Parker Waichman Alonso LLP Files Class Action Lawsuits
Legal Marketing
Parker Waichman Alonso LLP Files Two Class Action Lawsuits on Behalf of Iowa Property Owners Alleging DuPont's Imprelis™ Herbicide Killed and Damaged Trees on Their Property
Parker Waichman Alonso LLP, a national law firm representing victims of defective products and toxic substances, together with its partner law firms, has filed two class action lawsuits on behalf of Iowa residents alleging DuPont's Imprelis™ herbicide killed and damaged trees on their property. The first, brought by Daryl and Mary Ann Haley of Tipton, Iowa, was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division (Case No. 1:11-cv-00085-LRRR). A second Imprelis™ lawsuit was filed on behalf of Nicholas L. Peters of Mars, Iowa, in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Sioux City Division (Case No. 5:11-cv-04066-MWB). Both Complaints seeks class action status on behalf of property owners who have sustained damage as a result of Imprelis™.
Plaintiffs in both lawsuits allege Imprelis™ was applied to their lawns in accordance with directions and instructions supplied by DuPont. The Class Action Complaints allege that as a result of the Imprelis™ applications, the Plaintiffs suffered significant damage and harm to trees, and will continue to suffer even further damage to their lawn and garden because of Imprelis™. The lawsuits further allege that rather than being isolated incidents, thousands of trees have been reported as being infected by Imprelis™, and tens of thousands more reports are expected in the future.
Both lawsuits charge DuPont with, among other things, negligence, strict liability, breach of express warranty and breach of implied warranties. The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief barring DuPont from continued sale of Imprelis™, and compensatory and other damages including the cost of replacing trees damaged by Imprelis™.
Imprelis™, brought to market by DuPont in October 2010, is designed to kill broadleaf weeds, including dandelion, clover and wild violet. It is touted by DuPont as an environmentally-friendly herbicide and an "innovative solution to control a wide spectrum of broadleaf weeds." According to a New York Times report, reports of dying trees possibly associated with Imprelis™ started surfacing around Memorial Day, and have since prompted warnings from extension services in several states. Imprelis™ is now suspected of causing the death of thousands of shallow-rooted trees, including willows, poplars and conifers, on lawns, golf courses, parks and cemeteries throughout the country. The reports have prompted the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to begin gathering information on the tree deaths from state officials and DuPont.
DuPont acknowledged it was investigating reports of tree deaths and damage possibly associated with Imprelis™ in a letter to turf management professionals dated June 17, 2011. On July 27, 2011, the company issued another letter stating that in the course of its review, “We have observed tree injuries associated with Imprelis™, primarily on Norway spruce and white pine trees.” The problems appear to be concentrated in Minnesota, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Wisconsin, DuPont said.
Parker Waichman Alonso LLP and its partner firms have now filed three class action lawsuits on behalf of property owners who claim to have sustained damage following application of Imprelis™. A previous lawsuit was filed on behalf of an Ohio property owner in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division (Case No. 1:11-cv-01517).
Parker Waichman Alonso LLP continues to receive reports of Imprelis™ tree death and damage from around the country, including from homeowners, golf courses, universities, arboretums, nurseries and orchards, parks and recreational sites, and cemeteries. Parker Waichman Alonso LLP is investigating these complaints on behalf of property owners who have sustained damages as a result of Imprelis™. More information regarding Imprelis™ side effects can be obtained at Parker Waichman Alonso LLP's DuPont Imprelis™ poisoning page. The page will be updated regularly as more information becomes available.
For more information regarding Imprelis™ class action lawsuits and Parker Waichman Alonso LLP, please visit http://www.yourlawyer.com or call 1-800-LAW-INFO (1-800-529-4636).
Related listings
-
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP Announces Class Action Lawsuit Against Ebix, Inc.
Legal Marketing 07/15/2011Ryan & Maniskas, LLP (www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/ebix) announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Ebix, Inc. ("Ebix" or...
-
Chambers USA Guide Ranks 9 Greenberg Traurig Phoenix Attorneys
Legal Marketing 06/23/2011Chambers and Partners, an annual guide featuring the leading U.S. lawyers and law firms, announced that 9 attorneys from Greenberg Traurig’s Phoenix office have been selected for inclusion in its Chambers USA 2011 guide. Chambers and Partners selects...
-
MURDER ONE - Robert Dugoni
Legal Marketing 06/18/2011New York Times bestselling author Robert Dugoni delivers another gripping legal thriller in his popular David Sloane series. The case? Defending the woman he loves against a charge of murder.Dugoni's non-fiction expose, The Cyanide Canary, published ...
Workers’ Compensation Subrogation of Administrative Fees and Costs
When a worker covered by workers’ compensation makes a claim against a third party, the workers’ compensation insurance retains the right to subrogate against any recovery from that third party for all benefits paid to or on behalf of a claimant injured at work. When subrogating for more than basic medical and indemnity benefits, the Texas workers’ compensation subrogation statute provides that “the net amount recovered by a claimant in a third‑party action shall be used to reimburse the carrier for benefits, including medical benefits that have been paid for the compensable injury.” TX Labor Code § 417.002.
In fact, all 50 states provide for similar subrogation. However, none of them precisely outlines which payments or costs paid by a compensation carrier constitute “compensation” and can be recovered. The result is industry-wide confusion and an ongoing debate and argument with claimants’ attorneys over what can and can’t be included in a carrier’s lien for recovery purposes.
In addition to medical expenses, death benefits, funeral costs and/or indemnity benefits for lost wages and loss of earning capacity resulting from a compensable injury, workers’ compensation insurance carriers also expend considerable dollars for case management costs, medical bill audit fees, rehabilitation benefits, nurse case worker fees, and other similar fees. They also incur other expenses in conjunction with the handling and adjusting of workers’ compensation claims. Workers’ compensation carriers typically assert, of course, that, they are entitled to reimbursement for such expenditures when it recovers its workers’ compensation lien. Injured workers and their attorneys disagree.