ILNews

Bad BP gas distributed widely in Indy, as far south as Corydon

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Tainted BP gasoline that is the subject of two federal lawsuits in northern Indiana was delivered to and likely sold in at least 28 Indianapolis gas stations and as far south as Corydon and Lawrenceburg, according to information the company provided.

The company initially reported that 2.1 million gallons of gas that was recalled after causing engine trouble had been sold at locations in northwest Indiana, the Chicago area, and locations in Wisconsin.

The company since has released a searchable web link listing locations where the bad gas was delivered. A BP spokesman also said Wednesday afternoon that the figure had increased to 4.7 million gallons after a review of distribution records. 

Cohen & Malad LLP in Indianapolis, in concert with Theodoros & Rooth P.C. in Merrillville, on Aug. 24 proposed a class action against BP Corporation North America Inc. and BP Products North America Inc. in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division. Indianapolis firm Price Waicukauski and Riley LLC also filed a proposed class action in that court on Friday.

In a statement Wednesday, Cohen & Malad quoted Scott Dean, a Chicago-based spokesman for BP, “We think we’ve caught Indianapolis pretty early and it’s a small amount. We’re hopeful that not much of the product has actually made it into people’s vehicles.”

But BP’s station lists shows a much wider distribution of the gasoline that the company said contained a higher-than-normal level of polymeric residue. BP blamed the problem on an alkylation unit at its Whiting refinery and said the problem had been corrected.

Searches of data on BP’s station list show the bad gas was delivered around the state to 18 of Indiana’s 30 largest cities and multiple smaller cities and towns. It was not delivered to stations in Fort Wayne, Evansville or South Bend, according to BP.

In addition to Indianapolis, the company said the fuel was delivered to BP and non-BP stations in cities including Anderson, Bedford, Bloomington, Carmel, Columbus, Greenwood, East Chicago, Hammond, Kokomo, Lafayette, Marion, Muncie, Noblesville, Portage, Richmond, Valparaiso and West Lafayette.    

“Once identified, each location was instructed to immediately stop selling the off-spec fuel and to properly clean out their tanks and dispose of the material,” according to BP.

The proposed class actions aim to recoup damages for thousands of motorists who purchased tainted gas and whose vehicles were damaged by it. Alleged damage ranges from difficulty starting and rough idling to total engine failure. BP on Wednesday said more than 9,600 claims were being processe, 63 percent from Indiana residents.

The gas was refined at BP’s Whiting facility and sourced from gasoline storage facilities in Whiting and Milwaukee, according to BP.
BP has asked customers who think they might have purchased tainted gas to call its hotline, 800-333-3991, or email bpconsum@bp.com. Consumers may file a complaint with the Indiana attorney general’s office online at www.indianaconsumer.com or by calling 800-382-5516.

For more information about the litigation, contact Cohen & Malad at 317-636-6481, Theodoros & Rooth at 219-769-6393, or PWR at 317-633-8787.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT