objective and subjective reasons. On the objective side, the direct and indirect costs of cancer are huge as detailed by the study mentioned above, and our economy needs the short term and long term jobs that new science may create (which would blue collar jobs as well because fermenting yeast to grow medicines is much like brewing beer, except even cleaner). For subjective reasons to find answers for cancer, consider that every two days, over 4,000 people will die from cancer. Our government, however, has not spent hundreds of billions of dollars a year to avenge the thousands of the thousands of "homeland" cancer deaths that occur every day.
For data for cancer for 2009, see:
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/STT/STT_0.asp
The gist of her new article is to demonstrate that our nation fails to fund research on new ideas and instead strongly tends to fund new research in old areas. Doing so of course has its advantages in that little risk is taken, but the article also explains that taking risks and following new ideas is often how we make real progress. Indeed, just think of where we might be if Dr. Salk had been stuck thinking in conventional ways. Ironically, the later online version of the Sunday NYT includes a new article reporting on success in battling cancer in animals through some unusual techniques developed in Australia that take advantage of leaks in tumor blood vessels to deliver minicells that mark the area for treatment.
For a dramatic, detailed and easy to read example of why new thinking is a MUST for cancer, read Dr. Folkman's War. http://www.amazon.com/Dr-Folkmans-War-Angiogenesis-Struggle/dp/0375502440
The book tells the story of how a stint doing pathology and seeing tiny tumors throughout bodies ultimately caused Dr. Judah Folkman to reach the profound insight that all solid tumors need blood vessels to grow, and that something in the body must turn on and off the ability to generate blood vessels. As the book details, Dr. Folkman and his ideas were rejected and indeed even ridiculed. But after many years , his unorthodox theories ere proven correct. Research continues today into how to delay or stop tumor growth using some of the principles he developed, and some promising results have been obtained.
In short, there is much to be done to create a strong national or global strategy for solving or managing the myriad types of cancer. Indeed, I've come to the view that all the walkathons and charities are in a way counterproductive. Why? Because they implicitly send the message that cancer has to be solved through relatively modest hard-earned donations instead of through a massive national and international funding of efforts to find cures for cancers.
Finding ways to cure or manage cancer should be a priority of our government for both objective and subjective reasons. On the objective side, the direct and indirect costs of cancer are huge as detailed by the study mentioned above, and our economy needs the short term and long term jobs that new science may create (which would blue collar jobs as well because fermenting yeast to grow medicines is much like brewing beer, except even cleaner). For subjective reasons to find answers for cancer, consider that every two days, over 4,000 people will die from cancer. Our government, however, has not spent hundreds of billions of dollars a year to avenge the thousands of the thousands of "homeland" cancer deaths that occur every day.
For data for cancer for 2009, see:
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/STT/STT_0.asp
Efforts to Resolve GM Product Liability Claims Through Negotation with the Obama Administration - Will They Do Better Than the Asbestos Bankruptcies?
Non litigation alternatives are indeed being pursued in GM to try to settle pending and future product liability claims, as is evidenced by a Friday's June 26 Wall Street Journal article my Mike Spector and Jeffrey McCracken regarding state attorney generals trying to negotiate with the Obama administration over the treatment of product liability claims in GM. The article does not provide any specifics on where the money would come from, but my bet is still on the concept of asking the government to turn over some of its ownership rights in "new GM" to a product liability trust created to pay claims.
The article does not mention multiple key issues that would have to be addressed if a trust is created. One would be: how will someone decide whether or when future product liability payments would be made. Would the claims be made be made through a trust with money set aside to pay claims? Would claims be processed administratively without a trial ? Would the bankruptcy court delegate to state courts the job of trying cases to resolve claims through actual trials ?
Beyond those direct issues, consider also the important rights and interests of the myriad other entities who are routinely sucked into product liability cases with GM when cars are in crashes. Let's assume a trust is set up to pay future product liability claims from a financial base comprised of some cash and stock, as is typically done in asbestos bankruptcy trusts. If a trust is created, then multiple issues arise.
One issue when and how the trust coordinates with state court tort system claims and the rights of other tort system defendants. Suppose, for example, that a car crash victim driving a GM car claims that he is a quadriplegic because a seat malfunctioned. Assume also that the claimant cannot sue GM due to the bankruptcy court having issued an injunction purporting to prohibit future product liability claims against New GM, and old GM has no money. Suppose the quadriplegic does not sue either Old or New GM and instead files a state court lawsuit that names as defendants the entity that manufactured and sold the car seat system to GM, the manufacturer of a component of the seat, and the car dealer that sold the GM car.
