Case Study

Case Study: Toxic Tort Environmental Litigation

A team of Brunini litigation attorneys including Christopher A. Shapley, Robert L. Gibbs and William Trey Jones III, presented a successful defense on behalf of a wood treatment company against claims totaling approximately $30 million in punitive and compensatory damages.

Background

The complex, large-document case was heard at a jury trial in federal court. Our client, the wood treatment company, was sued by the estate of a woman who died after alleged exposure to dioxins and other chemicals supposedly emitted from its facility. Among other claims, the plaintiff alleged that the woman’s death had been caused by damaged DNA and accelerated breast cancer.

Prior to trial, the Brunini legal team prevailed on four of the claims asserted by the plaintiff. At trial, the plaintiff asserted claims for gross negligence and conspiracy, requesting over $5 million in compensatory damages and approximately $25 million in punitive damages. 

Outcome

The jury found in favor of our client on two of the three claims asserted at trial, including on the claim of conspiracy. The jury awarded no punitive damages.

The jury found in favor of the plaintiff as to the claim of negligence; however, the monetary relief recovered by the plaintiff totaled less than 4% of the amount requested.

News: July 2008

Chris Shapley, Trey Jones and Joseph Sclafani recently were successful in obtaining a ruling from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversing a verdict against a wood treating company and rendering judgment in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that her mother's breast cancer and death were caused by exposure to chemicals from the wood treating plant. The federal appeals court ruled that the plaintiff's claims were untimely under the Mississippi statute of limitations. The court also addressed for the first time the preemptive breadth of Section 9658 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and rejected the plaintiff's argument that the statute of limitations had been tolled by the CERCLA provision.