 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ardesson v. Atlantic Richfield Co.4/26/2005
Appellants, Adeline Ardesson, Donovan Esser, Danielle Esser, Mark Flynn, Lowell Koerner, Emmalee Koerner, Jonathan Cobb, James Cobb-Koerner, Joyce Lande, Kevin Martin, Julianna Martin, Michael Martin, and Brittany Martin, appeal from a jury verdict denying their property damage and personal injuries claims against Atlantic Richfield Co. We affirm.
The parties entered a stipulation of agreed facts, which the trial court read to the jury at the beginning of trial. On January 31, 1996, Atlantic Richfield Co. (ARCO) shipped 1.1 million gallons of home-heating oil from its Cherry Point Refinery to the Superior Oil Company terminal in Tacoma, Washington. During transit, the oil became 'hazy.' Clerk's Papers (CP) at 1577. The delivery was put into the terminal's Tank Number 5, where it was added to 1.3 million gallons of fuel already in the tank.
To clear the fuel's haze, IPC 3025, a commercial de-hazing agent chemical manufactured by Baker Petrolite Corporation, was added to Tank Number 5. Although IPC 3025 was not on ARCO's list of approved additives for use in refined fuels, testing revealed that it cleared the haze with no apparent side effects and the additive was immediately available while other de-hazing agents were not available for several days. ARCO added 275 gallons of IPC 3025 to Tank Number 5 on February 2, 1996, and another 55 gallons on February 5.
At approximately midnight on February 2, Tank Number 5 was opened for sale to fuel distributors. Once the tank was reopened, it was constantly drawn down and replenished. Approximately 2.2 million gallons of new oil were added to Tank Number 5 during the month of February and about 4 million gallons were sold to homes, businesses, and other users. No additional IPC 3025 was added after February 5.
Although a certain number of furnace malfunctions can routinely be expected, in mid-February, Pacific Northwest Energy Company (PNEC), a fuel distributor, received a higher than usual number of reports of furnace shutdowns by its customers. PNEC began pumping out and refilling the tanks of its customers who had reported problems, and it contacted ARCO to determine whether there was a problem with the fuel. ARCO investigated the matter and discovered that other distributors' customers had reported similar problems.
In response, ARCO authorized all of its distributors to replace the fuel of any homeowner experiencing furnace malfunctions and to service their furnaces at its expense. At that time, ARCO was not aware of the cause of the problem. By March 4, 1996, ARCO had authorized its distributors to pump out and refill the tanks and service the furnaces of all homes that had received its oil between February 3 and February 19, regardless of whether these customers had reported any furnace problems. In addition, it hired additional furnace contractors to provide follow-up service after the pump out. ARCO issued a press release alerting the public of the recall, and it later expanded the recall period to include all homeowners who had received its fuel between February 2 and February 26.
In all, ARCO pumped fuel from more than 10,000 tanks, including the tanks of these plaintiffs/appellants. It retained over 200 samples of the additized fuel, many of which were tested, but it did not collect samples from the appellants' tanks. After the recall, ARCO determined that the additized fuel had caused some furnaces to malfunction, and on March 16, 1996, it shut down Tank Number 5 and drained the remaining oil from the tank. It resold some of the oil as industrial grade fuel.
In May, 1998 by sixth amended complaint, numerous plaintiffs filed a single lawsuit against ARCO in Pierce
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|