|
BerkshireEagleDotNetwork®/™
HOME
PAGE
The following is the text of the Amended Complaint
filed with the federal district Court in Springfield, Massachusetts on
March 20th, 2000 by residents of Lakewood and by members of the Residential
Environmental Action League (aka Get REAL).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
(Western Division)
MARY KATHRYN LEWIS, CHERYL AND ANGELO AULISIO, JOHN AND KATHLEEN BARBER,
RONALD AND JEAN BELLORA, NANCY BERTELLI, DAVID AND ANDREA BLESSING, DOMENICA
BOISON, MARYGRACE BROWN, LUIGIA CAPITANIO, MADELINE CARNEVALE, TERENCE
AND KATHERINE CHIARETTO, RICHARD CIMINI, IRENE CODY, MARY CORADESCHI, JUNE
CORSERI, JOHN AND KRISTIANNA DINICOLA, FERNANDA DELMOLINO, W. FRANK DIXON,
KATHY DONDI, JUDITH DORR, WILLIAM ELWORTHY, DIANE FERRERO, RICHARD AND
ELLEN FOTHERGILL, TECLA GIUSTI, RODERICK AND JEANETTE GRATTON, BRUCE
AND CHRISTINE LAMBERT, ANTHONY AND ANDREA LANCIA, ROBERT AND MARILYN LYSOBEY,
FRED AND JOAN MASTROGIOVANNI, DAVID MOYNIHAN, ALBERT AND SANDY NACHBAUER,
ELIZABETH NUGAI, MICHAEL O'KEEFE, ROBERTA ORSI, ROBERT OSTELLINO, DONALD
QUADROZZI, GINA PAGLIER, ERIC PLOUFFE, CHARLES AND JOAN REVORD, MARY ROSATI,
FRANCIS AND BERNICE ROY, MARY-JANE AND RUSSELL SACKETT, JR., JOSEPH
SCALISE, JR., KATHARINE AND JOHN STAPLEBERG, PAUL AND LOUISE VAN LOON,
AURIE WALSH, AND MARK AND PAULA WANNAMAKER,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.,
Defendant.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
C.A. No. 98-30057-MAP
AMENDED COMPLAINT
By this Amended Complaint, the plaintiffs make the following allegations,
based upon personal knowledge as to the allegations pertaining to themselves,
and based upon the investigation of counsel as to all other allegations:
Introductory Statement
1. The plaintiffs, property owners in the City of Pittsfield,
Massachusetts, bring this complaint for the damages caused to them
by the widespread dissemination of PCB-contaminated soil by the defendant,
the General Electric Company ("GE").
Parties
2. As more fully identified below, the plaintiffs are residents
of Pittsfield, Berkshire County, Massachusetts.
3. Defendant General Electric Company is a corporation organized
under the laws of the State of New York, with a principal place of business
in Fairfield, Connecticut. At all relevant times, GE conducted business
in Pittsfield, Massachusetts.
Jurisdiction and Venue
4. The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. §9613 and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332 because the amount
in controversy exceeds $75,000 for each plaintiff.
5. Venue is proper in this District because the plaintiffs all
reside in this District, all or a substantial part of the events giving
rise to the plaintiffs' claims occurred in this District, and because all
the real property at issue is located in this District.
GE's History of Contamination
6. From at least 1932 until 1976, GE manufactured and serviced
electrical transformers at its plant in Pittsfield, Massachusetts.
The transformers manufactured and serviced at GE's Pittsfield plant contained
insulating fluids comprised of various substances, including polychlorinated
biphenyls (commonly known as "PCBs").
7. During the years GE manufactured and serviced transformers
at its Pittsfield plant, oils containing PCBs regularly dropped or spilled
on the plant floor. These drops and spills were, on a regular basis,
mopped up using absorbent soil, known as "Fuller's earth." Fuller's
earth was also used to filter PCB-containing oils that GE used in manufacturing
transformers.
8. For many years, spent Fuller's earth and other PCB-contaminated
material was disposed of in the ground at the GE plant site. However,
during the 1940's, GE began to run out of room at its Pittsfield plant
site for disposal of the PCB-contaminated soil being generated in its manufacturing
processes, and it began to seek out other nearby locations in Pittsfield
for its disposal.
9. Because of the nature of the material, however, GE faced considerable
obstacles in disposing of it. According to an internal corporate
memorandum dated August 23, 1948 (attached as Exhibit 1 and referred to
herein as the "1948 Memorandum"), a local ordinance required that all combustible
material be incinerated, and GE was running out of places where it could
landfill contaminated soil. The author of the 1948 Memorandum
wrote, "This is the last section anywhere near the plant where we can dump
most anything that comes out of the factory."
10. Thus, GE began a program under which it offered to Pittsfield
contractors and residents free soil for use in filling in and grading their
properties. GE falsely characterized the soil being offered as "clean,
non-combustible" material.
11. Although GE characterized the soil being offered under the
program as "clean, non-combustible material," GE knew that the soil was
in fact contaminated with PCBs and was, in some instances, combustible.
12. Much of the soil disposed of by GE under this program was
disposed of in residential properties throughout Pittsfield, and
this dumping continued for many years. As PCB-contaminated soil was
excavated from GE's plant site over the next four decades, it too was disseminated
to Pittsfield contractors and residents, and disposed of on properties
throughout Pittsfield. Unbeknownst to the recipients of the soil,
the soil was contaminated with hazardous substances.
13. Also unbeknownst to the residents of Pittsfield, GE's disposal
of PCB-contaminated material also resulted in releases of PCBs to the atmosphere.
The Dangers of PCBs
14. PCBs are the principal hazardous substance contained in the
contaminated soils that GE disposed of throughout Pittsfield. The
contaminated soil disposed of by GE, in some instances, also contained
other hazardous substances, including semi-volatile organic compounds,
metals, dioxins and furans.
15. PCBs are highly toxic substances considered a probable human
carcinogen. PCBs are believed to cause cancer of the liver, gall
bladder and gastrointestinal tract. In addition to cancer, PCB exposure
in humans is linked to a variety of neurobehavioral and functional problems,
including muscle pain, skin disorders, nervousness, and sleep disorders.
16. Children are believed to be particularly at risk from PCB
exposure, having been shown to suffer developmental deficits and reduced
growth due to prenatal exposures.
17. In 1976, responding to studies showing substantial health
risks posed by PCBs, the federal government ordered a phase-out of PCB
production and eventually banned all manufacture, distribution and use
of PCBs.
GE's Cover-Up
18. After the federal government banned PCBs, GE stopped using
them in its manufacturing processes in Pittsfield. However, GE did
not also undertake to clean up the devastation it had wrought on Pittsfield
by its disposal of PCBs and other hazardous substances.
19. Instead, in 1978, GE undertook a plan to quietly acquire residential
properties that it learned had been contaminated with PCBs. In an
internal corporate memorandum (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 2),
the purpose of the plan was explained as "reducing legal and public exposure
by bringing the property under the immediate control of the company."
20. There is also evidence that GE continued to dispose of contaminated
soil in the community even after the federal ban on PCBs. According
to an internal corporate memorandum dated July 2, 1981, allegedly contaminated
soil excavated from
behind GE's Building 119 was disposed of at a residential property
in June of 1981.
21. Truckloads of contaminated soil were again disposed of at
residential properties in 1984.
22. On May 27, 1981, GE entered into an administrative consent
order with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (then
known as the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering and hereinafter
referred to as "DEP"), under which it agreed to disclose "all past and
present PCB and other hazardous waste disposal practices, and the locations,
to the extent known, of all past and present hazardous waste disposal sites
or storage area used by the Plant [in Pittsfield]." However,
after agreeing to this disclosure, GE instead withheld from regulators
and from the community critical information about its disposal of contaminated
soil.
23. For example, in a report it submitted to the DEP in 1982,
GE failed to disclose a letter it had received dated May 15, 1981 from
a retired GE employee named R. Kelly Niederjohn, which identified numerous
locations "around the community" where contaminated Fuller's Earth
and PCB-containing oils (known as "Pyranol") had been disposed. In
the letter (attached as Exhibit 3), Mr. Niederjohn wrote:
"A real thorough study should be made to at least
identify where spent Fullers Earth and discarded Pyranol were dumped. If
we do not do that now, our children and grand children will get bit by
our neglect." (emphasis added)
24. Mr. Niederjohn also identified in an attachment to the letter
numerous former employees with knowledge concerning the disposal of PCB-contaminated
soil and Pyranol. However, GE did not talk with the former employees
identified by Mr. Niederjohn. Instead, in gathering information to
report to the DEP in 1982, GE spoke only with its "then-current employees."
GE also sought to limit the information its interviewers sought from the
then-current employees, instructing the interviewers that: "Information
should reflect [the employee's] personal experience and not hearsay; nor
should consultation with other employees by the person interviewed be encouraged."
25. GE also failed to disclose to environmental regulators or
to the community additional information Mr. Niederjohn provided in 1989
or the information contained in an internal 1992 memorandum (the "1992
Memorandum") about PCB-contamination believed to have been prepared by
another former GE employee.
26. The 1992 memorandum (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit
4) listed 13 areas of "potential environmental liability" for GE's Pittsfield
operation, including ten residential streets where GE had dumped contaminated
materials.
27. GE did not disclose the Niederjohn information or the 1992
Memorandum to regulators until March 1997, after testing of several residential
properties in Pittsfield detected the presence of PCBs at hazardous levels.
The documents were not disclosed to the public until August of 1997, when
articles quoting them were published in The Berkshire Eagle and
the Boston Globe.
28. Thus, it was not until August of 1997 that the residents of
Pittsfield became aware that GE had contaminated large residential sections
of their neighborhood with PCBs and other hazardous materials.
29. Moreover, GE has not to date produced to the public all of
the records it has pertaining to contamination of residential properties.
