Environmental and Natural Resource Damages Law

In both state and federal courts across the country, Kanner & Whiteley, L.L.C.'s environmental practice focuses on property damage caused by pollution.  While these claims are pursued primarily on behalf of a class of plaintiffs, individual property owners have also sought the firm's expertise.  The firm is routinely qualified by courts as class counsel in light of its expertise and prior successes.  Governmental and tribal entities are also represented under theories of parens patriae, public nuisance and natural resource damages.  Counseling on due diligence practices is provided consistent with ever changing regulatory guidelines and available environmental assessment tools.  A unique mixture of theories available under state and federal laws as well as theories sounding in equity are utilized based upon the circumstances presented by each case.

• Samples v. Conoco, Inc., et al, No 2001-CA-000631, Div. "J" (Escambia County First Judicial Circuit Court, Florida)
  (Order of October 19, 2004) (granting final approval of a settlement awarding 65 million dollars to a certified class of property owners in Pensacola Florida for damages related to ground and surface water pollution)
  (Order of August 28, 2003) (certifying class of property owners living near NPL site for economic loss) (class counsel were "shown to be qualified, adequately financed, and possessed sufficient experience in the subject matter of the class action... as well as complex environmental litigation... have demonstrated both their commitment to vigorously pursue this matter on behalf of the class as well as their qualifications to do so.")
• Sanders, et al. v. Gary, et al., No. 95-CW-0070 & No. 95-CW-0940, 657 So.2d 1085, (1st Cir. La. App., June 23, 1995) (holding that trial court has jurisdiction to issue injunctions, even when the case involves mineral production otherwise regulated by the Commissioner of Conservation; rejection of administrative stay request; the trial court has jurisdiction to award restoration damages, even without prior Department of Environmental Quality approval).
• Magnolia Coal Terminal v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 576 So.2d 475(La. Sup. Ct., March 11, 1991) (right of property owner-lessor to tort, contract and nuisance remedies against oil and gas lessee for pollution cleanup recognized in case of first impression; regulatory preemption counter-arguments rejected).
• Canizaro v. Amoco Oil Company, No. 88-3916 (E.D. La.) (Feldman, J.) (multimillion dollar settlement for developer who purchased a former refinery site)
• Petrovic, et al. v. Amoco Oil Company, 200 F.3d 1140 (8th Cir. 1999) (adequacy of representation in class action and affirming discretion of trial court to refuse to use subclasses in environmental cases), cited with approval in MANUAL FOR COMPLEX L ITIGATION (3d ed.) (2002 ed.), § 30.18, p. 246
• Guste, et al. v. Shell Oil Company , No. 95-601 (E.D. La.)(January 15, 1997, allowing restoration damages in lieu of fair market value damages in a pollution case) (January 14, 1997, rejecting administrative stay request in damages case) (multi-million dollar settlement after six days of trial)