Parties agree on $1 million settlement in Superior, Wis., refinery explosion class-action lawsuit

According to the settlement agreement dated June 24, the plaintiffs Jasen Bruzek, Hope Koplin and Christopher Peterson and the defendant Superior Refining Co. agreed on a settlement totaling 1.05 million District Wisconsin.

Much of Superior, Wisconsin, had to be evacuated for 18 hours when an explosion, likely caused by a defective valve, started a fire at the refinery. The evacuations were based on fear of a release of hydrogen fluoride, although none of the tank escaped.

The settlement stems from a lawsuit filed by plaintiffs in 2018 alleging that Husky allowed evacuees to make claims for evacuation costs – transportation, accommodation, and lost wages – as well as separate assault claims, but “skewed reimbursements to individuals.” “Can afford the up-front costs of a hotel room.

Court documents estimate that nearly 21,000 people over the age of 18 are eligible to file a claim, but the settlement funds could only satisfy 5,833 claims at $ 150 per person. A household would be eligible for up to $ 300. Individuals can receive up to $ 200 and households up to $ 400 in certain circumstances.

Newsletter registration for email notifications

The documents show that the settlement money would be split in three ways:

  • $ 875,000 would be used for individual claims;
  • administration and notification costs, including mailings and advertisements, will not exceed USD 169,000;
  • and $ 6,000 would be awarded to the three class representatives – the people who originally filed the lawsuit.

If funds are left over, up to $ 75,000 will be paid out to the Superior Douglas County’s YMCA.

The case was up for trial and approval of the settlement would prevent it.

Plaintiffs also accused the refinery of negligence, citing preliminary reports from the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board as evidence that the refinery failed to service the equipment and that this led to the explosion.

While J. Gordon Rudd Jr., the plaintiff’s attorney, described the case as “meritorious,” admitted that this could be difficult to prove in the trial, as the court said that “the class representatives may have individual evidence of the cause and have to catch up with the damage ”. . “

“Such a process would increase the possibility that class members might not attend due to the burden of the process compared to the relatively small unit prizes, or that class members who attend would not have sufficient evidence of their losses,” lawyers wrote.

The refinery said it would “fully support” the settlement, although it does not agree with the plaintiffs’ characterization of the facts and the course of the proceedings.

“(Superior Refining Company) denies it was negligent or that its actions caused the explosion and would defend itself vigorously during the remainder of this litigation,” the company said. “In fact, the only so-called ‘evidence’ of negligence that plaintiffs could point to in the lawsuit was the US Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board’s report, which does not prove negligence and is not admissible in court.”

In the original complaint, filed in August 2018, one evacuate said he could not afford a hotel and spent the night with his family in Canal Park, while another plaintiff said his children’s school was canceled the next day what caused his wife to miss work and lose wages, the lawsuit states.

The complaint also stated that the mother of a plaintiff was in the hospice and had to be evacuated, whereupon “she stopped eating or talking and her health deteriorated rapidly”. She died on May 3, 2018.

Comments are closed.