The Devastating Effect of GE's Actions
30. In 1997, faced with pressure from federal and state regulators,
and a huge outcry from Pittsfield community, GE belatedly began the process
of identifying the properties it had contaminated with its hazardous wastes.
31. As of January 2000, approximately 180 properties in Pittsfield
outside the GE plant had been tested and found to contain PCBs in soils
above the regulatory action level of two parts per million.
32. This widespread contamination has had a devastating effect
on the plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their properties. The plaintiffs
have lost a sense of safety and security in their own homes, are afraid
to allow children to play in their own backyards, and have been besieged
by armies of contractors, consultants and other clean-up personnel in protective
suits.
33. The plaintiffs' properties contaminated with PCBs and
those nearby have also lost value.
34. The interferences with the use and enjoyment of property continue
even for those plaintiffs whose properties have been excavated. This
is because GE has often not fully restored properties to the condition
they were in prior to excavation, because excavation continues on other
properties in the neighborhood, and because GE has determined to leave
behind some of its PCB contamination.
GE's Failure to Test
35. The hazards posed to the community by its disposal of PCB-contaminated
material was known to GE long before August of 1997. According to
a report by Dr. Ian Nisbet, who studied PCBs for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency:
The extent and geographical patterns of environmental
contamination with PCBs were well documented by 1972. This contamination
was identified as due, in part, to leaks from PCB-contaminated equipment.
. . .
Close parallels between the toxic effects of PCBs and dioxins
were established during the 1960's. These parallels were pointed
out not only in some of the original research papers, but also in major
scientific reviews. . . .
The toxicity of PCBs was studied intensively in the period 1969-1972
and fully documented reviews were published in 1972. Most of the
critical toxic effects of PCBs had been reported or suggested by that time.
In particular, adverse effects on reproduction in mammals had been reported,
and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had pointed out evidence suggesting
that PCBs might be carcinogenic.
The information base on the toxicity of PCBs was expanded rapidly
and progressively during the period 1973-1975. By the time of the
First National Conference on PCBs in November of 1975, all of the critical
toxic information on mechanisms of action was beginning to appear.
The carcinogenicity of PCBs had been confirmed in several studies in animals,
and adverse effects on reproduction in non-human primates had been reported.
The hazardous nature of PCBs were generally accepted during the
1970s. Some questions about their hazards to humans were raised during
the period 1980-1984, but have already been resolved by additional studies
during the 1980s. . . .
The chemical scavenger ("epoxide 201") used by GE in its transformer
fluids to prevent build-up of corrosive acids was known to be carcinogenic
at the time of its introduction in 1962 and at all times since.
36. Under the glare of the public spotlight in August of 1997, GE
represented that it would do what was necessary to protect the public against
the dangers of PCBs. Jane Gardner, manager of GE's remediation programs,
stated that GE's top priority was to protect the "health of the public."
GE promised to conduct an aggressive program of testing residential properties
and to remove all residential soil contaminated with PCBs at a level greater
than two parts per million.
37. Nonetheless, once the glare of the media spotlight faded,
GE retreated from its promise to remediate to a level of two parts per
million. It currently offers to clean properties only to an average
of two parts per million, and considers in that calculation only the top
one foot of soil.
38. GE has also refused the requests of many homeowners
to test their properties for PCBs at all.
Facts Relating to the Individual Plaintiffs
39. Until September 1999, plaintiff Mary Kathryn Lewis owned a
home and property located at 121 Dorchester Avenue in Pittsfield, where
she lived with her husband and their five children.
a. In the spring
of 1997, Ms. Lewis put the house up for sale, because she found it was
becoming too small for the size of her family. However, despite consistent
efforts to sell the house, she was unable to do so.
b. According to the broker handling
the property for her, Ms. Lewis received three offers to purchase the property,
all of which fell through because of the public accounts of PCB contamination
in their neighborhood.
c. Ms. Lewis' home was across the
street from two properties that were found to contain PCBs at hazardous
levels, down the street from two other properties that were found to contains
PCBs at hazardous levels, one block from Longfellow Avenue (where four
properties have been found to contain PCBs at hazardous levels), and two
blocks from Edison Avenue (where three properties have been found to contain
PCBs at hazardous levels).
d. When Ms. Lewis became aware of the
contaminated properties in her neighborhood, she began to fear that her
own property might be contaminated. She was particularly concerned
about the fact that her young children, ages 1, 3, 5 and 9, regularly played
in the dirt in the yard adjoining their home.
e. Fearing for the well-being of her
children and unable to sell her home, Ms. Lewis contacted GE to inquire
whether the company would agree to test their property for the presence
of PCBs and other hazardous substances. Although Ms. Lewis was originally
told the property would be tested, Jane Magee, GE's remediation manager
in Pittsfield, subsequently advised that GE would not test the property.
Ms. Lewis was unable herself to pay the thousands of dollars it would cost
to have her property tested.
f. Finally, in 1999, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency agreed to test Ms. Lewis' property.
The tests showed that there were PCBs on the property, but at levels the
Agency believed did not require excavation. With test results in
hand, Ms. Lewis was able to finally sell the property, although at a price
substantially less than she had been offered in 1997.
g. Thus, as a result of GE's wrongful
conduct, Ms. Lewis suffered the diminution in her property value, loss
of the use and enjoyment of her property, and the annoyance, upset and
inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
40. Plaintiffs Angelo and Cheryl Aulisio
own a home and property at 77 Scalise Drive in Pittsfield, where they reside
with their daughter.
a. Mr. Aulisio built the house
in 1982 and put on an addition in 1984, for which he needed fill.
Unbeknownst to Mr. Aulisio, however, the fill he got was fill from GE that
was contaminated with PCBs. This was seven years after PCBs had been
banned.
b. Mr. and Mrs. Aulisio first suspected
that the fill was contaminated in 1998, when they discovered electrical
parts in the fill in the course of digging to build a deck, and brought
the parts to the attention of GE.
c. Subsequent testing revealed PCB contamination
in surface soils around the house and driveway at hazardous levels as well
as contamination below the family room and garage.
d. Although GE has offered to excavate
some of the contamination, it refuses to remove the highest levels of contamination
found on the property.
e. Since the contamination was discovered,
the Aulisios have been afraid to allow their daughter to play outside.
They are concerned that she was exposed to PCBs by playing in their yard
before they learned of the contamination. They are also concerned
that they themselves were exposed. Mr. Aulisio handled the fill in
building the addition and garage and Mrs. Aulisio gardened in it.
f. As a result of the contamination, Mr. and Mrs.
Aulisio have suffered a loss in the value of their property, loss of the
use and enjoyment of their property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience
associated with the nuisance.
41. Plaintiffs John and Kathleen Barber own
a home and property at 138 Oak Hill Road in Pittsfield, where they reside
with their two children.
a. When Mr. and Mrs. Barber bought
their home in 1988, they had no reason to suspect there was contamination
on it. However, in 1997, they received a letter from the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection advising them their property would
need to be tested for the presence of PCBs.
b. The property was thereafter tested
on several occasions, and the testing revealed PCBs in soils throughout
the property, including several locations with concentrations above two
parts per million.
c. However, GE has refused to remove the PCB
contamination on the property because, on "average," the concentration
of PCBs in soils at the property is below two parts per million.
d. The Barbers were greatly distressed to learn
that their property was contaminated with PCBs, and even more distressed
to learn that the contamination would not be cleaned up.
e. The Barbers' home is also adjacent to and
down the street from other properties that have been found to be contaminated
with PCBs.
f. Thus, the Barbers have been left,
through no fault of their own, with a property that is contaminated with
PCBs, on a street with other contaminated properties.
g. As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, the
Barbers have suffered a loss in the value of their property, loss of the
use and enjoyment of their property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience
associated with the nuisance.
42. Plaintiff Sherman Bastow owns a home and several
parcels on Melrose Avenue in Pittsfield, where he resides with his wife.
a. Mr. Bastow moved into his
home in 1960, and purchased the adjoining parcels thereafter. When
he purchased the properties, he had no reason to suspect that they were
contaminated.
b. However, in 1997, Mr. Bastow became
concerned when he read in the newspaper that properties in his neighborhood
had been tested and found to contain PCB's at hazardous levels, and then
observed testing being conducted on a property across the street.
c. Mr. Bastow requested that his properties
be tested. GE agreed to test two of his parcels, alongside Goodrich
Pond, and found hazardous levels of contamination there. However,
GE refused to test the adjoining parcel where Mr. Bastow and his wife live,
and refused to excavate all the areas where PCBs were found.
d. Then, in the fall of 1999, Mr. Bastow's
street was turned into a construction site. Noisy tanker trucks operated
outside his house from early in the morning until late in the afternoon.
Truckloads of dirt came and went every day for months. Construction
vehicles created holes in the street, and blocked the entrance to his driveway.
e. Although GE initially promised to
relocate Mr. Bastow and his wife during the work, the company never did
so. When, during the course of the excavation work, GE broke their
sewer pipe, Mr. and Mrs. Bastow were forced to leave the house at their
own expense.
f. When the construction site conditions
finally ended, GE failed to restore Mr. Bastow's property to the condition
it was in before the work. In addition to ruts left in his grass
and rocks pushed up onto his property, regrading has caused flooding onto
his property.
g. Mr. Bastow is also concerned that
he and his family were needlessly exposed to contamination over the years.
h. As a result of GE's wrongful conduct,
Mr. Bastow has suffered a loss in the value of his property, loss of the
use and enjoyment of his property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience
associated with the nuisance.
43. Plaintiffs Ronald and Jean Bellora own a home
and property at 41 Brattle Street in Pittsfield, where they reside.
a. The Belloras moved into their
home when it was first built in 1973, and had no reason to suspect that
the property was contaminated.
b. However, in 1998, they became concerned
when they learned that their street, Brattle Street, was being tested for
PCB contamination.
c. The Belloras learned thereafter that
the street was contaminated with PCBs (and that the PCBs will be left there),
that a vacant lot they own on the street was contaminated with PCBs, and
that several other properties on the street were contaminated with PCBs.
d. Although the Belloras have requested testing
on their own property, GE has refused to test.
e. The Belloras have been distressed by the
refusal to test, and by the presence of contaminated properties all around
them. Others refer to their neighborhood as "PCB-ville," and ask
them, "Are you glowing yet?"
f. As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, the Belloras
have suffered a loss in the value of their property, loss of the use and
enjoyment of their property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience
associated with the nuisance.
44. Plaintiff Nancy Bertelli owns a home and property
at 10 Longview Terrace in Pittsfield, where she resides with her husband.
a. Mrs. Bertelli moved into the house
six years ago, when her mother-in-law moved to a nursing home, and had
no reason to suspect that the property was contaminated.
b. However, she became concerned in 1997, when
she learned that a property down the street was being tested for PCB contamination
and, subsequently, that the property down the street had been found to
have PCBs at concentrations exceeding 40,000 parts per million.
c. Mrs. Bertelli asked GE to test her own property,
but GE refused. Then, in 1999, the United States Environmental Protection
Agency agreed to test Mrs. Bertelli's property, and found that her property
was in fact contaminated with PCBs at hazardous levels.
d. In 1998, Mrs. Bertelli was exposed to constant
truck traffic, dust, dirt and noise as numerous properties on her street
were excavated to remove PCBs.
e. Mrs. Bertelli now faces the prospect of
further testing, excavation, and disruption at her own property.
She is also concerned about how she has been exposed to PCBs at her property
over the years.
f. As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Ms.
Bertelli has suffered a loss in the value of her property, loss of the
use and enjoyment of her property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience
associated with the nuisance.
45. Plaintiffs David and Andrea Blessing own a home and
property at 124 Oak Hill Road in Pittsfield, where they reside, and a business
property at 717 ½ Crane Avenue, where they work.
a. When the Blessings bought their
home, they had no idea that the property was contaminated with PCBs.
b. In 1998, however, the Blessings were
distressed to learn that numerous other properties on their street had
been tested and had been found to contain PCBs in soil.
c. Although GE agreed to test the Blessings'
properties for PCBs, GE refused to test in places where the Blessings thought
the contractors were most likely to find contamination.
d. Nonetheless, the testing that GE did do
revealed PCBs on their property at hazardous levels.
e. When GE then came to excavate the areas
where it had found PCB contamination, it left behind damage to the Blessing's
property.
f. The Blessings are also concerned about the
extent of contamination at their business property, where they operate
a greenhouse. As with their residential property, GE has refused
to test the Blessings' business property in appropriate places, and now
says it needs to do no further work there.
g. The Blessings are concerned that they may
have been exposed to PCBs for years at their properties without knowing
it.
h. As a result of GE's wrongful
conduct, the Blessings have suffered a loss in the value of their properties,
loss of the use and enjoyment of their properties, and the annoyance, upset
and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
46. Plaintiff Domenica Boison owns a home and property
at 72 Parkside Avenue in Pittsfield, where she resides.
a. Mrs. Boison moved into her home
in 1949, when it was built by her husband. When she moved in, Mrs.
Boison had no reason to suspect the property was contaminated.
b. However, in 1998, Mrs. Boison became concerned
when other properties on her street and on nearby Herie Avenue were tested
and found to have PCBs at high levels (in several cases exceeding 500 parts
per million).
c. Since then, Mrs. Boison, who is unable to
afford to test the property herself, has made repeated requests to have
her property tested, but her requests have gone unheeded.
d. Mrs. Boison wants to maintain a garden
on her property, but is afraid to do so because she does not know if the
property is contaminated. She has also put off work on her lawn, not knowing
if her yard is going to need to be dug up. She is also afraid she
may have trouble selling her property if she should need to do so.
e. In addition to her fears about her own property,
Mrs. Boison has been distressed by the noise, dust and dirt associated
with the excavations nearby, and the accompanying truck traffic.
f. As a result of GE's wrongful
conduct, Mrs. Boison has suffered a loss in the value of her property,
loss of the use and enjoyment of her property, and the annoyance, upset
and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
47. Plaintiff Marygrace Brown owns a home and property
at 48 Ventura Avenue in Pittsfield, where she resides with her husband
and two daughters.
a. She and her husband moved
into the property thirteen years ago, and had no reason to suspect at the
time that the property was contaminated.
b. In the spring of 1997, however, she
noticed people doing work in the stream that ran alongside her property
and asked what they were doing. She was referred to the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection, who apprised her that the people
were doing testing for the presence of PCBs in the stream and on the property
next door to hers.
c. Mrs. Brown asked if her property should
be tested as well, and although state officials originally said no, they
later called and requested permission to test her property.
d. Subsequent testing revealed extremely hazardous
levels of PCBs on Mrs. Brown's property, and she was told her property
would need to be excavated. However, she was not told the extent
of the excavation until shortly before the work began. The uncertainty
of not knowing what would happen to her property greatly distressed Mrs.
Brown.
e. Then, when Mrs. Brown was told the extent
of the excavation that would need to be done at her property, she pleaded
with GE to buy the property so that she would not have to watch all her
years of work on the property be torn apart. GE refused.
Mrs. Brown next raised with GE ways to reduce the devastating loss of
privacy that appeared imminent, and offered to contribute money to the
restoration of the property that would ameliorate this loss. Again,
GE refused.
f. Once the work began, it went on for months.
GE's contractors spent weeks on the property just tearing down trees and
other structures in order to prepare for the excavation, which stretched
all the way to the next street.
g. Mrs. Brown's property was literally turned
into a construction site for months. Although GE offered her family
housing at another location for part of this time, the place they were
housed was also under construction, so they could not escape from noise
and disruption. Also, the excavation work on Mrs. Brown's property
was not completed before the family had to leave the temporary housing,
and they therefore had to spend weeks living in construction site conditions.
Then, after the excavation work was completed, GE's work on Mrs. Brown's
property dragged on for more months.
h. GE's work entailed constant intrusions
to Mrs. Browns' privacy. There were constantly stranger around, strangers
walking through her property, and cars and people stopping and staring
as the work was being done.
i. GE did not restore Mrs. Brown's property
to its prior condition. GE could not replace the forty foot trees
that had surrounded her back yard, and that provided security and privacy
for her family. GE dug up the family's pet cemetery, and left the
exhumed pets lying around for Mrs. Brown's daughters to see when they came
home one day. GE also could not replace the stone structures that
Mrs. Brown and her husband had built with their own hands.
j. In addition to the intrusion caused
by the work on her own property, Mrs. Brown and her family had to incur
extreme noise, dust and dirt from the excavation work done on the two properties
next to hers. Her property was used as an access route for the other
properties, and as a parking lot for GE's excavation vehicles. Her
house also shook from the work next door, and the family could not open
their windows or use their backyard for months.
k. As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Mrs.
Brown has suffered a loss in the value of her property, loss of the use
and enjoyment of her property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience
associated with the nuisance.
48. Plaintiff Luigia Capitanio owns a home and
property at 30 Melrose Avenue in Pittsfield, where she resides.
a. Mrs. Capitanio moved
into her home in 1966. When she moved in, Mrs. Capitanio had no reason
to suspect the property was contaminated.
b. However, in 1998, Mrs. Capitanio became
concerned when other properties on her street and along nearby Goodrich
Pond were tested and found to have PCBs at high levels (in some cases exceeding
24,000 parts per million).
c. Since then, Mrs. Capitanio, who is unable
to afford testing herself, has made repeated requests to have her
property tested, but her requests have gone unheeded.
d. Mrs. Capitanio wants to maintain a
garden on her property, but is afraid to do so because she does not know
if the property is contaminated. To Mrs. Capitanio, gardening is
one of the pleasures of life.
e. Mrs. Capitanio is also afraid she may have
trouble selling her property if she should need to do so.
f. In addition to her fears about her own property,
Mrs. Capitanio has been distressed by the noise, dust and dirt associated
with the excavations nearby, and the accompanying truck traffic, which
went on for months.
g. As a result of GE's
wrongful conduct, Mrs. Capitanio has suffered a loss in the value of her
property, loss of the use and enjoyment of her property, and the annoyance,
upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
49. Plaintiffs Madeline and Anna Carnevale own
a two-unit property at 42-44 Longview Terrace in Pittsfield, where they
formerly resided.
a. Anna Carnevale has owned the
property since 1953, and had no reason to suspect that the property was
contaminated with PCBs.
b. In 1997, however, the Carnevales
learned that the property across the street was contaminated with
PCBs, and became concerned that their own property might be contaminated.
c. Subsequent testing revealed
only low levels of PCBs on their property, but extremely high levels (44,000
parts per million) in the property across the street.
d. General Electric erected an
obtrusive fence on the property across the street, and began testing and
excavation activities in the fall of 1997 which continued through the spring
and summer of 1998. Anna Carnevale, who was then 82 years old and
who was living in the unit at 44 Longview Terrace, was distressed by the
noise, dust and dirt associated with the excavations, and the accompanying
truck traffic, which went on for months.
e. The conditions across the street made
it difficult for the family to rent the unit at 42 Longview Terrace, which
became vacant in October of 1997, and they were forced to lower the price
in order to obtain tenants there.
f. The family considered selling the
property in May of 1998, when Anna had to move out of the unit at 44 Longview
Terrace due to poor health, but could not sell due to the contaminated
conditions in the neighborhood. Again, they were forced to accept
a tenant at a lower rent.
g. As a result of GE's wrongful
conduct, the Carnevales have suffered a loss in the value of their property,
loss of the use and enjoyment of their property, and the annoyance, upset
and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
50. Plaintiffs Terence and Kathy Chiaretto own a home
and property at 134 Oak Hill Road, where they reside with their two children.
a. When they purchased the property,
they had no reason to suspect that it was contaminated with PCBs.
