Pathfinder
Editor, Senior Moderator
Should Gulf oil spill dispersant, clean-up companies stay in the litigation?
Published: Tuesday, April 03, 2012, 8:00 AM
By Rebecca Mowbray, The Times-Picayune
The manufacturer of the chemical dispersant used to break-up the oil during the Gulf of Mexico oil spill in 2010 and other companies involved in cleaning up the oil have asked U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier to dismiss them from liability for any health claims because they were working on behalf of the U.S. government in responding to the spill and are entitled to immunity. If successful, the move could remove more than a dozen companies from potential liability if people get sick.
But at the same time, the question comes as BP and the committee of plaintiff attorneys steering the litigation have reached an agreement that includes a deal for BP to cover the health bills for clean-up workers and people who live very close to the shore or oiled marshes.
...
Barbier asked parties with a "good faith basis" for opposing the dismissal of health claims against Nalco and the clean-up companies to express their opposition by April 9. If no one files opposition, Barbier said he'll dismiss the defendants for good. But if the court receives letters opposing the dismissal, the court will figure out how to proceed.
The details of the health settlement between BP and the plaintiffs committee won't be filed in court until April 16, and will be evaluated by the court in the coming months.
The settlement would only cover clean-up workers and people who live close to an oiled shoreline or marsh. Researchers, vacationers or people who live more than a half mile from the beach or a mile from oiled marsh don't appear to be covered.
Full text:
http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2012/04/should_nalco_and_the_clean-up.html
Published: Tuesday, April 03, 2012, 8:00 AM
By Rebecca Mowbray, The Times-Picayune
The manufacturer of the chemical dispersant used to break-up the oil during the Gulf of Mexico oil spill in 2010 and other companies involved in cleaning up the oil have asked U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier to dismiss them from liability for any health claims because they were working on behalf of the U.S. government in responding to the spill and are entitled to immunity. If successful, the move could remove more than a dozen companies from potential liability if people get sick.
But at the same time, the question comes as BP and the committee of plaintiff attorneys steering the litigation have reached an agreement that includes a deal for BP to cover the health bills for clean-up workers and people who live very close to the shore or oiled marshes.
...
Barbier asked parties with a "good faith basis" for opposing the dismissal of health claims against Nalco and the clean-up companies to express their opposition by April 9. If no one files opposition, Barbier said he'll dismiss the defendants for good. But if the court receives letters opposing the dismissal, the court will figure out how to proceed.
The details of the health settlement between BP and the plaintiffs committee won't be filed in court until April 16, and will be evaluated by the court in the coming months.
The settlement would only cover clean-up workers and people who live close to an oiled shoreline or marsh. Researchers, vacationers or people who live more than a half mile from the beach or a mile from oiled marsh don't appear to be covered.
Full text:
http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2012/04/should_nalco_and_the_clean-up.html