Tort Reform Group Criticizes W.Va. For Fla. Lawsuit: Score Unchanged Despite Admission Error Was Made
By Ken Ward Jr., The Charleston Gazette, W.Va., The Charleston Gazette, W.Va.
Dec. 15–Critics of West Virginia’s civil justice system this week conceded that they wrongly attacked state courts for a chemical exposure lawsuit that was not filed here.
The suit, filed in Florida and 13 other states, alleges that DuPont Co. exposed thousands of consumers to toxic chemicals used to make Teflon nonstick coatings.
Citing the DuPont suit, the American Tort Reform Association bumped West Virginia up a spot in its annual “Judicial Hellholes” report, from fourth last year to third in 2005.
Victor Schwartz, a lawyer and spokesman for the association, said the group learned from a Gazette reporter that the DuPont case was not filed in West Virginia.
“This is an error,” Schwartz said in a phone interview Tuesday evening.
The association report had alleged the DuPont case was filed in West Virginia because of the state’s 1999 Supreme Court ruling to allow citizens to sue for future medical testing costs if they are exposed to chemicals that make them likely to get sick.
“Given that West Virginia is one of the few states that allow medical monitoring, it is easy to see why plaintiffs’ lawyers were drawn to the state,” the association said in its 68-page report.
DuPont and its production of Teflon and related nonstick and stain-resistant materials have been under increased scrutiny because of growing concerns about the health impacts of C8, also known as PFOA, a chemical used to make those products.
Researchers are finding that people around the world have C8 in their blood. The blood levels may be generally very small, but it is unclear whether these amounts are dangerous.
Nonstick cookware may be one route of exposure to C8, but recent studies suggest that food packaging may be a much bigger source.
In July, a class-action complaint was filed in federal court in Miami on behalf of Florida consumers who purchased cookware with Teflon coating. The suit alleged DuPont violated Florida laws by not “disclosing to consumers that products containing Teflon were or are potentially harmful to consumers.”
The suit seeks for DuPont to spend $5 billion to replace the cookware, impose a Teflon warning label and create two funds to pay for medical monitoring and more scientific research.
In its most recent report to stockholders, filed Nov. 3, DuPont revealed that similar cases have been filed in federal courts in California, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Texas.
Since that DuPont report, an additional lawsuit has been filed in federal court in New Jersey, a company spokeswoman said Tuesday.
DuPont has told stockholders it “believes these actions are without merit and will defend itself vigorously.”
In its “Hellhole” report, the association cited press reports about the Teflon case as its sources. None of the press reports indicated that the suit was filed in West Virginia.
Schwartz said the association’s researchers might have gotten the Teflon case confused with a class action case against DuPont on behalf of thousands of Parkersburg-area residents whose drinking water was poisoned with C8.
Last year, DuPont agreed to a $107.6 million settlement of that case that includes long-term health studies and the potential for the company to end up paying $235 million more for future medical monitoring of residents.
On Wednesday evening, the association posted a correction on its Internet site.
“While we regret and apologize for the error, this does not affect the ranking of West Virginia as the third worst Judicial Hellhole,” the correction said.
Schwartz said the error does not affect his organization’s conclusions about West Virginia’s court system.
“The overall pattern is the same, regardless of whether the lawsuit was filed there or not,” Schwartz said.
In its report, the association noted that the state Supreme Court recently somewhat limited West Virginia’s medical monitoring ruling.
Last December, the court “essentially ruled that trial lawyers could not use the class-action device as a way to export West Virginia’s liberal medical monitoring standard to non-residents living and injured in states where medical monitoring has not been adopted or is applied in a more restrictive manner.”
To contact staff writer Ken Ward Jr., use e-mail or call 348-1702.
—–
Copyright (c) 2005, The Charleston Gazette, W.Va.
Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News.
For information on republishing this content, contact us at (800) 661-2511 (U.S.), (213) 237-4914 (worldwide), fax (213) 237-6515, or e-mail reprints@krtinfo.com.
NYSE:DD,