lawsuits Archive
Asbestos News Roundup: 5.10.12 – Car Mechanic Asbestos Exposure
May 10th, 2012. By LucyC
A roundup of recent asbestos-related news and information that you should be aware of. An ongoing list of reported asbestos hot spots in the US from the Asbestos News Roundup archive appears on our asbestos map.
Car mechanics—the unsung heroes that keep us mobile—are among the groups of people who are at risk and were at risk for asbestos exposure. This is because brake pads and liners were made with asbestos. Auto mechanics who worked with grinding machines to smooth out those brake liners and pads, would have been exposed to asbestos.
According to a study by the Environmental Protection Agency that looked at the risk for asbestos exposure during regrinding of old brake linings, as many as 7 million asbestos fibers per cubic meter can become airborne and saturate the area around the grinding machine, while it’s in use. If the mechanic was grinding new brake pads, the exposure was estimated at 5 million asbestos fibers per cubic meter.
These fibers would be inhaled, not just by the people working the machines but also by anyone nearby. If this type of exposure was routine—it would or could result in asbestos disease such as asbestos mesothelioma, asbestosis and worse.
In a ruling this week in San Francisco, four asbestos lawsuits brought by mechanics and their families in 2007 and 2008 against the manufacturer of a brake shoe grinding machine, have been reinstated. All the mechanics had developed asbestos disease.
Asbestos Lawsuits
San Francisco, CA: Four lawsuits filed by asbestos victims, against a manufacturer of brake shoe grinding machines, have been reinstated by a state appeals court in San Francisco. The lawsuits claim that the machines released the lethal fibers from brake linings. The lawsuits were filed in 2007 and 2008, by a former mechanic who suffers from asbestosis and by families of three people who, after years of exposure to asbestos, died of asbestos-related cancer.
All the plaintiffs allege the asbestos was generated from brake shoe linings by grinding machines made by Hennessy Industries, the defendant in the lawsuits. Hennessy, based in Tennessee, manufactures wheel service equipment.
This latest ruling effectively overturns an earlier decision made by Superior Court Judge Harold Kahn in June 2010, which dismissed the four asbestos lawsuits, based on Kahn’s ruling that asbestos was not used in by Hennessy in its machines, and so was not responsible for the asbestos illness and injuries detailed in the lawsuits.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the First District Court of Appeal, having reviewed the lawsuits, stated the sole purpose of Hennessy’s machines was to grind brake linings, inevitably releasing the asbestos they contained. “When used as designed and intended, Hennessy’s machines caused the release of the toxic agent,” said Presiding Justice Barbara Jones in the 3-0 ruling.” (sfgate.com)
Jefferson County, TX: The daughter of the late Joyce Venable has filed an asbestos lawsuit alleging Chevron USA and Texaco, exposed her father to asbestos. The lawsuit states “As a result of such exposure, Joyce Venable developed an asbestos-related disease, esophageal cancer, from which he died a painful and terrible death on May 23, 2010.”
According to the lawsuit, Venable was employed by Texaco in Jefferson County, where he was exposed to asbestos. The lawsuit claims that Chevron USA and Texaco knew for decades that asbestos products were harmful and still allowed their employees to work with them without warning. (setexasrecord.com)
Charleston, WV: A couple from Florida is suing 30 companies they claim are responsible for a malignant mesothelioma diagnosis of Barbara E. Amick. Mrs. Amick was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, according to the lawsuit, on December 13, 2011.
The asbestos lawsuit alleges the 39 defendants are responsible for the diagnosis because they exposed her to asbestos during her employment in the accounts and sales departments from 1952 until 1977.
Amick claims she was further exposed to asbestos during home renovations in the 1950s and 1960s at her and her husband’s home in Vienna, WV.