In fact, in the 1990's, Mrs. Chiaretto began to operate a home day care
center on the property.
b. In 1997, however, the Chiarettos were distressed
to learn that their property was contaminated with PCBs at hazardous levels.
They feared for the safety of their family and of the children who attended
the day care center.
c. The Chiarettos felt that they had
to disclose the contamination conditions to the parents of the children
attending the day care, and these disclosures affected their ability to
retain children in the center and to attract new children when there were
vacancies.
d. In the summer of 1998, the Chiarettos had
to close the day care center and vacate their home on two occasions, in
order to accommodate a planned excavation of the property by GE.
They requested that GE reimburse them for the income they lost during the
shutdowns, but GE refused.
e. GE also promised to restore the landscaping
on the property when it completed its excavation work, but then failed
to do so. Shrubs and grass GE planted did not match with existing
plantings. Other plantings died, or looked like an eyesore.
f. In addition to their fears about their
own property, the Chiarettos were distressed by the noise, dust and dirt
associated with the excavations on other properties on their street, and
the accompanying truck traffic, which went on for months. These conditions
were also embarrassing to explain to the parents of the children in the
day care center.
g. As a result of the contamination on their
property and neighboring properties, the Chiarettos concluded in
May of 1999 that they had to shut down the day care center.
Since closing the daycare, Mrs. Chiaretto has not had a regular income.
h. As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, the
Chiarettos have suffered a loss in the value of their property, a loss
in income, a loss of the use and enjoyment of their property, and the annoyance,
upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
51. Plaintiffs Richard Cimini owns a home and property
at 18 Brattle Street in Pittsfield, where he resides with his wife and
their two children. They also own rental property at 94 Lyman Street.
a. When Mr. Cimini moved into the home
in 1988, he had no reason to suspect that the property was contaminated
with PCBs.
b. However, in 1998, he was contacted by the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and was asked to allow
testing on the property for PCBs. When the testing was completed,
Mr. Cimini was distressed to learn that his property was contaminated with
PCBs at hazardous levels, including in the area of the yard where his children,
ages 3 and 8, regularly play.
c. Mr. Cimini was also distressed to learn
that the street he lives on and that was unpaved until 1998 is contaminated
with PCBs, and will not be excavated.
d. Mr. Cimini fears for his own safety
and the safety of his children.
e. The contamination, which remains on
their property, has also affected the reputation of the neighborhood, which
the Ciminis have heard referred to as "PCB-ville," and the value of their
property.
f. PCB contamination has also reduced
the value of the rental property the Ciminis own at 94 Lyman Street, because
that property is surrounded by properties contaminated with PCBs.
g. As a result of GE's
wrongful conduct, the Ciminis have suffered a loss in the value of their
property, loss of the use and enjoyment of their property, and the annoyance,
upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
52. Plaintiff Irene Cody owns a home and property
at 113 Deming Street in Pittsfield, where she resides.
a. Mrs. Cody bought the property in
1966, and had her home built on it in 1971. Although the property
is near the Housatonic River, Mrs. Cody had no reason to suspect when she
bought it that the property itself was contaminated.
b. However, Mrs. Cody was distressed
to learn in 1995 that her property was contaminated with PCBs at hazardous
levels.
c. Her property was thereafter the subject
of an "Immediate Response Action," lasting six months, in which 130 cubic
yards of soil were removed from her property.
d. In addition to the intrusion caused by this
excavation, Mrs. Cody was distressed to learn that, even after its excavation,
GE had left PCBs in the soil on her property an concentrations exceeding
43 parts per million.
e. GE also failed to restore Mrs. Cody's property
to the condition it was in prior to the excavation. It replanted
tiny trees in place of the large ones there had been prior to the excavation,
and many are in poor condition.
f. As a result of GE's wrongful
conduct, Mrs. Cody has suffered a loss in the value of her property, loss
of the use and enjoyment of her property, and the annoyance, upset and
inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
53. Plaintiff Mary Coradeschi owns a home and property
at 36 Richardson Street in Pittsfield, where she resides.
a. Mrs. Coradeschi moved into her home
in 1952, when it was built by her husband (now deceased), and she had no
reason at the time to suspect that the property was contaminated with PCBs.
b. However, Mrs. Coradeschi became concerned
when she learned that other properties in her neighborhood were being tested
for the presence of PCB contamination.
c. Mrs. Coradeschi requested that her property
be tested as well, but had to wait many months before testing was done.
d. Mrs. Coradeschi was distressed to learn
as a result of the testing, that the soil on her property contained PCBs
at hazardous levels, and worried that she has been exposed to PCBs over
the years.
e. She was particularly distressed to learn
that the contaminants were located in her garden, which she has used for
years to grow vegetables. Since Mrs. Coradeschi has been ill and
gets around little, her home and garden are an extremely important part
of her life.
f. As a result of GE's wrongful
conduct, Mrs. Coradeschi has suffered a loss in the value of her
property, loss of the use and enjoyment of her property, and the annoyance,
upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
54. Plaintiff June Corseri owns a home and
property at 21 Ventura Avenue, where she resides.
a. She moved into her home in 1962,
when her husband (now deceased) finished building it, and had no reason
to suspect at the time there was contamination on or near the property.
b. However, Mrs. Corseri became concerned when
she learned that the property next door to hers had been tested and found
to contain hazardous levels of PCBs.
c. Mrs. Corseri requested testing, and the
testing revealed that her property was not contaminated with PCBs.
d. However, numerous properties on her street
were found to contain PCBs at hazardous levels. One property was
so contaminated that the house on the property had to be torn down and
truckloads of contaminated soil hauled away.
e. Mrs. Corseri has been distressed that others
have spoken of her neighborhood as "PCB land", and she fears for the safety
of her three grandchildren who visit her every week.
f. As a result of GE's wrongful
conduct, Mrs. Corseri has suffered a loss in the value of her property,
loss of the use and enjoyment of her property, and the annoyance, upset
and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
55. Plaintiffs Kristianna and John Dinicola own
a home and property at 118 Oak Hill Road in Pittsfield, where they reside
with Mrs. Dinicola's son.
a. Mrs. Dinicola's parents bought the
house when she was 11 years old. At the time they bought the property,
they had no reason to suspect that it was contaminated with PCBs.
b. In 1998, the Dinicolas decided to purchase
the house from Mrs. Dincola's mother who could no longer afford the upkeep.
d. After purchasing the property, Mr. and Mrs. Dinicola
were distressed to learn that the property was contaminated with PCBs.
e. Although GE promised that the excavation project
would be completed within two weeks, it lasted for most of the summer.
Although GE agreed it would use the Dinicola's driveway only to gain access
to excavate their property, GE in fact used it to excavate two neighboring
properties. Although GE said that relocation for their family was
not necessary because the excavation would last only a short-time, the
Dinicolas lived in construction site conditions, with limited use of their
property, for almost the entire summer.
f. As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, the Dinicolas
have suffered a loss in the value of their property, loss of the use and
enjoyment of their property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience
associated with the nuisance.
56. Plaintiff Fernanda Delmolino owns a home and
rental property at 20 Allessio Street in Pittsfield. She resides
in one of the two units there.
a. Mrs. Delmolino moved into the house
in 1946, and had no reason to suspect that the property was contaminated.
b. However, she became concerned when she read
in the newspaper that other properties in her neighborhood were contaminated
with PCBs.
c. When she learned that the property next
door to hers was being tested for PCB contamination, she requested testing
of her own property, but was told it would not be done.
d. She became even more distressed when she learned
that a property down the street had to have PCBs removed, and trucks full
of contaminated soil traversed her street.
e. The existence of the PCB contamination in the
neighborhood has deterred people from renting the rental unit in her house.
One couple told her specifically that they would not rent the unit because
the house was in the "PCB section, " and she was unable to rent the unit
to others for over half a year.
f. As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Mrs. Delmolino
has suffered a loss in the value of her property, loss of the use and enjoyment
of her property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated
with the nuisance.
57. Plaintiff W. Frank Dixon owns a home and property
at 80 Parkside Avenue in Pittsfield, where he resides.
a. Mr. Dixon purchased the property
15 years ago, and had no reason at the time to suspect that the property
was contaminated.
b. However, he became concerned when
he learned that other properties in her neighborhood were contaminated
with PCBs.
c. When he learned that other properties nearby
were being tested for PCB contamination, he requested testing of his own
property. However, GE still has not tested his property, and he is
concerned whether he has been exposed to PCBs.
d. Mr. Dixon became even more distressed when he
learned that other properties in the neighborhood were being excavated
extensively to remove PCB-contaminated soil, and trucks full of contaminated
soil traversed his street.
e. As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Mr. Dixon has
suffered a loss in the value of his property, loss of the use and enjoyment
of his property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated
with the nuisance.
58. Plaintiff Kathy Dondi owns a home and property
at 44 Melrose Avenue in Pittsfield, where she resides.
a. Ms. Dondi bought the property in
1973, and had no reason at the time to suspect that it was contaminated.
b. However, Ms. Dondi was distressed
to learn in 1997 that properties in her neighborhood, including a property
next door and a property across the street from hers, had been tested and
found to contain PCBs at hazardous levels.
c. Ms. Dondi was even more distressed when
her street was turned into a construction site for months, and she had
to see and hear tanker trucks and heavy construction equipment traversing
her street from morning until night. Construction vehicles created
holes in the street, and repeatedly blocked the entrance to her driveway.
d. GE has refused to test her property, despite
the fact that the property next to hers and the one across the street were
tested and found to contain PCBs at very high levels.
e. Ms. Dondi is also distressed because does not
know whether it is safe to eat the vegetables out of her garden, which
she has maintained for many years.
f. As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Ms. Dondi
has suffered a loss in the value of her property, loss of the use and enjoyment
of her property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated
with the nuisance.
