Other Recent Articles


View More

Environmental Concerns - May 11, 2012 14:02 - 0 Comments

Sunoco Will Pay $2.2 Million to Settle Hazardous Waste Dispute

Sunoco, a petroleum and petrochemical manufacturing giant, will pay $2.2 million in Massachusetts to resolve a hazardous waste dispute. The company was alleged to have sought payment from a state fund for hazardous waste cleanup, while at the same time it was also seeking and obtaining reimbursement from its insurers. The state’s fund for hazardous waste cleanup is called Massachusetts Underground Storage Tank Petroleum Product Cleanup Fund program (UST Fund).

The fund was established to expedite the cleanup of environmentally dangerous leaks from underground storage tanks — such as those found at gasoline stations — by reimbursing owners and operators for expenses incurred in their response. Massachusetts charges tank registration and delivery fees to fund the program. The UST fund’s regulations stipulate that claimants must disclose if they sought reimbursement from another source including insurance for expenses they submit to the UST fund. If claimants do recover money from both insurance and the fund for the same expenses, they must pay back the UST fund.

According to Massachusetts Attorney General Coakley, Sunoco failed to disclose its insurance coverage litigation and settlements reached between 1997 and 2001, even as it sought and obtained reimbursements from the UST Fund program. Under the settlement agreement, Sunoco will pay $970,000 to the fund and $1.23 million to the state’s Commonwealth General Fund. It appears from all accounts that Sunoco cooperated fully with the Attorney General’s investigation.

Source: Insurance Journal

More In Environmental Concerns


Gulf Coast Disaster

Health Care Issues - May 11, 2012 13:17 - 0 Comments

FDA Will Require Prescriptions For Livestock Antibiotics

For the first time, farmers and ranchers will now be required to get a prescription from a veterinarian before using antibiotics in cattle, pigs, chickens and other animals. The FDA made this significant announcement last month. Officials hope the move will slow the indiscriminate use of the drugs, which has made them increasingly ineffective in humans. The FDA has been moving slowly, taking small steps in its efforts to curb the use of antibiotics on farms. Federal officials believe requiring prescriptions will lead to meaningful reductions in the agricultural use of antibiotics.

As has been widely reported, the use of antibiotics are given both to reduce sickness and to promote animal growth. The drug resistance that has developed from that practice has been a growing problem and has rendered a number of antibiotics used in humans less and less effective, with deadly consequences. Initially, the FDA is asking drugmakers to voluntarily change their labels to require a prescription. According to the FDA, drugmakers have largely agreed to the change. Michael Taylor, the agency’s deputy commissioner for food, who has predicted that the new restrictions will save lives, had this to say:

We’re confident that it will result in significant reductions in agricultural antibiotic use and reductions in resistance pressure from dangerous bacteria. That’s why we’re doing this.

It will be interesting to see how this rule works. The fact that it allows the drug companies to change their labels voluntarily does give me some concern. I have never felt that approach worked very well and in many cases it didn’t work at all. But hopefully, they will do the right thing and change their labels.

Source: Associated Press

More In Personal Injury


Transportation

The Firm, Toyota Litigation Update - Nov 9, 2011 6:07 - 1 Comment

Toyota MDL Update

As we have previously reported, our firm is heavily involved in the Toyota litigation. Dee Miles, who heads up our Consumer Fraud Section, is in the leadership of the Toyota Sudden Unintended Acceleration MultiDistrict Litigation that is ongoing in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Judge James V. Selna is presiding over the MDL. There have been a couple of developments in the MDL since our last report and this is an update.

Federal Judge Selna issued a ruling on September 29th that the first case, often referred to as a “Bellwether case,” which was set for trial in February, 2013 against Toyota, was not properly before the federal court in California. As a result, the judge remanded that case to state court. Judge Selna’s reasoning was that the Plaintiffs could not meet the threshold amount for damages under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and as a result, they could not proceed in federal court. But, the Plaintiffs’ have now changed their Complaint, leaving out the local Utah dealership. Therefore, the jurisdictional issue should be resolved. Hopefully, this first case, originally set for trial in February, 2013, will now remain as the first “Bellwether” case to be tried in the Toyota MDL Court.

This case involves Utah residents who were killed in a crash, allegedly caused by a 2008 Toyota Camry’s sudden, unintended acceleration. Utah resident, Paul Van Alfen, was killed when his Toyota Camry hit a rock wall after suddenly accelerating out of control. Another passenger was also killed and two others were injured in the crash. The survivors and family members of those killed filed suit in May, 2011.

While Federal Judge Selna has now established the first “Bellwether” case for the Toyota MDL, a state court judge in California has tentatively scheduled what will likely be the nation’s first trial against Toyota involving the sudden, unintended acceleration defect in April of 2012. Superior Court Judge Anthony Mohr, who sits in Los Angeles County, and is overseeing more than 100 cases filed in California state courts against Toyota Motor Corporation, has ruled that a class action brought by Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauskas would be among the first cases to go to trial. This case is to run concurrently with unspecified additional “Bellwether” cases in the state court system. Judge Mohr has requested briefs from the lawyers relating to which cases will be in that grouping.

Just as a reminder, these sudden, unintended acceleration lawsuits came about after a recall of more than 8 million Toyota vehicles world-wide, including 6 million in the United States. With that many recalls, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that real safety problems persist at Toyota. The majority of the lawsuits point to design defects ranging from the electronic throttle control system, failure to program a brake override system, or even the possibility of defective gas pedals, floor mats, or other electronic issues. The MDL lawyers are in the midst of a storm of discovery. Toyota has denied any electronic defect causing sudden unintended acceleration. There is much work to be done.

In addition to the individual death and injury cases that will be tried in the Toyota MDL, numerous class action Complaints also are pending before Judge Selna in the California MDL. Judge Selna has ruled that each of the state class actions will be governed by their own law, but the discovery for these cases remains consolidated for all class action Complaints regardless of the state in which they were originally filed. The discovery in the class action cases is also ongoing.

In summary, these Toyota cases are currently running on at least five litigation tracks: the Federal MDL in California; the California State Court MDL; the Texas State Court MDL; the New York State Court MDL; and the class action case currently pending in the federal MDL in California, also with Judge Selna. We will continue to update you on any new developments that occur with this very important Toyota MultiDistrict Litigation case involving the sudden unintended acceleration issue. If you have any questions, contact Dee Miles or Graham Esdale, lawyers in the firm’s Personal Injury Section, at 800-898-2034 or by email at Dee.Miles@beasleyallen.com or Graham.Esdale@beasleyallen.com. Graham is handling individual cases in state courts that involve injury or death.

More In Toyota Litigation Update


Toyota Litigation Update