Imprelis Discussion - it's damage, Dupont's Claim Process, Lawsuits filed, Experience

Discussion in 'Homeowner Assistance Forum' started by Starbuy, Feb 27, 2012.

  1. cindyb

    cindyb LawnSite Senior Member
    from KY
    Posts: 354

    I don't want to post the email publicly, they shut it down and on the phone, they stop answering, thats why I wanted to pm you.
     
  2. Starbuy

    Starbuy LawnSite Senior Member
    Posts: 335

    Aircorp, would you mind allowing private messaging once you get to 10 posts so I can PM you?
     
  3. cindyb

    cindyb LawnSite Senior Member
    from KY
    Posts: 354

    2005 Dupont and Teflon cookware

    http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500395_162-1083164.html

     
  4. cindyb

    cindyb LawnSite Senior Member
    from KY
    Posts: 354

  5. cindyb

    cindyb LawnSite Senior Member
    from KY
    Posts: 354

    Scary stuff and to think the EPA knew?
     
  6. cindyb

    cindyb LawnSite Senior Member
    from KY
    Posts: 354

    You have to be a member 10 days to get pms and have 10 posts
     
  7. Starbuy

    Starbuy LawnSite Senior Member
    Posts: 335

    And, according to the law firms representing the Imprelis class action, Dupont also knew before they put Imprelis on the market to be used by professionals on residential properties that Imprelis could kill conifers. The fact that they allegedly did not have proper labeling is what will sink them in court big time. The law firm I spoke to involved in the class action says this will get settled, but if I file separate (if the Dupont direct process continues to be a lowball sham) the settlement would have to be enough to make it worth my while since 30% goes to the firm. I think I would have to reject settlement in Philli so that the case comes back to Ohio, then deal with my own settlement or go all the way to jury. I don't think I'll come out okay if accepting a small fraction of the class action settlement. They want too much in lawyer fees and too many golf courses and tree farms with more damage than me. I'd want this coming back to Ohio courts eventually. Still searching for the right law firm in case I need them. Won't pay more than 30% and won't pay lawyer fees out of my compensation if it's more than 35%. If it goes all the way thru jury trial than all attorneys fees should get paid by Dupont. Just thinking ahead.
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2012
  8. cindyb

    cindyb LawnSite Senior Member
    from KY
    Posts: 354

    So we are figuring out why dupont wants to pay us and walk away leaving us with toxins in the ground for no telling how long.

    The attorney(s) I've talked to said I'd come out ahead but I'd rather settle with Dupont. 33% and additional bills for things like calls and other services. I don't want class action either, it would come back to Kentucky. If it comes down to going to court, we'll have to discuss attorneys by pm.

    THis is interesting. The Supreme court ruled homeowners can sue the EPA

    http://conservative-wanderer.com/2012/03/21/supreme-court-rules-homeowners-can-sue-epa/

    They aren't above the law

     
  9. Starbuy

    Starbuy LawnSite Senior Member
    Posts: 335

    Well, once you have your second or even third offer from Dupont, if you decide to go to court, maybe ask the attorney if you'll get more than that offer even with subtracting all their commission and fees. If they're really confident that you'll come out way ahead then surely they'll accept a set commission with no additional fees like some do with car accident cases.
     
  10. AIRCORP

    AIRCORP LawnSite Member
    Posts: 16

    Hey everyone. Calm down. There is no evidence that Imprelis will harm humans. I am not an alarmist here. You all have to think logically about this. Use the EPA documents I previously mentioned. On page 7, there is only one mention of possible drinking water problems but it is below the level of concern for the EPA. You can trust in the EPA scientists on this. Here is the section.

    1.2.1.1. Degradate of Concern
    An environmental photodegradate of aminocyclopyrachlor present only in surface water was of possible concern for drinking water exposures. This photodegradate, cyclopropane carboxylic acid (IN-V0977), has a different mode of toxic action than aminocyclopyrachlor. Oral administration of cyclopropane carboxylic acid causes severe impairment of mitochondrial function by inhibiting the beta oxidation of fatty acids, resulting in microvesicular steatosis (accumulation of small fat droplets in cells). The liver is the most sensitive organ, and hepatocellular microvesicular steatosis is often accompanied by liver necrosis and inflammation, decreased hepatic glycogen, and decreased blood glucose levels. These effects have been
    observed with acute (one to three days) and longer (up to 14 days) exposure. The most sensitive species is the rabbit. Hepatic microvesicular steatosis in the rabbit follows a different dose response than body weight decreases observed with aminocyclopyrachlor and aminocyclopyrachlor-methyl in rats, with a lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) that is
    100-fold lower. However, based on the new use pattern, the dietary exposure to IN-V0977 from drinking water is below the Agency’s level of concern (LOC) (see Section 1.2.4).
     

Share This Page