59. Plaintiff Judith Dorr owns a home and property
at 56 Dorchester Avenue in Pittsfield, where she resides with her husband
and two children.
a. When she bought the property in
1991, Mrs. Dorr had no reason to suspect that the property was contaminated
with PCBs.
b. However, in or about 1997, she was distressed
to learn that numerous other properties in the neighborhood had been found
to contain PCBs at hazardous levels, and she began to see men in protective
suits excavating soil from other properties on her street and down the
block on Newell Street.
c. Mrs. Dorr fears that her own property might
be contaminated, and that she, her husband, and their children are being
exposed to contamination.
d. The widespread contamination in her neighborhood
has also reduced the value of her home.
e. As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Mrs. Dorr has
suffered a loss in the value of her property, loss of the use and enjoyment
of her property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated
with the nuisance.
60. Plaintiff William Elworthy owns a home and property
at 50 Valentine Road, where he resides with his wife.
a. When Mr. Elworthy purchased the
property in 1970, he had no reason to suspect that the property was contaminated
with PCBs.
b. However, in or about 1997, when he heard
about GE's dissemination of PCB-contaminated soil throughout Pittsfield,
he called and requested that his property be tested for contamination.
When the property was subsequently tested, Mr. Elworthy was distressed
to learn that the soil on the property contained PCBs at hazardous levels.
c. Mr. Elworthy was particularly distressed because
high concentrations of PCBs were found next to his former garden, in which
he had grown tomatoes, carrots, and beans for years, and from which he
had fed his family.
d. The subsequent excavation of his property caused
Mr. Elworthy further anguish. GE cut down two 40-foot red maple trees
next to his house, which had long graced the property and created shade
from the summer heat for Mr. Elworthy and his wife, who is disabled and
homebound.
e. When the excavation was done, GE planted trees
that did not survive and resurfaced the driveway with asphalt that cracked.
Moreover, the excavation did not remove all the contaminants on Mr. Elworthy's
property; a further excavation had to be done the following year, but that,
too, did not remove all contamination. Mr. Elworthy found electrical
parts and tainted soil in an area where he had repeatedly requested, but
GE has refused, to excavate.
f. As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Mr. Elworthy has
suffered a loss in the value of his property, loss of the use and enjoyment
of his property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated
with the nuisance.
61. Plaintiff Diane Ferrero owns a home and property
at 14-16 Richardson Street in Pittsfield, where she resides.
a. Ms. Ferrero has lived at the property
since she was born in 1948, and until recently had no reason to suspect
it was contaminated.
b. However, she became concerned in 1997 when
she read in the newspaper that PCB contamination had been discovered in
her neighborhood.
c. Then, in 1998, three properties across the
street from hers were found to contain PCBs at hazardous levels, and were
extensively excavated. The work, which was done in the summer, filled
the air with noise, dust and dirt, and interfered with her use and
enjoyment of her own property.
d. Ms. Ferrero requested testing of her own
property, but GE refused. It was only in 1999 that the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency agreed to test her property, and that she learned that
her property had "low" levels of PCBs.
e. Ms. Ferrero is still concerned about the risks
even of "low" levels of PCBs, and about her exposure to such contaminants
over time.
f. As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Ms. Ferrero has
suffered a loss in the value of her property, loss of the use and enjoyment
of her property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated
with the nuisance.
62. Plaintiffs Richard and Ellen Fothergill own
a home and property at 141 Oak Hill Road in Pittsfield, where they reside.
a. Mr. and Mrs. Fothergill purchased
the property in 1978, and had no reason at the time to suspect that the
property was contaminated.
b. However, in 1997, they were distressed to
learn that other properties on their street had been tested and found to
contain PCBs at hazardous levels.
c. Then, in 1998 and 1999, several other properties
on their street were extensively excavated. The work, which was done
in the summer, filled the air with noise, dust and dirt, created construction
conditions on the street for months, and interfered with their use and
enjoyment of their own property.
d. The Fothergills requested testing on their
own property and, even though other properties on their street that were
built by the same developer have been tested and found to contain contamination,
their own requests for testing have gone unheeded.
e. The Fothergills are particularly concerned
because, in 1982, at a time when other properties received PCB contaminated
soil, the City of Pittsfield placed eight feet of fill on their property.
They are also concerned because a drainage swale carrying runoff floods
on their property.
f. The Fothergills are concerned
about the extent to which they have been exposed to unhealthy conditions,
and about the effect of PCB contamination on the value of property in their
neighborhood.
g. As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, the Fothergills
have suffered a loss in the value of their property, loss of the use and
enjoyment of their property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience
associated with the nuisance.
63. Plaintiff Tecla Giusti owns a home and property
at 19 Arch Street in Pittsfield, where she resides.
a. Ms. Giusti has lived at the property
since her parents purchased it in 1938, and until recently had no reason
to suspect it was contaminated.
b. However, in 1998 she was distressed to learn
that other properties in her neighborhood had been tested and found to
contain hazardous levels of PCBs, and was particularly concerned when her
neighbor's property was tested for the presence of PCBs.
c. Then, three properties down the street from
hers were found to contain PCBs at hazardous levels, and were extensively
excavated. The work filled the air with noise, dust and dirt, and
caused extensive truck traffic.
d. Ms. Giusti requested testing of her own
property, and in 1999 learned that her property had "low" levels of PCBs.
e. Ms. Giusti remains concerned about the extent
to which she has been exposed to unhealthy conditions, and about whether
she will be able to recover the value of her property when she needs to
sell it.
f. As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Ms. Gusti
has suffered a loss in the value of her property, loss of the use and enjoyment
of her property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated
with the nuisance.
64. Plaintiffs Roderick and Jeanette Gratton own a home
and property at 32 Richardson Street, where they reside. They also
own rental property next door, at 22-24 Richardson Street.
a. Mr. and Mrs. Gratton moved
into their home at 32 Richardson Street in 1964, and had no reason at the
time to suspect that the property was contaminated. Mrs. Gratton
grew up at the property at 22-24 Richardson Street, and also had no reason
until recently to suspect that it was contaminated.
b. However, in 1997, the Grattons were distressed
to learn that a number of properties across the street from theirs had
been tested and found to contain PCBs at hazardous levels.
c. Then, in 1998, the properties across the
street were extensively excavated. The work, which was done in the
summer, filled the air with noise, dust and dirt, created construction
conditions on the street for months, and interfered with their use and
enjoyment of their own property.
d. The properties behind the Grattons were
subsequently tested and also found to contain PCBs at hazardous levels,
and PCBs have also been found in Goodrich Pond and numerous properties
in the neighborhood.
e. In 1997, the Grattons requested testing
of their own properties, but GE refused. However, the United States
Environmental Protection did agree to test the Grattons' properties in
1998, and discovered that both were contaminated with PCBs at hazardous
levels. The properties were thereafter tested three or four more
times by GE.
f. Despite the discovery of contamination in
1998, the Grattons' properties still have not be excavated. The delay
has forced them to defer improvements on the properties that they need
and want to make, including installation of a gas line, installation of
a fence, and landscaping work in the front yard.
g. As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Mr. and Mrs. Gratton
have suffered a loss in the value of their property, loss of the use and
enjoyment of their property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience
associated with the nuisance.
65. Plaintiffs Bruce and Christine Lambert own
a home and property at 98 Cromwell Avenue in Pittsfield, where they reside
with their son.
a. When Mr. and Mrs. Lambert
bought the property in 1982, they had no reason to suspect the property
was contaminated with PCBs.
b. In 1998, however, they learned that
other properties in Pittsfield had been tested and found to contain PCB
contaminated soil originating from GE, and they were warned by two of their
neighbors that their property might also contain PCB contaminated soil
from GE.
c. The Lamberts contacted GE about testing
their property, but GE declined to do so. However, the United
States Environmental Protection Agency agreed to test the property, and
testing revealed that the property was contaminated with PCBs at hazardous
levels.
d. The Lamberts were very distressed when they
learned that their property was contaminated with PCBs. They feared
they and their young son had been exposed to contamination.
e. The Lamberts asked GE to remove all the
contamination from their property, but GE agreed to remove only certain
areas of contamination.
f. GE's plan for excavation of the Lambert's
property also contemplated removing beautiful perennial flowers and several
planted areas of the property, as well as several structures, and GE would
not agree reasonably to restore the Lambert's property.
g. As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Mr. and
Mrs. Lambert have suffered a loss in the value of their property, loss
of the use and enjoyment of their property, and the annoyance, upset and
inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
66. Plaintiffs Anthony and Andrea Lancia own a home and
property at 114 Oak Hill Road in Pittsfield, where they reside.
a. When Mr. and Mrs. Lancia bought
the property in 1977, they had no reason to suspect that the property was
contaminated.
b. In 1997, however, they were distressed to
learn that another property on their street was being tested for PCB contamination.
c. They called GE and requested that their
property be tested as well. Although GE initially refused to test,
it eventually did so.
d. In the summer of 1998, after extensive testing,
the Lancias were distressed to learn that their property was highly contaminated,
and would require extensive excavation.
e. GE made a proposal to excavate the Lancias'
property before it completed all of the required testing on the property.
f. Then, in June of 1999, GE prepared
to commence excavation before ever discussing with the Lancias how the
excavation would affect them or their property.
g. The excavation and restoration of the Lancias'
property lasted over fourteen weeks, instead of the six weeks that GE promised,
and still was not completed before the ground froze. While the property
was being excavated, it was turned into a construction site, and was an
unbearable place in which to live.
h. Although GE initially promised the Lancias
hotel accommodations during the period of the excavation, the company then
reneged and offered them the use of a sparsely furnished, insecure house
on another property GE had had to excavate. GE also reneged on other
agreements with the Lancias.
i. In the course of its work on the Lancias'
property, GE damaged ten foot trees on the property, pulled siding off
the Lancias' house, put in sod that did not take, and used the Lancias'
electricity to power its water pumps. GE also refused to remove all
the PCBs left on the property.
j. As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Mr. and
Mrs. Lancia have suffered a loss in the value of their property, loss of
the use and enjoyment of their property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience
associated with the nuisance.
