Breaking News | Your Nebraska Lawyers

Jury Awards Damages of $2.46 Million Against Supplier of Defective Chinese Drywall

The first jury to consider a defective Chinese drywall claim has come down hard on the supplier. A Florida jury awarded 2.46 million to a Miami couple who claimed their house was ruined by gas emitted from the defective product.

Fla. Jury Finds Domestic Distributor of Chinese Drywall Negligent
Jose Pagliery
06-21-2010

A Florida jury on Friday awarded $2.46 million to a Miami couple who claimed their house was ruined by gas emitted by imported Chinese drywall in the nation’s first trial against a domestic distributor.

Jurors concluded that Miami-based Banner Supply knowingly sold defective wallboard that was installed in the Coconut Grove, Fla., home of Chevron attorney Armin Seifart and Lisa Gore, who asked for $4.4 million in damages for repairs and the inconvenience of temporarily losing access to their $1.66 million home.

“It’s a strong victory in favor of consumers,” said family attorney Ervin Gonzalez of Colson Hicks Eidson in Coral Gables, Fla. “The American public won’t tolerate companies that cheat.”

Jurors decided Banner was negligent, knowingly sold defective wallboard and violated Florida’s deceptive and unfair trade law, and that its product will reduce the home’s resale value.

The couple’s lawsuit is similar to thousands nationwide by homeowners with Chinese drywall installed in their homes. Homeowners complain noxious gases released by the wallboard leave homes smelling like rotten eggs and corrode metal pipes and electronics . . .

If you or a loved one have been injured due to a defective product, talk to one of the experienced Nebraska defective product lawyers at the Keating, O’Gara Law Firm at 888/234-0621.

Posted in Defective Products, Product Defect Lawyer Lincoln Nebraska, Product Liability Monday, 21 June 2010 13:39 No Comments

Professor Richard Epstein Argues Against Cap on Liability Damages

Arguments against liability caps don’t just come from plaintiff’s attorneys. Highly respected University of Chicago professor Richard Epstein argues against a statutory cap on damages for BP.

From the Wall Street Journal:

BP Doesn’t Deserve a Liability Cap
By RICHARD A. EPSTEIN

Our national frustration continues to rise with each new drop of BP oil that leaks into the Gulf of Mexico. Everyone knows we can’t legislate away environmental risks without consigning ourselves to the Stone Age. What’s needed going forward is a comprehensive legal strategy that addresses the risks though a combination of regulation before the fact and tort liability (and criminal sanctions where appropriate) afterwards.

Tort remedies are essential to protect people (and their property) who do not have contractual relations with defendants from harms such as air and water pollution. The legal system should never allow self-interested parties to keep for themselves all the gains from dangerous activities that unilaterally impose losses on others—which is why the most devout defender of laissez-faire must insist, not just concede, that tough medicine is needed in these cases. The fundamental question here is one of technique: What mix of before and after sanctions will do the job at the lowest cost?

The first element in the mix is a no-nonsense liability system that fastens full responsibility on the parties who run dangerous operations, no excuses allowed. Accordingly, we have to be especially wary of statutory caps on tort damages, including the current law, under which, in the case of the oil industry, the “total of liability . . . with respect to each incident shall not exceed for an offshore facility except a deepwater port, the total of all removal costs plus $75,000,000.” That $75 million is chicken feed. Fortunately, the law removes that cap if the incident was caused by “the gross negligence or willful misconduct” of any party, or its failure to comply with any “applicable Federal safety, construction, or operating regulation.”