In that state court lawsuit, can those defendants do what they would normally do in the state court tort system, which is to bring a contribution or indemnity claim against GM (or the trust) if GM designed and specified the car seat system and/or the characteristics of the component? What are the rights of the car dealer who argues that she should not have to pay any money because all she did is sell the car? Can her company obtain indemnity from that trust or GM ? Can the plaintiff file a claim against the trust and keep it a secret from the parties to the state court litigation on the grounds that processing a trust claim is "a settlement?" Can the plaintiff take the state court case to trial, win money and then later obtain additional money from the trust?
All of these issues are very real, and exemplify problems that have been dealt with badly in asbestos bankruptcy cases where the rights of co defendants have been given at best nominal treatment, and trusts have frequently failed to honor the rights of co defendants. The problems are exacerbated by the reality that many but not all members of the plaintiff"s bar have been gaming the overall compensation system by bringing a state court claims for asbestos injuries, but trying terribly hard to keep the state court defendants from learning anything about claims submitted to any of the many asbestos trusts that collectively hold something in the vicinity of $30 billion. The problems also are made worse by terms in many of the asbestos bankruptcy trusts that purport to allow the plaintiff's lawyers and their clients to resolve the state court claim in full and to then later bring claims against the trusts, thereby obtaining compensation twice in some but not all cases.
Why have these lousy situations emerged in asbestos bankruptcies ? There are a variety of answers and factors, including the plaintiff's bar and debtors trying to keep co defendants and insurers from being allowed to exert any rights in bankruptcy. Another problem is that the bankruptcy court lawyers and judges in general have little or no understanding of the intricacies of product liability claims. Yet another problem is that the bankruptcy code was not designed in terms of its intersection with product liability claims, in part because product liability as we know it today did not really take off and become a major issue until the 1970s. And, when an asbestos bankruptcy code section was added in 1994, the section was very poorly done and bears much of the blame for the asbestos bankruptcies. Yet another problem is that insurance that might be used to pay such claims is often compromised through "an insurance policy buyout" in which an insurance company agrees to pay a fixed amount of money in return for the insured company releasing all of its rights under the product liability insurance. To the dismay of product liability claimants, the money generated by such buyouts typically is not put into a trust and instead of the money may be used for any other purpose, including trying to stave off bankruptcy by paying fees to lawyers and/or investment bankers, or may be be used to pay off secured creditors, leaving no source of funds for product liability victims. And, cynics have said that bankruptcy courts are out of control and so pro-debtor that they will do anything to get a debtor out of chapter 11, including trampling the due process rights of co defendants and tort victims.
One hopes that a much better solution will be created for the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies. One hopes that a better solutions will then be implemented for past and future asbestos bankruptcy trusts. Some but not all of the existing asbestos trusts have failed to respect the rights of tort system of co defendants, and have left the remaining manufacturers to beat he financial burdens created by the bankruptcies of other defendants. This would be a great time to start fixing some of the myriad problems created by the intersection of "long tail liability" claims and chapter 11 cases.
Here are a key excerpts from the Wall Street Journal article:
"The case law is unclear and ambiguous on the issue of future product-liability claims. So when the case law is all over the map, a lot of times it makes sense for both sides to settle," said one administration official."
***
Last year, GM set aside $921 million for product-liability litigation, and in 2007 it had $1.1 billion available.
"Everyone agrees there has to be some access to the courts," said Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler, a Democrat who co-chaired Mr. Obama's presidential campaign in the state.
The auto task force has been caught off guard by the recent outcry from attorneys general and consumer groups. The task force modeled GM's bankruptcy plan after Chrysler's, without giving much weight to the potential fallout from leaving product-liability claims behind, said people familiar with the matter."
"In opposing GM's product-liability plan, state attorneys general are raising a number of complex legal issues, ranging from the power of federal bankruptcy courts to supercede state law to constitutional due-process rights of Americans to sue GM if they're injured by the auto maker's vehicles in the months and years ahead."
The article does not mention multiple key issues that would have to be addressed if a trust is created. One would be: how will someone decide whether or when future product liability payments would be made. Would the claims be made be made through a trust with money set aside to pay claims? Would claims be processed administratively without a trial ? Would the bankruptcy court delegate to state courts the job of trying cases to resolve claims through actual trials ?
