Skip to Navigation
The Collaborative Clearinghouse for Lawsuits and Other Claims Against ACE Group Insurance Companies

DEDEAUX et al v. LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION et al

ATTENTION: It is possible that this information may no longer be current and therefore may be inaccurate. The index contains both open and closed cases and is not a complete list of cases in which an ACE Insurance Group company is involved. This information is provided to give interested persons an idea of the issues disputed in the indexed cases. For a full understanding of a case, one should read the rest of the court file, including the response. For the most up-to-date and complete information on a case, visit www.pacer.gov or contact the clerk of the relevant court.

Case Number: 
1:11-cv-00526 Search Pacer
Opposing Party: 
Jean Dedeaux
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Southern District of Mississippi
Date Filed: 
Dec 29 2011

"COUNT 1: STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY MS CODE ANNOTATED §11-4-63

79. R-Vision, at the time that each subject housing unit left its control, knew or should have known that each product was defective because it deviated in a material way from the manufacturers' specifications or from otherwise identical units manufactured to the same manufacturing specifications.

80. R-Vision knew or should have known that the defective condition rendered each subject housing unit unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or others; and.

81. The defective and unreasonably dangerous condition of each product (the failure of the subject housing units to be safely habitable without exposure to formaldehyde) proximately caused the damages and injuries sustained by each Named Plaintiff.

82. At the time the subject housing units left the control of R-Vision, each subject housing unit did not contain properly selected prepared and installed components.

83. At all relative times, each Named Plaintiff lacked actual or constructive knowledge of the defective condition of their respective housing units and that each defective product was inconsistent with their safety.

84. At all relevant times, each Named Plaintiff did not appreciate the danger of their housing unit's defective condition.

85. At all relevant times, each Named Plaintiff did not deliberately and voluntarily choose to expose themselves to this danger in such a manner to register assent to the continuance of the dangerous condition.

86. Each subject housing unit in question failed to function as expected as a result of their design characteristics.

87. An alternative design existed at the time that each housing unit left the control of RVision which would have not impaired the product's usefulness or desirability.

88. The alternative design would have to a reasonable probability prevented the toxic exposure of each Named Plaintiff.

89. Each product (housing unit) was defective because it failed to contain adequate warnings or instructions.

90. Each product (housing unit) breached an express warranty and/or failed to conform to other express factual representations upon which the claimant justifiably relied in electing to use this product.

COUNT 2: NEGLIGENCE OF CONTRACTOR DEFENDANT UNDER MISSISSIPPI LAW

91. Each Named Plaintiff incorporates the above allegations as if fully repeated verbatim herein.

92. At all relevant times CH2M was tasked with the transportation, installation, site identification, preparation, inspection, maintenance and repair, refurbishment and restoration, and removal of the temporary housing units, which caused the Plaintiffs' injuries.

93. CH2M owed a duty to each Named Plaintiff to provide, transport, install, inspect, maintain, repair, refurbish, recondition and restore safe temporary housing units that did not emit hazardous levels of formaldehyde.

94. CH2M knew or should have known when they provided, transported, installed, inspected, maintained, repaired, refurbished, reconditioned and restored the temporary housing units to the general public (thereby modifying and converting the mobile units into residential installations) the actual and intended use of the temporary housing units by each plaintiff, and that the temporary housing units would be used in the manner that each plaintiff herein used the temporary housing units.

95. CH2M breached their duty to each Named Plaintiff in failing to act reasonably in the provision, installation, inspection, maintenance, repair, refurbishment, reconditioning and restoration of the temporary housing units; specifically by:
a. Failing to sufficiently warn the plaintiffs of the inherently dangerous properties or the foreseeable conditions of the temporary housing units when used for long term occupancy; and,
b. Failing to adhere to the manufacturers' warnings against jacking the 26 temporary housing units off the wheel base by "blocking" the units.