67. Plaintiffs Robert and Marilyn Lysobey own a home
and property at 176 Newell Street in Pittsfield, where they reside.
a. When the Lysobeys purchased the
property in 1979, they had no reason to suspect that the property was contaminated.
b. However, in 1998, they were distressed to
learn that other properties in their neighborhood were contaminated with
PCBs at hazardous levels, and were particularly distressed in 1999 when
workers in protective suits came to test the property next door for PCBs.
c. The Lysobeys were also distressed to learn that
several properties across the street from theirs were found to contain
hazardous concentrations of PCBs, and that there was also underground contamination
across the street that could be leaching toward their property.
d. The Lysobeys have made several requests to have
their own property tested, but the requests have been refused.
e. The Lysobeys fear that they have been exposed
to contamination, and that the value of their property has been hurt by
the contamination and excavation going on around them.
f. As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Mr. and
Mrs. Lysobey have suffered a loss in the value of their property, loss
of the use and enjoyment of their property, and the annoyance, upset and
inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
68. Plaintiffs Fred and Joan Mastrogiovanni own a home
and property at 123 Oak Hill Road in Pittsfield, where they reside.
a. When Mr. and Mrs. Mastrogiovanni
purchased the property in 1976, they had no reason to suspect that the
property was contaminated.
b. In 1997, however, they were distressed
to learn that other properties on their street had been tested and found
to contain PCBs at hazardous levels.
c. The Mastrogiovannis requested testing on
their own property, but GE refused. Then, in 1999, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency agreed to test their property, and found
that the property was in fact contaminated with PCBs at hazardous levels.
d. While waiting for their property to be tested,
the Mastrogiovannis were exposed to constant truck traffic, dust, dirt
and noise as numerous properties on their street were excavated to remove
PCBs.
e. Mr. and Mrs. Mastrogiovanni now face the prospect
of further testing, excavation, and disruption at their own property.
f. The Mastrogiovannis also fear that they
and their now grown children have been needlessly exposed to contaminants.
g. As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Mr. and
Mrs. Mastrogiovanni have suffered a loss in the value of their property,
loss of the use and enjoyment of their property, and the annoyance, upset
and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
69. Plaintiff David Moynihan owns a home and property
at 83 Ventura Avenue in Pittsfield, where he resides.
a. When Mr. Moynihan first moved into
the property in 1994, he had no reason to suspect that the property was
contaminated.
b. In 1997, however, he was distressed to learn
that several properties down the street from his had been tested and found
to contain PCBs at hazardous levels.
c. Mr. Moynihan requested testing at his own
property. Initially, GE refused testing. Then, a GE contractor
conducted a small number of surface tests on the property, which detected
small amounts of contamination, but which were inadequate to properly assess
the presence of contamination.
d. Meanwhile, numerous properties on Mr. Moynihan's
street were found to contain PCBs at hazardous levels. One property
was so contaminated that the house on the property had to be torn down
and truckloads of contaminated soil were hauled away.
e. The excavation of the contaminated properties
on Mr. Moynihan's street created noise, dust, and dirt and filled the street
with truck traffic, all of which interfered with his use and enjoyment
of his own home. Mr. Moynihan is also concerned that his family has
been needlessly exposed to contaminants.
f. As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Mr.
Moynihan has suffered a loss in the value of his property, loss of the
use and enjoyment of his property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience
associated with the nuisance.
70. Plaintiffs Albert and Sandy Nachbauer own property
at 190 Newell Street, where Mr. Nachbauer lived for many years and where
his mother lived until 1971.
a. When Mr. Nachbauer and his mother moved
to the property in 1957, they had no reason to suspect that the property
was contaminated.
b. In 1997, however, Mr. Nachbauer was distressed
to learn that numerous properties in the neighborhood had been tested and
found to contain PCBs at hazardous levels.
c. Mr. Nachbauer was particularly distressed
to learn that several properties across the street from his were heavily
contaminated and have required and will require extensive excavation.
d. In light of the contamination all around
his property, Mr. Nachbauer is concerned that he has been needlessly exposed
to contaminants and that the value of the property has been diminished.
e. As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Mr. Nachbauer
has suffered a loss in the value of his property, loss of the use and enjoyment
of his property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated
with the nuisance.
71. Plaintiff Elizabeth Nugai owns a home and property
at 95 Longview Terrace in Pittsfield, where she resides with her husband.
a. When Mrs. Nugai and her husband bought
the property in 1956, they had no reason to suspect that it was contaminated.
b. However, in 1997, Mrs. Nugai was distressed to
learn that other properties on her street were being tested for the presence
of PCBs.
c. Mrs. Nugai requested testing at her own
property, but nothing was done until 1999, when the United States Environmental
Protection Agency tested the property for PCBs. Testing revealed
that there were PCBs on the property at concentrations below 10 parts per
million.
d. Meanwhile, numerous properties on Mrs. Nugai's
street were found to contain PCBs at hazardous levels. One property
was so contaminated that the house on the property had to be torn down
and truckloads of contaminated soil hauled away.
e. The excavation of the contaminated properties
on Mrs. Nugai's street created noise, dust, and dirt and filled the street
with truck traffic, all of which interfered with her enjoyment of her own
home. Mrs. Nugai is also concerned that her family has been needlessly
exposed to contaminants.
f. As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Mrs. Nugai
has suffered a loss in the value of her property, loss of the use and enjoyment
of her property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated
with the nuisance.
72. Plaintiff Michael O'Keefe owns a home and property
at 723 East Street. He resides in one unit in the home, and the other
unit is occupied by his son and three grandchildren, aged 4, 8 and 10.
a. When Mr. O'Keefe bought the property
twelve years ago, he had no reason to suspect that the property was contaminated
with PCBs.
b. Then, in the winter of 1998, he was contacted
by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and asked for
permission to test the soil on his property.
c. Testing revealed that there were PCBs behind
Mr. O'Keefe's home, in some places exceeding 1,000 parts per million.
Some of the contamination was in an area of the property where Mr. O'Keefe's
grandchildren regularly play.
d. The Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection directed GE to conduct an Immediate Response Action to remove
the high levels of contaminants at Mr. O'Keefe's property, and an extensive
excavation was conducted there in the summer of 1998.
e. In addition to the intrusion caused by having
his back yard turned into a construction site, and having heavy equipment
repeatedly passing through his driveway, Mr. O'Keefe and his family lost
the use of the yard for the summer of 1998.
f. GE also failed to restore the property to
its prior condition, failing to replace the twenty foot trees that grew
in the yard, to replace the soil that they excavated, and to replace
Mr. O'Keefe's lilacs and 10 foot hedge.
g. Then, after telling Mr. O'Keefe at the end of
the summer of 1998 that the excavation work was completed, GE informed
him in the spring of 1999 that more testing was required and thereafter
that more excavation would be needed.
h. Mr. O'Keefe is concerned about the extent
to which his family has been needlessly exposed to PCBs; he is angry that
his property has not been restored to the condition it was in before excavation;
and he now faces the prospect of further testing, excavation, and disruption
at the property.
i. As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Mr. O'Keefe has
suffered a loss in the value of his property, loss of the use and enjoyment
of his property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated
with the nuisance.
73. Plaintiff Roberta Orsi owns a home and property at
50 Longview Terrace, where she resides with her husband and son.
Mrs. Orsi also has an interest in rental property at 727 East Street, where
she formerly resided.
a. When Mrs. Orsi moved into the Longview
Terrace property in 1985, she had no reason to suspect there was contamination
there.
b. In 1997, however, Mrs. Orsi was distressed
to learn that a property across the street from her property on Longview
Terrace was being tested for PCB contamination, and thereafter that high
concentrations of PCBs (over 40,000 parts per million) had been found there.
c. Mrs. Orsi requested testing of her own property.
Subsequent testing revealed PCBs at concentrations above two parts per
million. However, GE refused to test the back yard of Mrs. Orsi's
property, nor any of the area behind her home that abuts another heavily
contaminated property along Goodrich Pond (that has been found to contain
concentrations of PCBs over 20,000 parts per million).
d. From the spring to the fall of 1998, Mrs. Orsi's
street was turned into a construction site. The house on the heavily
contaminated property across the street was torn down, large trees were
removed, and a ten foot hole was dug there. The back yard of another
property across the street was leveled. Noise, dust and dirt filled
the air for months. There was incessant pounding, and truck traffic
filled the street.
e. Mrs. Orsi's own property was also excavated for
approximately two weeks, but Mrs. Orsi and her family were not offered
an opportunity to move elsewhere during the excavation.
f. During the course of the excavation of her
property, GE damaged Mrs. Orsi's sewer line. GE also removed Mrs.