According to the lawsuit, the actions of the defendants were negligent. Amick and her husband, Eldon E. Amick, are seeking compensatory and punitive damages with pre- and post-judgment interest. The 39 companies named as defendants in the suit are: Allied Glove Corporation; American Electric Power Company, Inc.; Brand Insulations, Inc.; CBS Corp.; Certainteed Corporation; Copes-Vulcan, Inc.; Crane Co.; Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc.; Ebasco Services Incorporated; Fairmont Supply Company; Famous Furnace & Supply Co.; F.B. Wright Company; FMC Corporation; Flowserve US, Inc.; General Electric Company; General Refractories Company; George V. Hamilton, Inc.; Georgia-Pacific, LLC; Grinnell Corporation; Goulds Pumps, Inc.; IMO Industries, Inc.; Ingersoll Rand Company; International Harvester Company; I.U. North America, Inc.; J.H. France Refractories Company; McJunkin Corporation; Mahoning Valley Supply Co.; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; Nitro Industrial Coverings, Inc.; Ohio Valley Electric Corporation; Pittsburgh Gage & Supply Company; Safety First Industries, Inc.; SepCo Corporation; Spirax SarCo Company, Inc.; Tasco Insulations, Inc.; Union Carbide Corporation; Vimasco Corporation; Warren Pumps, Inc.; and Yarway Corporation.
Tennis Balls Get their Fuzz Up in Top Seed Lawsuit
May 7th, 2012. By AbiK
We’re over a month away from Wimbledon, but there’s plenty of action on the court for tennis fans. Make that in the court as Penn delivers an offensive lob over to Dunlap in the form of a false advertising lawsuit. Seems Dunlap has had the balls (too easy, had to take it) to dub itself the “World’s No. 1 Ball” and the company also claims to have a 70% share of the worldwide tennis ball market. Apparently, Penn (owned by Head USA, Inc.) doesn’t agree.
Note, fwiw, Penn dubs itself as “America’s No. 1 Selling Ball”.
The tennis ball lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Connecticut also includes charges that Dunlap had previously agreed to stop using “No. 1″ in its advertising, but hasn’t done so.
For those who are interested, the United States Tennis Association (USTA) publishes a list of “USTA-approved” tennis balls each year. And, in true diplomatic fashion, the list of brands is shown in alphabetical order—clearly they’re not stepping into the clay, er fray, by showing any favoritism to either ball brand.
No word from Wilson in the matter—but let’s face it, they had their hands full last week making commemorative NFL Draft footballs. And Prince? Well, they just filed for bankruptcy.
Week Adjourned: 5.4.12 – iTunes, Asbestos, Yaz Birth Control
May 4th, 2012. By LucyC
Top Class Actions
“Whataya Want from Me”—how about a refund! Is Apple taking a bite out of you? Robert Herskowitz thinks they might be. He filed a federal consumer fraud class action lawsuit against Apple this week, alleging iTunes double bills for purchases from its e-Stores and refuses to issue refunds to customers who are affected. Nice.
In his iTunes lawsuit, Herskowitz claims he bought a single song from the iTunes store for $1.29, for which Apple charged him twice. According to the lawsuit, when he brought the error to Apple’s attention, he says, the company responded: “Your request for ‘Whataya Want from Me’ was carefully considered; however, according to the iTunes Store Terms of Sale, all purchases made on the iTunes store are ineligible for refund. This policy matches Apple’s refund policies and provides protection for copyrighted materials.”
Herskowitz says the agreement governing use of Apples’ e-Stores “says no such thing.” He claims the policy has “resulted in substantial numbers of Apple customers throughout the country having been double billed by Apple.” Instead, the lawsuit claims that Apple’s refund policy, in the Terms and Conditions to which every customer must agree to make purchases on Apple’s e-stores, states that Apple does not provide refunds in the event of a price reduction or promotional offering. Accordingly, by its own terms, “Apple’s ‘no refund’ policy is limited to ‘the event of a price reduction or promotional offering.’”
The complaint adds: “Under the agreement, as with any consumer transaction, Apple may bill customers only once for each product or service that is purchased. With troubling regularity, however, Apple has ‘double billed’ customers for purchases made through the Apple Stores. In those cases, when a customer purchases a song, movie or book, Apple bills that customer twice for the same download. Apple, however, has effectuated a policy and practice of refusing to refund the extra charge to customers whom it has overbilled.” Therefore, the lawsuit alleges, Apple violates its own terms of agreement as well as California state and common laws.
Furthermore, Herskowitz claims that Apple follows the same illegal policy at its App store, iBookstore and he Mac App store. Herskowitz is seeking damages of more than $5 million for a national class.
Thank goodness for people who check their bills and read the fine print!