Beyond those direct issues, consider also the important rights and interests of the myriad other entities who are routinely sucked into product liability cases with GM when cars are in crashes. Let's assume a trust is set up to pay future product liability claims from a financial base comprised of some cash and stock, as is typically done in asbestos bankruptcy trusts. If a trust is created, then multiple issues arise.
One issue when and how the trust coordinates with state court tort system claims and the rights of other tort system defendants. Suppose, for example, that a car crash victim driving a GM car claims that he is a quadriplegic because a seat malfunctioned. Assume also that the claimant cannot sue GM due to the bankruptcy court having issued an injunction purporting to prohibit future product liability claims against New GM, and old GM has no money. Suppose the quadriplegic does not sue either Old or New GM and instead files a state court lawsuit that names as defendants the entity that manufactured and sold the car seat system to GM, the manufacturer of a component of the seat, and the car dealer that sold the GM car.
In that state court lawsuit, can those defendants do what they would normally do in the state court tort system, which is to bring a contribution or indemnity claim against GM (or the trust) if GM designed and specified the car seat system and/or the characteristics of the component? What are the rights of the car dealer who argues that she should not have to pay any money because all she did is sell the car? Can her company obtain indemnity from that trust or GM ? Can the plaintiff file a claim against the trust and keep it a secret from the parties to the state court litigation on the grounds that processing a trust claim is "a settlement?" Can the plaintiff take the state court case to trial, win money and then later obtain additional money from the trust?
All of these issues are very real, and exemplify problems that have been dealt with badly in asbestos bankruptcy cases where the rights of co defendants have been given at best nominal treatment, and trusts have frequently failed to honor the rights of co defendants. The problems are exacerbated by the reality that many but not all members of the plaintiff"s bar have been gaming the overall compensation system by bringing a state court claims for asbestos injuries, but trying terribly hard to keep the state court defendants from learning anything about claims submitted to any of the many asbestos trusts that collectively hold something in the vicinity of $30 billion. The problems also are made worse by terms in many of the asbestos bankruptcy trusts that purport to allow the plaintiff's lawyers and their clients to resolve the state court claim in full and to then later bring claims against the trusts, thereby obtaining compensation twice in some but not all cases.
Why have these lousy situations emerged in asbestos bankruptcies ? There are a variety of answers and factors, including the plaintiff's bar and debtors trying to keep co defendants and insurers from being allowed to exert any rights in bankruptcy. Another problem is that the bankruptcy court lawyers and judges in general have little or no understanding of the intricacies of product liability claims. Yet another problem is that the bankruptcy code was not designed in terms of its intersection with product liability claims, in part because product liability as we know it today did not really take off and become a major issue until the 1970s. And, when an asbestos bankruptcy code section was added in 1994, the section was very poorly done and bears much of the blame for the asbestos bankruptcies. Yet another problem is that insurance that might be used to pay such claims is often compromised through "an insurance policy buyout" in which an insurance company agrees to pay a fixed amount of money in return for the insured company releasing all of its rights under the product liability insurance. To the dismay of product liability claimants, the money generated by such buyouts typically is not put into a trust and instead of the money may be used for any other purpose, including trying to stave off bankruptcy by paying fees to lawyers and/or investment bankers, or may be be used to pay off secured creditors, leaving no source of funds for product liability victims. And, cynics have said that bankruptcy courts are out of control and so pro-debtor that they will do anything to get a debtor out of chapter 11, including trampling the due process rights of co defendants and tort victims.
One hopes that a much better solution will be created for the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies. One hopes that a better solutions will then be implemented for past and future asbestos bankruptcy trusts. Some but not all of the existing asbestos trusts have failed to respect the rights of tort system of co defendants, and have left the remaining manufacturers to beat he financial burdens created by the bankruptcies of other defendants. This would be a great time to start fixing some of the myriad problems created by the intersection of "long tail liability" claims and chapter 11 cases.
Here are a key excerpts from the Wall Street Journal article:
"The case law is unclear and ambiguous on the issue of future product-liability claims. So when the case law is all over the map, a lot of times it makes sense for both sides to settle," said one administration official."
***
Last year, GM set aside $921 million for product-liability litigation, and in 2007 it had $1.1 billion available.
"Everyone agrees there has to be some access to the courts," said Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler, a Democrat who co-chaired Mr. Obama's presidential campaign in the state.
The auto task force has been caught off guard by the recent outcry from attorneys general and consumer groups. The task force modeled GM's bankruptcy plan after Chrysler's, without giving much weight to the potential fallout from leaving product-liability claims behind, said people familiar with the matter."
