Posted by Neil Fischbein:
AVX to court: Myrtle Beach land owners should pay (SC)
http://www.tceblog.com/posts/1200817197.shtml
File this under questionable legal tactics: According to The Sun News
(Myrtle Beach, CA), [1]AVX filed recent court documents seeking to
stick residents and other property owners, some of whom have sued AVX,
with part of the tab from AVX's TCE investigation and clean-up:
The electronics manufacturer filed a proposed amended complaint
last week in federal court that would make those property owners
subject to federal laws that require shared liability for
environmental contamination.
That means property owners living near AVX could be forced to pay
the manufacturer a prorated share of whatever amount AVX spends for
"investigations, containment, removal or mitigation of the
contamination at the properties," according to the proposed
complaint.
That amount could be measured in the millions of dollars.
AVX also wants property owners to pay "interest at the maximum rate
allowable by law" for any amount they might owe to the
manufacturer.
A judge has not made a ruling on the proposed complaint.
[2]Gene Connell, a lawyer representing property owners near AVX's
headquarters at 801 17th Ave. S., said the proposal is an
unconscionable scare tactic.
"It's audacious that AVX would try to blame its pollution on the
poor people who've worked all their lives for their homes," Connell
said. "These are innocent landowners."
[...]
AVX, in its proposed complaint, wants a federal judge to rule that
contamination has not damaged any property near the manufacturer's
headquarters because the TCE eventually can be removed from the
groundwater.
[...]
AVX also wants a judge to rule that property owners are entitled to
no compensation for any possible damage to their land or property
values resulting from the contamination.
Though we're reluctant to play armchair legal quarterback without
seeing the court-filed documents (yeah, we'll do it anyway), we'd say
the first part of the complaint, the move to pin costs on
property-owners, may be designed to discourage public participation in
litigation against AVX (almost as if to say, "Hold us accountable and
you'll literally pay for it.")
The latter two issues, that no property was damaged and that owners
aren't entitled to compensation for certain damages, sound to us like
they depend on questions of fact that a trial court must ultimately
decide. But we are not attorneys nor familiar with all the applicable
facts or laws in this case, so really, what do we know?
Read the full story at [3]MyrtleBeachOnline.com.
References
1. http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/business/story/321027.html
2. http://kccattorneysatlaw.com/memberbios/view.nhtml?profile=memberbios&UID=44
3. http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/business/story/321027.html