Orsi's driveway, and replaced it with a substantially inferior one, ignoring
explicit requests Mrs. Orsi made concerning grading.
g. Mrs. Orsi was distressed by the contamination
on her property, by the contamination all around her property, and by the
construction site conditions in which she and her family were forced to
live for weeks.
h. Mrs. Orsi also reasonably fears that she and her
family have been needlessly exposed to PCBs for years.
i. As in the case of the Longview Terrace property,
Mrs. Orsi had no reason to suspect that there was contamination on the
East Street property when she moved in there in 1983.
j. However, in 1997, in light of the furor
surrounding the contamination found on Longview Terrace, Mrs. Orsi requested
that the East Street property be tested as well. Subsequent testing
revealed that the property was contaminated with PCBs at concentrations
exceeding 13,000 parts per million.
k. The Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection directed GE to conduct an Immediate Response Action at the East
Street property, which lasted most of the summer of 1998.
l. The tenants on the property, who had lived there
for over six years with their three children, moved out in the summer of
1998. When trying to fill a subsequent vacancy at the property, Mrs.
Orsi and her husband found that there were prospective tenants who were
not interested in renting when they learned about the contamination on
the property.
m. GE failed to timely complete work on the excavation,
and also failed to restore the property to the condition it was in before
the excavation. GE's excavation work damaged the sewer line
on the property. GE's inadequate filling of soil around the foundation
of the house has caused flooding in the basement, which never occurred
before.
n. Then, after going through the intrusion and inconvenience
of an excavation in 1998, Mrs. Orsi was informed that further testing was
needed on the property and that there were more contaminants, including
mercury and lead, that needed to be removed.
o. Mrs. Orsi is concerned about the extent
to which her family has been needlessly exposed to PCBs at the Longview
Terrace property; Mrs. Orsi is angry that the two properties have not been
restored to their condition before excavation; and she now faces the prospect
of further testing, excavation, and disruption.
p. As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Mrs.
Orsi has suffered a loss in the value of her properties, loss of the use
and enjoyment of her properties, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience
associated with the nuisance.
74. Plaintiff Robert Ostellino resides in Boca Raton,
Florida, and formerly owned a home and property at 35 Brattle Street in
Pittsfield, where he resided.
a. When Mr. Ostellino purchased the property
in 1973, he had no reason to suspect that the property or the neighborhood
was contaminated with PCBs.
b. However, in the fall of 1997, Mr. Ostellino
was unable to sell his property because of the discovery of PCB contamination
on other properties in the neighborhood.
c. In the summer of 1997, just before widespread
reports of PCB contamination on Longview Terrace and Ventura Avenue, a
broker advised Mr. Ostellino to list the property for sale at $119,900.
d. However, after the news of the contamination was
disseminated, when he proceeded to list the property at that price there
were absolutely no buyers interested. It was only after he dropped
the price to $98,000 that he found a buyer, and even then the buyer was
a relative who had grown up in the area and wanted to return.
e. As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Mr. Ostellino
suffered a loss in the value of his property, loss of the use and enjoyment
of his property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated
with the nuisance.
75. Plaintiff Donald Quadrozzi owns a home and
property at 14 Brattle Street in Pittsfield, where he resides with his
wife.
a. When Mr. Quadrozzi and his wife purchased
the property in 1968, they had no reason to suspect that the property or
the neighborhood was contaminated with PCBs.
b. However, in 1997, Mr. Quadrozzi was distressed
to learn that numerous properties in the neighborhood had been tested and
found to contain PCBs at hazardous levels. Then, he learned that
the road in front of his house was being tested for PCB contamination.
c. Concerned about whether his own property
was contaminated, Mr. Quadrozzi called to request testing. When the
testing was completed, Mr. Quadrozzi was distressed to learn that there
was contamination on the border of his property with his next door neighbor's.
He also learned that the street was contaminated and that several other
properties on the street were contaminated.
d. Mr. Quadrozzi, who grew up in the area,
fears that he and his wife have been needlessly exposed to contaminants.
e. The contamination has also affected the
reputation of Mr. Quadrozzi's neighborhood and the value of his home and
property.
f. As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Mr. Quadrozzi
suffered a loss in the value of his property, loss of the use and enjoyment
of his property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated
with the nuisance.
76. Plaintiff Gina Paglier owns a home and property
at 92 Circular Avenue, where she has lived since she was born.
a. Until she read about PCB contamination
at other residential properties in Pittsfield, Ms. Paglier had no reason
to suspect that her property was contaminated.
b. However, in investigating the history of
the property, she learned that there was fill on the property, and also
learned that her father had worked for GE in the 1940's, when GE delivered
fill to the properties of other GE workers.
c. Ms. Paglier requested that GE test her property,
but GE has refused. Ms. Paglier cannot afford to test the property
herself.
d. As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Ms. Paglier suffered
a loss in the value of her property, loss of the use and enjoyment of her
property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the
nuisance.
77. Plaintiff Eric Plouffe owns a home and
property at 45 Ventura Avenue, where he resides.
a. When Mr. Plouffe bought the property in 1992,
he had no reason to suspect that it was contaminated with PCBs.
b. In 1997, however, Mr. Plouffe was distressed to learn
that properties across the street from his were being tested for PCB contamination
and were subsequently found to contain PCBs exceeding 40,000 parts per
million.
c. In 1998, the excavation of the contaminated properties
on Mr. Plouffe's street created noise, dust, and dirt and filled the street
with truck traffic, all of which interfered with the use and enjoyment
of his home.
d. Mr. Plouffe asked GE to test his own property, but GE
refused. Then, in 1999, the United States Environmental Protection
Agency agreed to test Mr. Plouffe's property, and found that his property
was in fact contaminated with PCBs at hazardous levels.
e. Mr. Plouffe now faces the prospect of further testing,
excavation, and disruption at his own property.
f. As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Mr. Plouffe suffered
a loss in the value of his property, loss of the use and enjoyment of his
property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the
nuisance.
78. Plaintiffs Charles and Joan Revord own
a home and property at 55 Ventura Avenue, where they reside.
a. When the Revords bought the property in 1964,
they had no reason to suspect that it was contaminated with PCBs.
b. In 1997, however, the Revords were distressed to learn
that properties across the street from theirs were being tested for PCB
contamination and were subsequently found to contain PCBs exceeding 40,000
parts per million.
c. In 1998, the excavation of the contaminated properties
on the Revord's street created noise, dust, and dirt and filled the street
with truck traffic, all of which interfered with the use and enjoyment
of their home.
d. The Revords asked GE to test their own property, but
GE refused, even after Mr. Revord pointed out an area in the stream along
the border of their property that showed visible signs of contamination.
Then, in 1999, the United States Environmental Protection Agency agreed
to test their property, and found that the property was in fact contaminated
with PCBs at hazardous levels, including in the area that Mr. Revord had
pointed out to GE.
e. The Revords now face the prospect of further testing,
excavation, and disruption at their own property.
f. As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, the Revords have
suffered a loss in the value of their property, loss of the use and enjoyment
of their property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated
with the nuisance.
79. Plaintiff Mary Rosati owns a home and
property at 68 Valentine Road in Pittsfield, where she resides.
a. When Mrs. Rosati and her husband bought the
property in 1972, they had no reason to suspect that it was contaminated
with PCBs.
b. However, in 1997, Mrs. Rosati received a letter from
the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection advising her that
her property would need to be tested for the presence of PCBs.
c. The property was thereafter tested on several occasions,
and the testing revealed PCBs in soils throughout the property, including
several locations with concentrations above two parts per million.
d. However, GE has refused to remove the PCB contamination
on the property because, on "average," the concentration of PCBs in soils
at the property are below two parts per million.
e. Mrs. Rosati was greatly distressed to learn that her
property was contaminated with PCBs, and even more distressed to learn
that the contamination would not be cleaned up. Mrs. Rosati's grandchildren
frequently play in her backyard, as do her sister's children.
f. Mrs. Rosati's home is also next to two other properties
that were found to be contaminated with PCBs, and that were extensively
excavated, right up to her property line.
g. As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Mrs. Rosati suffered
a loss in the value of her property, loss of the use and enjoyment of her
property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the
nuisance.
80. Plaintiffs Francis and Bernice Roy own
a home and property at 54 Parkside Avenue, where they reside and which
contains two rental units.
a. When Mrs. Roy bought the property in 1968, she
had no reason to suspect that it was contaminated with PCBs.
b. In 1997, however, Mr. and Mrs. Roy were distressed to
learn that properties in their neighborhood were being tested and found
to contain PCBs at hazardous levels.
c. In 1998, the property across the street from the Roys'
was found to contain PCBs at high levels, and was extensively excavated.
d. The Roys asked GE to test their own property, but GE
refused. Then, in 1999, the United States Environmental Protection
Agency agreed to test the Roys property, and found that the property was
in fact contaminated with PCBs at hazardous levels.
e. Mr. and Mrs. Roy now face the prospect of further testing,
excavation, and disruption at their own property.
f. Their property has also been stigmatized by the presence
of PCBs in the area, which they have heard others refer to as "PCB-ville."
g. As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, the Roys have
suffered a loss in the value of their property, loss of the use and enjoyment
of their property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated
with the nuisance.
81. Plaintiffs Mary-Jane and Russell Sackett,
Jr. own a home and property at 142 Oak Hill Road, where they reside with
their children.
a. When Mr. and Mrs. Sackett purchased the property
in 1991, they had no reason to suspect that the property was contaminated
with PCBs.
b. However, in 1998, the Sacketts were distressed when
GE asked to test their property for the presence of PCBs. The test
results revealed "low" levels of PCBs.
c. The Sacketts subsequently learned that properties next
door to theirs and down the street from theirs had been found to contain
PCBs at hazardous levels. They remain concerned whether their property
was adequately tested, and are concerned that their children have been
needlessly exposed to contamination.
d. Moreover, the excavation of the other properties on
the street created noise, dust and dirt and filled the street with truck
traffic, which interfered with the Sacketts' use and enjoyment of their
own home.
e. The discovery of contamination and continuing excavation
of properties on Oak Hill Road has also affected the reputation of the
Sacketts' neighborhood, which people now refer to as "one of the PCB areas,"
and therefore hurt property values.
f. As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, the Sacketts
have suffered a loss in the value of their property, loss of the use and
enjoyment of their property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience
associated with the nuisance.
