Cases of Note

Environmental

We defended a muriatic acid manufacturer against claims asserted by a Plaintiff who allegedly sustained burns when the acid leaked from its packaging. Plaintiff claimed the manufacturer failed to properly package the product and failed to attach proper warnings. We were able to negotiate a nominal settlement of Plaintiff’s claims after establishing the package contained more than adequate warnings and any problems with packaging were the result of mishandling by the retailer.
We defended an environmental remediation company against claims the Plaintiff was exposed to chemicals used during asbestos abatement at Plaintiff’s residence. We diligently asserted the defense that Plaintiff could not prove the existence of an injury resulting from the exposure and successfully resolved the case for less than the costs of defense.
We defended a specialty contractor in a lawsuit arising from an anhydrous ammonia leak at an Alabama power generation facility. Plaintiff was a forklift operator at the facility where the leak occurred and died due to cerebral edema caused by the exposure. We successfully argued the contractor was not responsible for the leak and negotiated a voluntary dismissal of the claims.
We represented a contractor in a lawsuit arising out of the owner’s alleged exposure to thermal and moisture protection chemicals used during construction. Plaintiff claimed personal injuries as a result of the alleged exposure. We argued the alleged injury pre-dated the exposure and, even if they did not, the claims were barred by the Statute of Limitations.
We represented a manufacturer in a lawsuit arising out of a purchasers’ alleged exposure to formaldehyde contained in flooring products. Plaintiffs alleged personal injuries and mental anguish. We argued there is no evidence the products contained formaldehyde when sold and the source of the chemical was from other products in the residence.
We represented a supplier in a case involving an alleged exposure to dangerous chemicals at a paper mill. Plaintiff alleged the supplier’s failure to warn against exposure to the chemicals resulted in permanent injury. We argued there was no duty to warn Plaintiff of the risks, because the purchaser was a sophisticated user with a warning system already in place. We were able to resolve the case for a nominal amount.
We represented a synthetic fuel facility against claims that coal dust residue was allowed to migrate off-site, causing personal injury, including lung cancer, which resulted in the Plaintiff’s death during litigation. We successfully argued there was no evidence Defendant allowed coal dust to migrate off-site and no evidence Plaintiffs’ injuries were a result of exposure to coal dust. After establishing these facts, we were able to negotiate a reasonable settlement and dismissal of all claims against Defendant.
We represented a colorant manufacturer in claims it failed to warn Plaintiffs of dangers associated with exposure to its product. Plaintiffs claimed the colorant used in colored gardening mulch was hazardous and caused respiratory injuries. We argued any hazards associated with the colorant had been properly disclosed on the Manufacturer’s Safety Data Sheet included with the colorant and Defendant could not legally be held responsible for the third-party’s failure to include the warning on its mulch packing. The Court agreed and granted a motion for summary judgment.
We defended a valve distributor regarding claims its product was improperly calibrated and dangerous chemicals leaked as a result. We successfully established the damages sought were excessive and the leak was actually the result of a defective process design. We were able to negotiate a reasonable settlement based on these arguments.
We represented the owner and landlord of an apartment complex in multiple lawsuits involving alleged mold exposure at the apartment. Plaintiffs claimed personal injuries and emotional distress as a result of the alleged exposure. Through expert testimony, we established that no elevated mold levels existed or that the Plaintiffs had no adverse reaction to the mold.

