Roger E. Price v. Roy O. Martin: Louisiana Wood-Treatment Contamination Claims and Class Certification Ruling

Overview of the Dura-Wood Treating Facility Claims

Roger E. Price, et al. v. Roy O. Martin, et al. involved environmental contamination claims brought by property owners and nearby residents around the Dura-Wood Treating Company facility in Alexandria, Louisiana. The plaintiffs alleged that wood-treatment operations released hazardous substances that affected nearby land, groundwater, buildings, homes, yards, and residential areas.

The substances discussed in the litigation included creosote, hexachlorobenzene, pentachlorophenol, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, known as PAHs, and dioxins. The class-certification dispute focused on whether those substances could be traced to the Dura-Wood facility through common class-wide evidence or whether each property required separate proof of source, exposure, timing, causation, and damages.

Litigation Timeline and Louisiana Court Rulings

February 26, 2003: Homeowners File Class Action Petition Over Alleged Wood-Treatment Contamination

On February 26, 2003, five individuals who lived near or owned property near the Dura-Wood Treating Company facility filed a Class Action Petition for Damages. The petition alleged that the facility was primarily used to produce creosote-treated railroad ties and that creosote sludge, wastewater, and related hazardous substances affected nearby properties.

The Louisiana Supreme Court described the original petition as naming Roy O. Martin Lumber Company, L.P. and Beazer East, Inc. as defendants. The court also noted that Vulcan Materials Company was later dismissed on the plaintiffs’ motion. Earlier venue proceedings discussed amended pleadings involving other defendants. The case was first filed in the 23rd Judicial District Court in Ascension Parish and later transferred to the 9th Judicial District Court in Rapides Parish after venue challenges.

November 2003: Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification for Property Damage and Environmental Claims

In November 2003, the plaintiffs moved for class certification. They alleged that more than 3,000 persons, firms, and entities had been damaged by the defendants’ conduct. By the class-certification proceedings, the proposed class was later described as including about 4,600 property owners.

The proposed common issues included whether hazardous substances leaked, discharged, or migrated from the Dura-Wood site and whether the defendants were liable for compensatory and exemplary damages. The claims included alleged property damage, diminished property values, nuisance, negligence, and exposure-related concerns. The class-certification request required the court to decide whether the proposed group satisfied Louisiana class-action requirements.

September 22–23, 2009: Class Certification Hearing Reviews Common Proof and Contaminant Sources

A class-certification hearing took place on September 22 and 23, 2009. The plaintiffs argued that shared evidence could establish off-site movement of chemicals from the Dura-Wood facility. The defendants argued that causation and damages could not be resolved on a class-wide basis.

The expert record included plaintiffs’ emissions expert Dr. Nicholas Cheremisinoff, who addressed air-emission issues. The record also discussed plaintiff-side non-testifying experts Randy Horsak, P.E. and Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D., whose statements were later addressed in the Louisiana Supreme Court’s causation analysis. The defense record included Dr. Shari Libicki, identified by the court as one of the defendants’ testifying expert witnesses. Her testimony addressed how outside PAHs and dioxins could enter homes through air-conditioning systems or by being tracked indoors.

February 2010: District Court Certifies a Property-Owner Class

In February 2010, after issuing written reasons, the district court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The certified class included property owners who owned property within the class area at the time the property was allegedly damaged during the years 1944 through the present.

The certified class area was described as a circle with a radius of one and one-half miles from a point at the Dura-Wood facility. The ruling allowed the claims to proceed as a class action at that stage. It did not decide whether any specific property had been contaminated by the defendants’ operations. The defendants appealed the class-certification ruling.

February 2, 2011: Louisiana Third Circuit Affirms Class Certification

On February 2, 2011, the Louisiana Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s class-certification ruling. The appellate court found no reversible error, although it noted concerns with the class definition, including the long time period involved, multiple facility owners, and possible conflicts between current and former property owners.

The ruling left the class-certification order in place while further review remained available. The Louisiana Supreme Court later granted certiorari to review whether the lower courts had applied the required class-certification analysis.

December 6, 2011: Louisiana Supreme Court Reverses Class Certification and Remands

On December 6, 2011, the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the class-certification ruling and remanded the case. The court held that the lower courts erred in finding common questions of law or fact, predominance, and superiority under Louisiana class-action standards.

The court stated that the plaintiffs had to show, through common evidence, that PAHs and dioxins found on class properties came from the Dura-Wood facility. Causation turned on property-specific facts, including alternate sources such as vehicle emissions, fires, backyard burning, cooking, and smoking. The court also addressed the attic-dust evidence and found problems with using that proof to establish class-wide causation, including the absence of named-plaintiff attic contamination proof and uncertainty over when contaminants may have been deposited.