"In opposing GM's product-liability plan, state attorneys general are raising a number of complex legal issues, ranging from the power of federal bankruptcy courts to supercede state law to constitutional due-process rights of Americans to sue GM if they're injured by the auto maker's vehicles in the months and years ahead."
Global Warming Litigation - California Dismisses its Claims on Appeal
Here is Walter Olson's recent post linking to articles and underlying documents regarding California's voluntary dismissal of its appeal in its global warming lawsuit against car makers. Here, Jenner & Block provides some older commentary on other rulings in the area. For pro plaintiff coverage, see the warminglaw blog that is here and an old post here includes a link to the district court's opinion.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Two New Examples of Winning/Avoiding Litigation in Other Forums - Autism Treatment/Insurers and Chinese Drywall
More and more, entities with a stake in actual or potential litigation are taking different paths to an outcome regarding the costs suffered by persons harmed by defective products. My personal bet is that soon there will be requests to Congress to use some of the government's shares of New Chrysler and New GM to provide the financial basis to create a fund to pay the product liability claimants against Chrysler or GM for whom apparently will be no money to pay whichever of the claims are valid. Indeed, in a hearing yesterday, tort claimants made no forward progress with Judge Gerber.
Two recent examples of creative solutions are set out below. In one, legislators are asking for tax deductions for homeowners with Chinese drywall problems. In the other example, states have specifically legislated that health insurers must pay for some autism treatments that insurers such as Blue Cross of Michigan had refused to cover, and now Blue Cross has agreed to settle the claims AND is now selling a special form of coverage for intensive autism therapy. The message of course is: think creatively. See below for more specifics.
_______________________________________________________________Here is the link to the article on the Chinese drywall.
Lawmakers Ask IRS for Chinese Drywall DeductionWashington, D.C.(June 22, 2009)
By WebCPA StaffFour Southern congressmen have written to the IRS asking for casualty loss deductions for homeowners whose property has been damaged by installations of defective Chinese drywall.Sens. Mark Warner, D-Va.; Jim Webb, D-Va.; and Bill Nelson, D-Fla., along with Rep. Glenn Nye, D-Va., wrote to Floyd Williams, national director of legislative affairs at the IRS, to point out the problems that their constituents have experienced with the drywall.Sen. Jim WebbThey noted that many homes with Chinese drywall have shown evidence of extreme corrosion of pipes, air conditioning coils and electrical appliances.
________________________________________________________________
Here (very detailed) and here are links to articles about autism and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan
In a settlement, Michigan insurance company agrees to pay for autism treatments Tresa Baldas June 22, 2009In what plaintiffs' lawyers are calling a landmark autism case, a Michigan insurance company has agreed to reimburse at least 100 families for costs involving treatments for their autistic children.The $1 million class action settlement from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan comes amid a legislative wave in which a growing number of a states are passing laws that require insurance companies to pay for autism treatments and screenings. To date, 13 states have such laws, the most recent being Connecticut, Colorado and Nevada. New Jersey is currently considering an autism bill, and Pennsylvania's law goes into effect July 1.
Two recent examples of creative solutions are set out below. In one, legislators are asking for tax deductions for homeowners with Chinese drywall problems. In the other example, states have specifically legislated that health insurers must pay for some autism treatments that insurers such as Blue Cross of Michigan had refused to cover, and now Blue Cross has agreed to settle the claims AND is now selling a special form of coverage for intensive autism therapy. The message of course is: think creatively. See below for more specifics.
_______________________________________________________________Here is the link to the article on the Chinese drywall.
Lawmakers Ask IRS for Chinese Drywall DeductionWashington, D.C.(June 22, 2009)
By WebCPA StaffFour Southern congressmen have written to the IRS asking for casualty loss deductions for homeowners whose property has been damaged by installations of defective Chinese drywall.Sens. Mark Warner, D-Va.; Jim Webb, D-Va.; and Bill Nelson, D-Fla., along with Rep. Glenn Nye, D-Va., wrote to Floyd Williams, national director of legislative affairs at the IRS, to point out the problems that their constituents have experienced with the drywall.Sen. Jim WebbThey noted that many homes with Chinese drywall have shown evidence of extreme corrosion of pipes, air conditioning coils and electrical appliances.