Top Settlements
“Highly Reprehensible” indeed. And it’s about time somebody came out and said it. This week, a California Appeals Court judge ruled that a $4.5 million punitive damages award in an asbestos mesothelioma lawsuit will be allowed to stand—that it is not excessive, and that the conduct of ArvinMeritor, the defendant in the asbestos lawsuit, and successor of brake shoe manufacturer Rockwell, was “highly reprehensible.”
“By the 1960s, ArvinMeritor knew that workers exposed to asbestos dust were at risk of developing asbestos-related diseases,” the judge wrote. “Indeed, in 1973 and again in 1975, it wrote letters to (Pneumo Abex) and other manufacturers complaining about the presence of asbestos dust in the brake linings it was receiving from them. Nonetheless, ArvinMeritor did not place any warnings on its products until the early 1980s, and continued to market asbestos-containing brakes until its inventory of them was exhausted sometime in the early 1990s.”
The justice noted that ArvinMeritor did not include a specific reference to cancer on its products until 1987. Gordon Bankhead, who filed the ArvinMeritor asbestos lawsuit, had worked at automotive maintenance facilities from 1965-1999. He died of mesothelioma in 2009.
A jury found ArvinMeritor 15 percent at fault for Bankhead’s death and suffering, putting it on the hook for $375,000 of a $2.5 million noneconomic damages award. The company was joint and severally liable for all of the $1.47 million in compensatory damages. A separate trial resulted in the $4.5 million punitive damages award.
Bayer AG, the manufacturer of Yaz/Yasmin birth control pills, has announced that it has settled 651 US Yasmin blood clot lawsuits for a total, so far, of $142 million. This makes the average settlement about $218,000 a case.
The lawsuits allege that Yasmin/Yas oral contraceptives cause blood clots in the women taking the pills, and in some cases they have proved fatal. The lawsuits also allege that the blood clots can lead to heart attacks and strokes.
According to Bloomberg News, on April 10, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ordered Bayer and other makers of birth control pills to strengthen blood-clot warnings on their products. Consequently, oral contraceptives that contain a synthetic hormone called drospirenone will have warnings on the labels stating that research shows there may be triple the risk for clots with pills such as Yasmin/Yaz. These warnings are also based on an FDA examination of data on more than 835,000 women who took oral contraceptives containing drospirenone, including Yasmin/Yaz.
And on that note—it’s time to adjourn. Happy Friday everyone…
Monday Minute 4.30: Legal News, Lawsuit & Settlements You Might’ve Missed
May 1st, 2012. By AbiK
Lots in legal news headlines from the past week that you might’ve missed including our weekly Asbestos News column and Week Adjourned—the weekly wrap of top class action lawsuits and settlements.
This week we heard about the Bumble Bee Tuna class action lawsuit (over false advertising claims) as well as the Vita Coco false advertising settlement. Big news with type 2 diabetes drug Actos as well–is it time for round #2 with Actos lawsuits? Find more in our Monday Minute update…
Week Adjourned: 4.27.12 – Bumble Bee Tuna, Vita Coco, Citizens Bank
April 27th, 2012. By LucyC
Top Class Actions
Bumble Bee Got Stung This Week—with a consumer fraud class action. Yes, it’s true, I’m afraid. The worker bee of tinned seafood (I have never understood what a bumble bee is doing on a tin of tuna) is facing allegations that it repeatedly violated California and federal laws that require companies to use truthful, accurate information on their packaged food labels. (Shame, shame.)
At specific issue in the Bumble Bee lawsuit are the health claims made by Bumble Bee Foods pertaining to its tinned seafood products.
The alleged violations include failing to disclose that Omega-3 has no established Daily Value under FDA regulations, and a failure to properly disclose the high levels of fat, saturated fat and cholesterol in Bumble Bee food products on the packaging and labeling.
The Bumble Bee class action lawsuit states “To appeal to consumer preferences, Bumble Bee has repeatedly made unlawful nutrient claims on products containing disqualifying levels of fat, sodium and cholesterol. These nutrient content claims were unlawful because they failed to include disclosure statements required by law that are designed to inform consumers of the inherently unhealthy nature of those products. ”
The lawsuit states, by way of example, “Tuna Salad Original with Crackers Kit” has 18g of fat per labeled serving, but does not bear a statement that fat exceeding the specified level is present.