96. CH2M's actions were the proximate cause of the increased exposure of formaldehyde to the each Named Plaintiff.

97. CH2M contributed to and exacerbated the adverse health impacts upon the residents of the temporary housing units.

COUNT 3: STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY MS CODE ANNOTATED §11-1-63 OF THE CONTRACTOR DEFENDANT

98. Named Plaintiffs incorporate the above allegations as if fully repeated verbatim herein.

99. CH2M, at the time that each subject housing unit left its control, knew or should have known that each product was defective because it deviated in a material way from the manufacturer's specifications or from otherwise identical units manufactured to the same manufacturing specification and/or manufacturers' warnings.

100. CH2M, by installing the housing units on concrete blocks for extended occupancy, knowingly and intentionally modified the design and the actual use of the housing units.

101. CH2M knew or should have known that the defective condition rendered each subject housing unit unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or others.

102. The defective and unreasonably dangerous condition of each product (the failure of the subject housing units to be safely habitable without exposure to formaldehyde) proximately caused the damages and injuries sustained by each Named Plaintiff.

103. At all relative times, each Named Plaintiff lacked actual or constructive knowledge of the defective condition of their respective housing units and that each defective product was inconsistent with their safety.

104. At all relative times, each Named Plaintiff did not appreciate the danger of their housing unit's defective condition.

105. At all relative times, each Named Plaintiff did not deliberately and voluntarily choose to expose themselves to this danger in such a manner to register assent to the continuance of the dangerous condition.

106. Each subject housing unit in question failed to function as expected as a result of their design characteristics.

107. An alternative design existed at the time that each housing unit left the control of CH2M which would have not impaired the product's usefulness or desirability.

108. The alternative design would have to a reasonable probability prevented the toxic exposure of each Named Plaintiff.

COUNT 4: FAILURE TO WARN OF THE CONTRACTOR DEFENDANT

109. Named Plaintiffs incorporate the above allegations as if fully repeated verbatim herein.

110. Each product (housing unit) was defective because it failed to contain adequate warnings or instructions.

111. CH2M failed to warn the Named Plaintiffs of the inherently dangerous properties of the foreseeable conditions of the subject housing units when used for long term occupancy.

112. CH2M failed to warn the Named Plaintiffs of the presence of excessive levels of formaldehyde present in the housing units they installed, maintained, and supervised.

COUNT 5: BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY BY THE CONTRACTOR DEFENDANT

113. Named Plaintiffs incorporate the above allegations as if fully repeated verbatim herein.

114. CH2M breached the implied warranty of habitability due to the Named Plaintiffs. The subject housing units were installed and maintained with an expectation of habitability and a clear implied warranty that such housing would be safe and free of any toxic dangers.

115. In addition to and by way of summarizing the compensatory damages prayed for herein, each Named Plaintiff avers that the defendants, R-Vision, as well as CH2M individually and/or jointly are responsible for all damages which each Named Plaintiff herein has suffered and continues to suffer as a consequence of defendants' acts and/or omissions as pled herein, which damages include, but are not limited to, past and future physical injuries, past and future mental and physical pain and suffering, past and future physical impairments and disability, past and future reasonable and necessary medical expenses, past and future loss of earning capacity, past and future loss of enjoyment and quality of life and other damages and injuries, loss of consortium, and loss of use and/or opportunity to use safe and adequate shelter during the period of displacement from a natural disaster, as well as, all general, special, incidental and consequential damages as shall be proven at the time of trial.

116. Pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. §11-1-65, inasmuch as the conduct of R-Vision and/or CH2M and their servant/employees constitutes willful, wanton, egregious and reckless disregard for the rights and safety of the plaintiffs, an award of punitive damages is appropriate and necessary under these facts.

117. Each Named Plaintiff is entitled to and demands a trial by jury."

The provided text is an excerpt from a document filed in this case. For a full understanding of the case, one should read the complete court file, including the response.

Javascript is required to view this map.