We represented a synthetic fuel facility against claims that coal dust residue was allowed to migrate off-site, causing property damage. We successfully argued there was no evidence Defendant allowed coal dust to migrate off-site. After establishing these facts, we were able to negotiate a reasonable settlement and dismissal of all claims against Defendant.
We defended an environmental remediation contractor involved in the cleanup of a spill of Mercaptan. Over 500 residential Plaintiffs claimed the spill caused contaminants from the site to migrate to groundwater, creating a noxious odor that diminished the value of their property. We successfully resolved the case for the environmental contractor by using expert testimony to establish no liability existed.
We represented a general contractor in an industrial construction case in which Plaintiff landowners claimed property damages as a result of the subcontractors’ use of heavy construction equipment during the construction. The case involved extensive property damages claimed by Plaintiffs and numerous contractual indemnification claims between various defendants and non-parties.
We represented an engineering and construction firm in a multi-Plaintiff case wherein Plaintiffs claimed our client solicited them to participate in cleanup of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, and Plaintiffs’ vessels were contaminated as a result of exposure to oil spill. We argued our client was entitled to a defense and indemnification from the company that hired our client to solicit volunteers to participate in the cleanup. We were able to successfully obtain a defense and indemnification on behalf of our client.
We represented a Construction Program Management Company in a multi-Plaintiff lawsuit in which Plaintiffs claimed dust from a construction site caused diminution in value of their property. We argued our client was not responsible for the work that allegedly caused Plaintiffs’ injuries.
We represented a contractor in a multi-plaintiff lawsuit in which Plaintiffs alleged the contractor improperly constructed a landfill and negligently deposited coal fly ash at the landfill that contaminated the surrounding property. Plaintiffs claimed diminished property value and the loss of enjoyment and use of their homes. We were able to settle the claims for less than the cost of defense.
We represented the owner and operator of a regulated water and wastewater system in a multi-plaintiff suit. Plaintiffs alleged our client allowed millions of gallons of raw and untreated sewage to discharge from a sewer treatment facility into a creek running along Plaintiffs’ residences, causing property damage. We argued the statute of limitations barred Plaintiffs’ claims and the discharge was not attributable to our client’s actions. We were able to successfully resolve Plaintiffs’ claims.
We represented a producer of synthetic fibers in a class action complaint. Plaintiffs alleged our client polluted farm land, grass lands, and water supplies with perfluorooctanioc acid, perfluorooctane sulfonate, and other perfluorochemicals by contributing these chemicals to waste sludge deposited onto the Plaintiffs’ properties. We argued our client did not owe any duty to Plaintiffs, but even if our client did owe a duty, the chemicals released did not cause the property damage suffered by the Plaintiffs.
We represented an environmental action contractor retained to clean up underground petroleum and diesel tank releases in an action brought by multiple nearby land owners. Plaintiffs argued the remedial technology utilized by the contractor volatized dangerous chemicals and allowed them to be dispersed into the air. We filed summary judgment and successfully negotiated a nominal settlement to resolve Plaintiffs’ claims.
We represented an industrial facility in a multi-Plaintiff case wherein Plaintiffs claimed our client emitted toxic materials causing damage to Plaintiffs’ property. We successfully resolved the case by establishing no emission exceedances of the facility’s operating permits had occurred and any exceedances of the operating parameters were de minimis in nature.

We defended an environmental remediation contractor involved in the clean up of a spill of Mercaptan. Over 500 residential Plaintiffs claimed the spill caused contaminants from the site to migrate to groundwater, creating a noxious odor that diminished the value of their property and caused personal injuries. We successfully resolved the case for the environmental contractor by using expert testimony to establish no liability existed.
We represented a contractor in regards to carbon monoxide exposure claims brought by seventeen residents of an apartment building. Plaintiffs alleged the contractor negligently performed maintenance and repairs to an onsite boiler and they suffered in excess of $20 million in extensive personal injuries as a result.
We engaged in extensive expert discovery and argued the contractor’s scope of work did not relate to the alleged defective condition and was not responsible for Plaintiffs’ alleged damages.
We represented a general contractor in an industrial construction case in which Plaintiff landowners claimed property damages and personal injury damages as a result of the subcontractors’ use of heavy construction equipment during the construction. The case involved extensive property and personal injury damages claimed by Plaintiffs and numerous contractual indemnification claims between various defendants and non-parties.
We represented the owner and landlord of an apartment complex in multiple lawsuits involving alleged mold exposure at the apartment. Plaintiffs claimed out of pocket expenses, lost wages, personal injuries and emotional distress as a result of the alleged exposure. Through expert testimony, we established that no elevated mold levels existed or that the Plaintiffs had no adverse reaction to the mold.
We represented an engineering and construction firm in a multi-Plaintiff case wherein Plaintiffs claimed our client solicited them to participate in cleanup of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, and Plaintiffs’ vessels were contaminated as a result of exposure to oil spill. We argued our client was entitled to a defense and indemnification from the company that hired our client to solicit volunteers to participate in the cleanup. We were able to successfully obtain a defense and indemnification on behalf of our client.
We represented a Construction Program Management Company in a multi-Plaintiff lawsuit in which Plaintiffs claimed dust from a construction site caused diminution in value of property and personal injury. We argued our client was not responsible for the work that allegedly caused Plaintiffs’ injuries.
We represented a contractor in a multi-plaintiff lawsuit in which Plaintiffs alleged the contractor improperly constructed a landfill and negligently deposited coal fly ash at the landfill that contaminated the surrounding property. Plaintiffs claimed personal injury, diminished property value and the loss of enjoyment and use of their homes. We were able to settle the claims for less than the cost of defense.
We represented the owner and operator of a regulated water and wastewater system in a multi-plaintiff suit. Plaintiffs alleged our client allowed millions of gallons of raw and untreated sewage to discharge from a sewer treatment facility into a creek running along Plaintiffs’ residences. We argued the statute of limitations barred Plaintiffs’ claims and the discharge was not attributable to our client’s actions.
We were able to successfully resolve Plaintiffs’ claims.
We represented a producer of synthetic fibers in a class action complaint. Plaintiffs alleged our client polluted farm land, grass lands, and water supplies with perfluorooctanioc acid, perfluorooctane sulfonate, and other perfluorochemicals by contributing these chemicals to waste sludge deposited onto the Plaintiffs’ properties. We argued our client did not owe any duty to Plaintiffs, but even if our client did owe a duty, the chemicals released did not cause the injuries suffered by the Plaintiffs.
We represented an environmental action contractor retained to clean up underground petroleum and diesel tank releases in an action brought by multiple nearby land owners. Plaintiffs argued the remedial technology utilized by the contractor volatized dangerous chemicals and allowed them to be dispersed into the air. We filed summary judgment arguing Plaintiff could not prove any increased exposure as a result of the alleged conduct and successfully negotiated a nominal settlement to resolve Plaintiffs’ claims.