________________________________________________________________
Here (very detailed) and here are links to articles about autism and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan
In a settlement, Michigan insurance company agrees to pay for autism treatments Tresa Baldas June 22, 2009In what plaintiffs' lawyers are calling a landmark autism case, a Michigan insurance company has agreed to reimburse at least 100 families for costs involving treatments for their autistic children.The $1 million class action settlement from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan comes amid a legislative wave in which a growing number of a states are passing laws that require insurance companies to pay for autism treatments and screenings. To date, 13 states have such laws, the most recent being Connecticut, Colorado and Nevada. New Jersey is currently considering an autism bill, and Pennsylvania's law goes into effect July 1.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Argentine Manufacturing Plant Workers Assert Asbestos Exposure Claims Against DuPont In Delaware
Per this article from Delaware Online:
June 25, 2009
DuPont sued over asbestos in ArgentinaEx-Lycra plant workers say they were exposed
By ANDREW EDER and AARON NATHANS
The News Journal
DuPont Co. exposed workers in Argentina to asbestos until the late 1990s despite knowing the risks of the material, according to three lawsuits filed Wednesday in Delaware.
The lawsuits came from former workers at a Lycra spandex plant in Mercedes, Argentina, that was part of DuPont until the sale of its textile unit in 2004.
DuPont knew that exposure to asbestos could harm workers as early as 1964, the complaints said, but the company continued to use asbestos in the heat pipes and machinery of its Argentina facilities until the late 1990s.
The workers, Cristian Dematei, Juan Carlos Laborda and Ceferino Ramirez, are represented by the Wilmington law firm Jacobs & Crumplar. The law firm said more lawsuits would follow.
Dematei, who worked at the facility for 11 years, suffers from asbestosis, a chronic condition that causes shortness of breath and an increased risk of lung cancer, the complaint said.
Laborda worked at the plant from 1968 to 1980, according to his complaint, and suffers from asbestosis and asbestos-related lung cancer.
Ramirez worked at the facility for 32 years before retiring in 1993. He has been diagnosed with asbestos-related laryngeal cancer and asbestosis, his lawsuit said.
The lawsuits allege that workers were never warned of the dangers of asbestos exposure or given respiratory protection.
Amanda Velazquez, asbestos medical paralegal for Jacobs & Crumplar, said: "They need to break the double standard," referring to DuPont stopping using asbestos in U.S. plants earlier.
DuPont spokesman Dan Turner said, "While we have not had the opportunity to review the filing yet, and cannot comment on the specifics, we do find it puzzling that the plaintiff's attorneys have filed the compliant in Delaware rather than the country of origin. The safety and health of our employees, our neighbors and our community has and continues to be DuPont's highest priority."
Velazquez said it makes sense to sue a company in the place where it is based.
June 25, 2009
DuPont sued over asbestos in ArgentinaEx-Lycra plant workers say they were exposed
By ANDREW EDER and AARON NATHANS
The News Journal
DuPont Co. exposed workers in Argentina to asbestos until the late 1990s despite knowing the risks of the material, according to three lawsuits filed Wednesday in Delaware.
The lawsuits came from former workers at a Lycra spandex plant in Mercedes, Argentina, that was part of DuPont until the sale of its textile unit in 2004.
DuPont knew that exposure to asbestos could harm workers as early as 1964, the complaints said, but the company continued to use asbestos in the heat pipes and machinery of its Argentina facilities until the late 1990s.
The workers, Cristian Dematei, Juan Carlos Laborda and Ceferino Ramirez, are represented by the Wilmington law firm Jacobs & Crumplar. The law firm said more lawsuits would follow.
Dematei, who worked at the facility for 11 years, suffers from asbestosis, a chronic condition that causes shortness of breath and an increased risk of lung cancer, the complaint said.
Laborda worked at the plant from 1968 to 1980, according to his complaint, and suffers from asbestosis and asbestos-related lung cancer.
Ramirez worked at the facility for 32 years before retiring in 1993. He has been diagnosed with asbestos-related laryngeal cancer and asbestosis, his lawsuit said.
The lawsuits allege that workers were never warned of the dangers of asbestos exposure or given respiratory protection.
Amanda Velazquez, asbestos medical paralegal for Jacobs & Crumplar, said: "They need to break the double standard," referring to DuPont stopping using asbestos in U.S. plants earlier.
DuPont spokesman Dan Turner said, "While we have not had the opportunity to review the filing yet, and cannot comment on the specifics, we do find it puzzling that the plaintiff's attorneys have filed the compliant in Delaware rather than the country of origin. The safety and health of our employees, our neighbors and our community has and continues to be DuPont's highest priority."
Velazquez said it makes sense to sue a company in the place where it is based.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
