ILNews

Law firms pursue BP bad-gas class action

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Editor's note: This story has been updated.

One Indiana firm has filed a class-action lawsuit against BP in the wake of the company's gasoline recall in northwest Indiana. Two other law firms are pursuing a possible class-action suit.

Indianapolis firm Price Waicukauski and Riley LLC announced Friday afternoon it filed a proposed class action in the Hammond Division in the Northern District of Indiana. The suit seeks to represent all Indiana residents who purchaed the defective fuel. The plaintiff purchased defective BP gas Aug. 19. The following day, the plaintiff's car would not start, and a mechanic discovered the defecutive fuel had "significantly damaged the engine," according to a release from the firm.

Cohen & Malad LLP in Indianapolis and Theodoros & Rooth P.C. in Merrillville jointly have begun investigating the potential size and claims of a lawsuit after BP recalled gasoline blended at its facilities in Whiting.

The bad gas was sold at BP locations and other stations including Luke Oil and Thornton’s. It also was sold in locations from Milwaukee, Wis., to southwest Michigan, according to news reports.

BP said 2.1 million gallons of fuel blended between Aug. 13 and 17 contained a “higher than normal level of polymeric residue,” according to a statement from Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller, whose office has started an investigation. In a statement Thursday, BP blamed the problem on an alkylation unit at the Whiting refinery and said it had been corrected.

 “We have been told that as many as 100,000 people may have purchased the gasoline,” Cohen & Malad managing partner Irwin Levin said Friday. “We know that already at least 10,000 people complained to BP, so the numbers of the class are certainly going to be in the five figures.”

“People deserve justice and assurance that a company like BP will be held accountable for its actions,” Barry Rooth of Theodoros & Rooth said in a statement. “Thousands of people were impacted by this contaminated gas and have spent hundreds of dollars in car repairs. We are seeking full compensation for their damages.”

BP acted after hundreds of motorists complained about hard starting and unusual engine noise and shaking. Levin said the firm has consulted with experts about possible resulting engine damage.

BP has asked customers who think they might have purchased tainted gas to call its hotline, 800-333-3991, or email bpconsum@bp.com. Zoeller said consumers may file a complaint with the attorney general’s office online at www.indianaconsumer.com or by calling 800-382-5516.

For more information about PWR's suit, contact the firm at 317-633-8787. Those interested in learning more about the planned class action should call Cohen & Malad at 317-636-6481 or Theodoros & Rooth at 219-769-6393.


 

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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT