SafetyLitigation.com
content top

Expert Neurologist And Real Estate Broker’s Opinions Excluded In Manganese Contamination Case

In a case in which plaintiffs allege a steel mill’s slag processing operations have resulted in dangerous levels of manganese being released onto their property, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio concluded yesterday that two of the plaintiffs’ proposed experts cannot testify. First, the plaintiffs’ expert neurologist intended to testify that...

Importance Of Conditions Precedent To Indemnification Demands Highlighted In Pipeline Case

In 1994, an oil and gas company (Company A) sold a pipeline to Company B, which has owned and operated it since.  During the sale, the companies entered into a Purchase and Sale of Assets Agreement whereby the parties agreed that any contamination occurring before the agreement’s closing date would be Company A’s responsibility and any contamination after the closing date...

Court Declines To Certify Damages Class In West Virginia Water Contamination Case

In the litigation following the interruption of the Charleston, West Virginia water supply caused by a leaking chemical storage tank in January 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia ruled yesterday that the plaintiffs could certify a class for determining liability, but refused to certify a class for purposes of establishing damages. The plaintiffs...

PHMSA Proposes New Pipeline Safety Regulations

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Safety Administration (PHMSA) announced proposed regulations to revise and update its pipeline safety standards and reporting requirements on October 1, 2015.  The deadline to submit comments on the proposed rulemaking is January 8, 2016.  PHMSA estimates that compliance with the proposed rule will cost the industry...

Refinery’s Insurance Claims Following Supply Interruption Caused By Pipeline Rupture Taken Up In Arkansas

An Arkansas refinery received oil from a pipeline owned and operated by a third party.  In 2007, the pipeline owner inspected the pipeline and identified anomalies at various locations.  The inspection vendor, however, misidentified one anomaly as a seam weld unlikely to cause a failure but this particular weld anomaly caused the pipeline to rupture in April 2012.  After the rupture,...

Oil Refinery Owner’s Convictions Related To Uncovered Equalization Tanks Reversed By Fifth Circuit

Yesterday, the Fifth Circuit reversed a petroleum company’s criminal convictions under the Clean Air Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (“MBTA”).  The reversal vacated fines of $2 million under the Clean Air Act and $15,000 for each violation of the MBTA. In an unannounced inspection of a Texas refinery in 2012, state environmental inspectors discovered 130,000...

« Older Entries Next Entries »