We represented an environmental consulting firm hired by a road sign manufacturing company to obtain the requisite permitting for production of the signs. TDEC notified the company of a violation of its Operating Permit, allegedly as a result of errors in the environmental firm’s calculations relating to painting and coating used in production. We successfully argued the incorrect reports were the result of undisclosed changes to the paint and any violation was a good faith mistake.
We represented an environmental services company regarding the company’s collection, processing and marketing of used oil and used oil related services at a Superfund cleanup site. The EPA investigated the company’s activities to determine what liability, if any, the company had for the underlying site cleanup. We provided assistance responding to the EPA’s investigation and established our client had no responsibility for the cleanup.
We represented an international consulting firm in a case involving environmental due diligence services performed by firm. The due diligence services involved an assessment of all permits required under state or federal law. The EPA and ADEM argued the owner required additional permits related to wastewater discharges.
We argued all required permits had been obtained and the facility’s production of wastewater did not require additional permitting. We negotiated a reasonable resolution of the claim.
We represented an industrial facility in its dealings with TDEC and the EPA in regards to alleged violations of its Operating Permit. We successfully resolved the case by establishing no emission exceedances had occurred and any exceedances of the operating parameters were de minimis in nature.
We represented an environmental action contractor retained to clean up an underground petroleum tank release. The Water Division of ADEM launched an investigation and issued a notice of violation regarding the groundwater contamination. Along with our experts, we developed a system discharge infiltration plan that was approved by ADEM and performed groundwater monitoring pursuant to the plan to avoid further penalty.
We represented a disaster response and derailment services company in a Clean Water Act Citizen Suit. Plaintiffs alleged our client rebuilt a portion of a train track following an oil spill using soil contaminated with oil, contaminating the groundwater in violation of the Clean Water Act. We argued the soil did not contain any oil and successfully resolved the case.
We represented a contractor in regard to Clean Water Act claims. Plaintiffs alleged the contractor contaminated the groundwater near the contractor’s construction site with mercury in violation of the Clean Water Act. We argued mercury did not leave the site based on geological studies showing the soil in the area contained high levels of naturally occurring mercury. After being provided this evidence, Plaintiffs never filed suit and no penalties were levied.
We represented a transportation company in regards to claims the company was transporting hazardous material without proper ADEM permits. We argued ADEM did not classify the material being transported as hazardous, and established this regulatory classification through expert testimony. ADEM took no enforcement action as a result.
We represented an operations and management water solutions company in an action for property and personal injury damages relating to 22 Plaintiffs’ consumption and use of allegedly unsuitable water in violation of local rules and regulations, as well as ADEM regulations. Plaintiffs contended Defendants failed to notify the community the drinking water may be unsuitable for consumption. We successfully negotiated a resolution of all 22 Plaintiffs’ claims.
We represented an environmental contractor in regard to a chemical spill at a natural gas facility. The spill resulted in an investigation and various studies by the EPA and ADEM, both in regards to the spill and associated clean up. We successfully resolved the case by using expert testimony to establish the clean up met all industry standards and no fines were levied associated with the clean up.

