Law Center Search Results

The NAM filed an amicus brief urging the Louisiana Supreme Court to review a claim where the plaintiffs alleged adverse health effects resulting from a release of oil and gas from CITGO’s Lake Charles, Louisiana refinery in 2006. The plaintiffs did not offer expert testimony establishing the levels of their exposure to oil or gas from the release or even that any exposure was possible given the time and location of their alleged exposures. Nevertheless, the presiding judge awarded each plaintiff damages because she found the plaintiffs’ claims to be “very credible.” CITGO appealed to the Louisiana Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial judge’s findings. CITGO then appealed to the Louisiana Supreme Court, in which it argued that the plaintiffs were required to provide expert testimony regarding their alleged injuries. An unreasonably low legal standard for establishing liability threatens to expose defendants to significant and unwarranted financial liability. The NAM’s brief explained the significant negative impacts of the appellate decision on manufacturers and provided strong legal arguments against such a lax liability standard. Unfortunately, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied review.