82. Plaintiff Joseph Scalise resides in Pittsfield,
Massachusetts, and formerly owned a home and property at 9 Hope Street,
where he resided with his wife and children.
a. When Mr. Scalise and his wife purchased the
property in 1984, they had no reason to suspect that it was contaminated
with PCBs, and over the course of the next 15 years, Mr. Scalise extensively
renovated the property.
b. However, in 1998, Mr. Scalise was distressed to learn
that other properties on his street were contaminated with PCBs at hazardous
levels.
c. Then, GE requested to test Mr. Scalise's property, and
testing revealed PCBs there, as well.
d. Upon learning of the results, Mr. Scalise was concerned
that he and his family had been needlessly exposed to contamination.
His children had played on the property when they were young, and the family
had eaten vegetables out of the garden for years.
e. With contamination all around him, Mr. Scalise also
became concerned that he would not be able to sell his house, into which
he had invested time and money. In the fall of 1998, they decided
to try to sell.
f. For six months, there were no offers to purchase the
property. Prospective purchasers who visited expressed concern that
the property was in the "PCB area." Ultimately, in June 1999, Mr.
Scalise was able to sell the property, but at a price significantly below
the asking price.
g. As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Mr. Scalise has
suffered a loss in the value of his property, loss of the use and enjoyment
of the property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated
with the nuisance.
83. Plaintiffs John and Katharine Stapleberg
reside at 1-3 Naples Avenue in Pittsfield, on property owned by Mrs. Stapleberg.
They reside in one of the two units there, and a tenant resides in the
other unit.
a. When Mr. and Mrs. Stapleberg purchased the property
in 1951, they had no reason to suspect that the property was contaminated.
b. However, in 1997, they were distressed to learn that
two properties next door to theirs had been tested and found to contain
PCBs at hazardous levels.
c. Then, in the spring of 1998, the Staplebergs' own property
was tested, and found to contain PCBs at hazardous levels.
d. In the fall of 1998, GE conducted a major excavation
on the Staplebergs' property and the two properties next door. The
excavation created noise, dust and dirt, generated truck traffic, and interfered
with the use and enjoyment of their property.
e. GE failed to return the property to its prior condition:
their large maple tree was replaced with a tiny tree that died; the property
next door now floods their backyard every time there is a heavy rain; they
have flooding in their basement that they never had before; and all the
grass GE put in has died.
f. The contamination and excavation on their street has
also hurt the value of the Staplebergs' property.
g. As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, the Staplebergs
have suffered a loss in the value of their property, loss of the use and
enjoyment of their property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience
associated with the nuisance.
84. Plaintiffs Paul and Louise Van Loon own
a home and property at 29-31 Longview Terrace, where they reside.
a. Mr. Van Loon has lived on the property all his
life, and until 1997 had no reason to suspect that the property was contaminated.
b. In 1997, however, Mr. and Mrs. Van Loon were distressed
to learn that the property next door to theirs was heavily contaminated
with PCBs, at levels exceeding 20,000 parts per million.
c. In 1998, the property next door was fenced off, the
house on the property was torn down, and workers dug a hole and excavated
soil ten feet down. The excavation filled the air with noise, dust
and dirt, generated truck traffic, and interfered with the Van Loon's use
and enjoyment of their own property. There were also extensive, intrusive
excavations on properties farther down the street.
d. Although the Van Loons were told that their own property
was not contaminated, the excavation next door carried over onto their
property. The Van Loons fear that they were needlessly exposed to
contamination.
e. The contamination and excavation in their neighborhood,
as well as the fact that GE left PCBs in the property next to theirs, has
also decreased the value of the Van Loons' property.
f. As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, the Van Loons
have suffered a loss in the value of their property, loss of the use and
enjoyment of their property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience
associated with the nuisance.
85. Plaintiff Aurie Walsh owns a home and
property at 34 Pembroke Avenue in Pittsfield, where she resides.
a. When Ms. Walsh bought the property in 1992,
she had no reason to suspect that the property was contaminated.
b. However, in 1998, Ms. Walsh was distressed to learn
that numerous properties in her neighborhood had been tested and found
to contain PCBs at hazardous levels.
c. In June of 1998, Ms. Walsh who cannot afford to test
herself, requested GE to test her property, but her property still has
not been tested to date.
d. In the meantime, properties down the street from hers,
and on streets all around hers, have been tested and found to contain contamination.
e. Ms. Walsh, who loves to garden, is particularly concerned
because she has found metal parts and other refuse in the soil in her property,
and does not know whether it is safe for her to continue to garden.
f. The contamination and excavations throughout her neighborhood
have also reduced the value of her property.
g. As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Ms. Walsh suffered
a loss in the value of her property, loss of the use and enjoyment of her
property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the
nuisance.
86. Plaintiffs Mark and Paula Wannamaker own a
home and property at 21 Brattle Street in Pittsfield, where they reside.
a. When the Wannamakers bought the
property in 1983, they had no reason to suspect that the property was contaminated.
b. In 1998, however, the Wannamakers were distressed
to learn that other properties in their neighborhood had been tested and
found to contain PCBs at hazardous levels.
c. The Wannamakers requested testing
of their own property, and testing revealed that their property is not
contaminated.
d. However, the Wannamakers have been distressed
to learn that the street in front of their house, Brattle Street, is contaminated
with PCBs at hazardous levels, and that other properties on their street
are contaminated and will need to be excavated.
e. The contamination and excavation in their neighborhood
has hurt the value of their home and property.
f. As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, the
Wannamakers have suffered a loss in the value of their property, loss of
the use and enjoyment of their property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience
associated with the nuisance.
Count I - Nuisance
(As to All Plaintiffs)
87. Each of the allegations above is incorporated herein
by reference.
88. GE, by its handling, disposal and release of hazardous
substances, including PCB-contaminated soil, has interfered unreasonably
with the rights of the plaintiffs to use and enjoy their properties, and
has created a nuisance.
89. As a proximate result of the nuisance created
by GE, the plaintiffs have suffered a loss of value of their properties,
lost use and enjoyment of their properties, and the upset, annoyance and
inconvenience associated with the nuisance, and GE is liable for all such
damages suffered by the plaintiffs.
Count II - Negligence
(As to Plaintiffs Aulisio, Barber, Bastow, Bertelli, Blessing,
Brown, Carnevale, Chiaretto, Cimini, Cody, Coradeschi, Corseri DiNicola,
Elworthy, Ferrero, Giusti, Gratton, Lambert, Lancia, Mastrogiovanni, Moynihan,
Nugai, O'Keefe, Orsi, Plouffe, Quadrozzi, Revord, Rosati, Roy, Sackett,
Scalise, and Stapleberg)
90. Each of the allegations above is incorporated herein
by reference.
91. GE negligently disposed of and/or released hazardous
substances on the properties of the plaintiffs over the course of many
years and negligently failed to warn such property owners of the hazards
it had created.
92. By its negligent acts and omissions described above,
GE breached its duty to the plaintiffs.
93. As a proximate result of GE's negligent acts, the plaintiffs
have suffered damages as outlined above.
94. GE is liable for all direct and consequential damages
suffered by the plaintiffs as a result of its negligent acts.
Count III - Trespass
(As to Plaintiffs Aulisio, Barber, Bastow, Bertelli, Blessing,
Brown, Carnevale, Chiaretto, Cimini, Cody, Coradeschi, Corseri, DiNicola,
Elworthy, Ferrero, Giusti, Gratton, Lambert, Lancia, Mastrogiovanni, Moynihan,
Nugai, O'Keefe, Orsi, Plouffe, Quadrozzi, Revord, Rosati, Roy, Sackett,
Scalise, and Stapleberg)
95. Each of the allegations above is incorporated
herein by reference.
96. By arranging for and disposing of hazardous substances
on the plaintiffs' properties over the course of many years without
disclosing the nature of the material disposed, GE trespassed against the
rights of the plaintiffs.
97. As a proximate result of GE's actions, the plaintiffs
have suffered direct and consequential damages as outlined above and GE
is liable to the plaintiffs for all such damages.
Count IV - Recovery Under M.G.L. c. 21E
(As to Plaintiffs Aulisio, Barber, Bastow, Bertelli, Blessing,
Brown, Carnevale, Chiaretto, Cimini, Cody, Coradeschi, Corseri, DiNicola,
Elworthy, Ferrero, Giusti, Gratton, Lambert, Lancia, Mastrogiovanni, Moynihan,
Nugai, O'Keefe, Orsi, Plouffe, Quadrozzi, Revord, Rosati, Roy, Sackett,
Scalise, and Stapleberg)
98. Each of the allegations contained above is incorporated
herein by reference.
99. GE is the owner and operator of a site from which there
has been a disposal and release of materials defined as hazardous materials
under M.G.L. c. 21E § 2, 42 U.S.C. § 9601(14) and 40 CFR Part
302.4, or is otherwise legally responsible for the releases from the site.
100. GE, directly or indirectly, also arranged for the transport
and disposal of hazardous materials from its site to residential properties
throughout Pittsfield.
101. The plaintiffs have incurred damage as a result of
GE's disposal, release and threat of release of hazardous material, and
GE is liable for all such damages incurred by the plaintiffs.
REQUESTS FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs request the following relief:
A. An award of all direct and consequential damages incurred
by the plaintiffs as a result of GE's wrongful acts, and such punitive
damages as may be allowed by law; and
B. An award to the plaintiffs of all costs of litigation,
including attorneys' fees and expert witness fees.
The Plaintiffs
By their attorneys,
Andrew A. Rainer BBO No. 542067
Christine E. Morin BBO No. 600237
SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
75 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
(617) 439-3939
Peter Langrock
Emily Joselson
LANGROCK, SPERRY & WOOL, LLP
111 South Pleasant Street
P.O. Drawer 351
Middlebury, VT 05753
(802) 388-6356
Certificate of Service
I, Andrew Rainer, hereby certify that on this 18th day of March,
2000, I served a copy of the foregoing by overnight delivery upon
defendant's counsel.
___________________________
Andrew Rainer
HOME
PAGE
©2000
BerkshireEagleDotNetwork®/™
|