We defended an environmental remediation company against claims related to alleged exposure to noxious fumes, odors and hazardous particulates emitted from cleanup activity on the company’s premises. Plaintiff’s claims arose from the company’s facility being used as a filtration site for oily water collected after the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion and oil spill. We were able to successfully negotiate a voluntary dismissal of the claims against our client on the basis there was no evidence the alleged fumes could be traced back to defendant’s premises.
We defended a muriatic acid manufacturer against claims asserted by a Plaintiff who allegedly sustained burns when the acid leaked from its packaging. Plaintiff claimed the manufacturer failed to properly package the product and failed to attach proper warnings. We were able to negotiate a nominal settlement of Plaintiff’s claims after establishing the package contained more than adequate warnings and any problems with packaging were the result of mishandling by the retailer.
We defended an environmental remediation company against claims the Plaintiff was exposed to chemicals used during asbestos abatement at Plaintiff’s residence. We diligently asserted the defense that Plaintiff could not prove the existence of an injury resulting from the exposure and successfully resolved the case for less than the costs of defense.
We defended a specialty contractor in a lawsuit arising from an anhydrous ammonia leak at an Alabama power generation facility. Plaintiff was a forklift operator at the facility where the leak occurred and died due to cerebral edema caused by the exposure. We successfully argued the contractor was not responsible for the leak and negotiated a voluntary dismissal of the claims.
We represented a contractor in a lawsuit arising out of the owner’s alleged exposure to thermal and moisture protection chemicals used during construction. Plaintiff claimed lost wages, personal injuries and emotional distress as a result of the alleged exposure. We argued the alleged injury pre-dated the exposure and, even if they did not, the claims were barred by the Statute of Limitations.
We represented a manufacturer in a lawsuit arising out of a purchasers’ alleged exposure to formaldehyde contained in flooring products. Plaintiffs alleged lost income, compensatory damages for clean-up and removal of the allegedly defective product, personal injuries and mental anguish. We argued there is no evidence the products contained formaldehyde when sold and the source of the chemical was from other products in the residence.
We represented a supplier in a case involving an alleged exposure to dangerous chemicals at a paper mill. Plaintiff alleged the supplier’s failure to warn against exposure to the chemicals resulted in permanent injury. We argued there was no duty to warn Plaintiff of the risks, because the purchaser was a sophisticated user with a warning system already in place. We were able to resolve the case for a nominal amount.
We represented a synthetic fuel facility against claims that coal dust residue was allowed to migrate off-site, causing property damage and personal injury, including lung cancer, which resulted in the Plaintiff’s death during litigation. We successfully argued there was no evidence Defendant allowed coal dust to migrate off-site and no evidence Plaintiffs’ injuries were a result of exposure to coal dust. After establishing these facts, we were able to negotiate a reasonable settlement and dismissal of all claims against Defendant.
We represented a colorant manufacturer in claims it failed to warn Plaintiffs of dangers associated with exposure to its product. Plaintiffs claimed the colorant used in colored gardening mulch was hazardous and caused respiratory injuries. We argued any hazards associated with the colorant had been properly disclosed on the Manufacturer’s Safety Data Sheet included with the colorant and Defendant could not legally be held responsible for the third-party’s failure to include the warning on its mulch packing. The Court agreed and granted a motion for summary judgment.
We defended a valve distributor regarding claims its product was improperly calibrated and dangerous chemicals leaked as a result. We successfully established the damages sought were excessive and the leak was actually the result of a defective process design. We were able to negotiate a reasonable settlement based on these arguments.

Environmental

Cases of Note

Contact

Let’s talk about what our firm can do for you.