The Bumble Bee Foods lawsuit is a nationwide class seeking to represent consumers who purchased Bumble Bee products labeled “Rich in Natural Omega-3” or “Excellent Source Omega-3” within the last 4 years. The California-based law firm of Pratt & Associates is representing the plaintiffs in this class action.
Top Settlements
Something a Little Loco ‘Bout Vita Coco…While we’re on the subject of consumer fraud—a preliminary settlement has been reached in the consumer fraud class action lawsuit against All Market Inc. d/b/a Vita Coco. You must remember this—(a kiss is just a—no—wrong song sheet)—it’s the miracle vitamin water. After all, it does everything including taking the garbage out.
If you purchased Vita Coco Products between August 10, 2007 and the present you may be entitled to a payment from a class action settlement.
Under the terms of the settlement, Vita Coco agreed to set aside $1 million (the “Cash Settlement Fund”), which will provide for payments to Settlement Class Members who timely file claims of up to a maximum of $25.00 with Proof of Purchase (as defined in the Stipulation) and $6.00 without Proof of Purchase. Vita Coco has agreed to provide $1 million current retail value in product vouchers, which can be redeemed by Settlement Class Members who timely file claims in lieu of cash up to a maximum of $36.00 with Proof of Purchase or $8.00 without Proof of Purchase.
There are other conditions the company has agreed to as part of the Vita Coco settlement, which you can find here along with your options as a class member- e.g., do you want to remain in the settlement class, or would you like to be excluded…where do you obtain forms, those kinds of things.
This settlement is only preliminary. The Court will hold a hearing on August 22, 2012 to consider whether to grant final approval of the settlement and whether to grant Class Counsel’s (as defined in the Stipulation) request for attorneys’ fees, reimbursement of expenses and incentive awards for class representatives.
Good Citizens They Weren’t but…It’s Payback Time! Citizens Bank has agreed to pay $137.5 million (Cha Ching!) to settle a class action lawsuit which accused the bank of manipulating its customers’ debit card and ATM transactions in order to generate excess overdraft fee revenues for the bank.
The lawsuit is part of multidistrict litigation involving more than 30 different banks entitled In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, case number 09-cv-02036, is pending before U.S. District Judge James Lawrence King in Miami. Citizens Bank is part of Citizens Financial Group which, through RBS Citizens, N.A. and Citizens Bank of Pennsylvania, operates more than 1,500 retail banking branches throughout the Northeast, the Mid-Atlantic and the Mid-West.
The Citizens Bank lawsuit claims that the bank employed software programs designed to extract the greatest possible number of overdraft fees from its customers. According to the lawsuit, Citizens Bank re-sequenced its customers’ debit card and ATM transactions by posting them in highest-to-lowest dollar amount, rather than in the actual order in which the transactions were initiated by the customers and authorized by the bank. According to the lawsuit, this internal bookkeeping practice resulted in Citizens’ customers being charged substantially more in overdraft fees than if their debit card and ATM transactions had been posted in the order in which they were authorized by the bank.
I wonder if that settlement amount includes interest?
And on that note—happy weekend. Where’s the gin got to…
Popular Categories
Archive by Category
- Accidents (RSS)
- Airlines (RSS)
- Asbestos Mesothelioma (RSS)
- Automotive (RSS)
- Celebrity (RSS)
- Complaints/Comments (RSS)
- Consumer Fraud (RSS)
- Court of Public Opinion (RSS)
- Criminal Law (RSS)
- Defective Products (RSS)
- DePuy ASR Hip Recall (RSS)
- Discrimination (RSS)
- Drugs/Medical (RSS)
- Elder Care Abuse (RSS)
- Employment (RSS)
- Environment (RSS)
- Financial (RSS)
- Food Illness (RSS)
- Human/Civil Rights (RSS)
- Insecurities (RSS)
- Insurance (RSS)
- Intellectual Property (RSS)
- Internet/E-commerce (RSS)
- Lawyers (RSS)
- Lawyers Giving Back (RSS)
- Lex Levity (RSS)
- Personal Injury (RSS)
- Pleading Ignorance (RSS)
- Real Estate (RSS)
- Securities (RSS)
- Settlement (RSS)
- Tort Reform (RSS)
- Totally Tortelicious (RSS)
- Veterans (RSS)
- Week Adjourned (RSS)
- Whistleblower (RSS)
Loading ...
