Quantcast

St. Clair County jurors award Sauget plaintiffs $72 million in verdict against Cerro Flow

MADISON - ST. CLAIR RECORD

Sunday, December 22, 2024

St. Clair County jurors award Sauget plaintiffs $72 million in verdict against Cerro Flow

Lawsuits
Chriskolker

Kolker

St. Clair County jurors awarded 12 plaintiffs $72 million after finding metal recycler Cerro Flow liable for emitting pollutants from its Sauget plant, causing several exposed residents to suffer from cancer and other health issues. 

Circuit Judge Chris Kolker presided over the three week trial, which concluded on Oct. 15. The jury returned a plaintiff verdict after deliberating over the course of two days. They awarded the plaintiffs $24 million in compensatory damages and $48 million in punitive damages. 

The plaintiffs were represented at trial by Cueto Law in Belleville.

Cerro Flow was represented at trial by Becker, Hoerner & Ysursa PC in Belleville. 

Attorney Thomas Ysursa spoke on behalf of Cerro Flow saying they "respectfully disagree with the verdict and will file an appeal."

Cueto Law could not be reached for comment. 

The case was originally filed in June 2009 on behalf of more than 20 plaintiffs against Cerro Flow Products Inc., Monsanto AG Products, Pharmacia Corp, also known as Monsanto Co., Pfizer Inc. and Solutia Inc. 

Cerro Flow was the only remaining defendant at trial. 

The plaintiffs claimed the defendants released hazardous substances, including dioxin, for more than 70 years and concealed the health risks. They also alleged property damage due to contamination. 

Trial against Cerro Flow had previously been set for July 2019, and was expected to last for about a month in Chief Judge Andrew Gleeson’s court. Before trial could begin, the plaintiffs filed a motion for sanctions against Cerro Flow. They alleged Cerro Flow withheld electronic information without providing a privilege log. 

They alleged Cerro Flow tried to retrieve documents it inadvertently produced. Gleeson ordered the defendant to produce a log of the documents. When Cerro Flow’s counsel said it wasn’t possible to do it in the timeline ordered, Gleeson struck the pleadings and granted judgment on liability. 

Cerro Flow petitioned the Fifth District Appellate Court for emergency relief, which found that Gleeson improperly granted judgment. 

The case was set for trial again in January 2020, before it finally went to trial beginning in late September. 

Monsanto attorney Bruce Cook had previously negotiated a mass pollution settlement in 2014 with roughly 11,256 plaintiffs. Most plaintiffs received $600 participation payments in 2015. Settlement documents and hearing transcripts were then sealed. 

The Environmental Litigation Group of Alabama, which started the action, informed active plaintiffs that they received about $10 million and roughly $11 million went to attorney fees and expenses for experts. 

Following the settlement, the Alabama group and local counsel filed 111 lawsuits for a larger group of individuals who had not yet sued, naming only Cerro Flow as the defendant. 

In 2016, the Alabama group moved for findings that the settlement with Monsanto was in good faith. They also moved to bar any contribution claims from Cerro Flow. Gleeson and former Circuit Judge Vincent Lopinot found good faith.

Cerro Flow challenged the settlement and filed an appeal, saying it prohibited contribution claims against Monsanto in the event of a judgment. 

The Fifth District Appellate Court reversed Gleeson and Lopinot in 2018, finding no evidence that they read the documents. 

Attorney Greg Lathram of Collinsville filed a legal malpractice case in April 2020 against Monsanto lawyers Gregory Cade, Kevin McKie and Gary Anderson, alleging improper and egregious acts and omissions. 

They claim the lawyers violated professional rules of conduct by negotiating a mass settlement for clients alleging individual injuries.

“An individual litigant should not be bound by an aggregate settlement unless he has been informed of all the material terms of the settlement and has specifically agreed to the terms of the settlement,” the suit stated. 

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 09-L-295

More News