2013: ATOKA Reports Soil and Groundwater Investigation Work in the Price Litigation

ATOKA, Inc. publicly identifies the Price litigation as a matter resolved in 2013 in the 9th Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish, Louisiana. ATOKA states that Dr. Jerry Overton and ATOKA installed monitoring wells, collected soil and groundwater samples, and provided contamination evidence related to allegations that groundwater under Mr. Price’s property had been polluted by a nearby wood-treatment facility.

ATOKA’s description identifies Dr. Overton’s work as environmental investigation and hydrogeology support connected to the plaintiffs’ contamination theory. The available public class-certification opinions do not confirm whether Dr. Overton testified in the certification proceedings or state the terms of the 2013 resolution. His role is therefore best described as plaintiff-side environmental investigation and hydrogeology support based on ATOKA’s public description.

Expert Witnesses and Technical Evidence in Roger E. Price v. Roy O. Martin

1. Dr. Nicholas Cheremisinoff - Emissions Expert Witness (Plaintiffs)

   Dr. Nicholas Cheremisinoff was identified by the Louisiana Supreme Court as the plaintiffs’ emissions expert. His testimony addressed whether Dura-Wood facility operations could release PAHs and dioxins into the surrounding area through air emissions.

   For class-certification purposes, he estimated facility emissions for 1970. The court noted that his calculations did not apply to other years. His testimony was part of the record used to evaluate whether the plaintiffs could rely on shared emissions evidence across the proposed class area.

2. Randy Horsak, P.E. - Non-Testifying Technical Expert Witness (Plaintiffs)

   Randy Horsak, P.E. was identified in the Louisiana Supreme Court opinion as a non-testifying expert for the plaintiffs. His statements addressed factors that could affect PAH and dioxin levels inside homes, including cooking practices, smoke movement, cigarette use, air fresheners, and highway emissions.

   Those statements were part of the causation record because they described conditions that could vary from one property to another. The court considered those property-level differences when evaluating whether one causation theory could apply across the proposed class.

3. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. - Non-Testifying Technical Expert Witness (Plaintiffs)

   Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. was also identified as a non-testifying expert for the plaintiffs. His statements addressed possible sources of PAHs and dioxins, including cigarette smoke, fireplaces, wood-burning stoves, barrel burning, diesel emissions, fires, coal burning, and atmospheric deposition.

   The court used this evidence in its predominance analysis. The statements showed that possible contaminant sources could differ by property, resident activity, structure, and surrounding conditions.

4. Dr. Shari Libicki - Testifying Technical Expert Witness (Defense)

   Dr. Shari Libicki was identified by the Louisiana Supreme Court as one of the defendants’ testifying expert witnesses. Her testimony addressed how outside PAHs and dioxins could enter homes through air-conditioning systems or by being tracked indoors.

   This testimony formed part of the defense position that alleged indoor contamination could have sources unrelated to the Dura-Wood facility. The court cited this evidence in its analysis of individual causation issues and alternate sources.

5. Dr. Jerry Overton - Environmental Investigation and Hydrogeology Expert Witness (Plaintiffs)

   ATOKA, Inc. identifies Dr. Jerry Overton as its President and Senior Hydrologist/Hydrogeologist. ATOKA states that Dr. Overton and ATOKA installed monitoring wells, collected soil and groundwater samples, and provided contamination evidence in the Price matter.

   Dr. Overton’s role should be described as plaintiff-side environmental investigation and hydrogeology support tied to soil and groundwater allegations involving Mr. Price’s property. The available public class-certification opinions do not confirm whether he testified in the certification proceedings.

Class Certification, Causation, and Environmental Evidence

1. Common Proof and Class Certification

   The Louisiana Supreme Court examined whether the plaintiffs could prove causation through evidence shared across the proposed class. The central class-certification question was whether the same alleged source, pathway, and injury could be evaluated for many properties in one proceeding.

   The court concluded that the proposed class did not satisfy the required commonality, predominance, and superiority standards. The analysis turned on whether facility-wide evidence could answer the causation question for all proposed class members.

2. Individual Property Facts and Predominance

   Alternate-source evidence included cooking, smoking, fires, backyard burning, traffic emissions, and other combustion sources. Because PAHs and dioxins can come from sources unrelated to wood-treatment operations, the court found that causation could require property-specific inquiry.

   Those variables affected whether each property could be tied to the Dura-Wood facility through shared proof. They also affected whether damages, exposure, timing, and source identification could be handled in one class proceeding.

3. Expert Evidence and the Class Theory

   The expert evidence did not resolve the causation question in a way that applied evenly across the proposed class area. The plaintiffs relied on facility-related emissions and contaminant evidence, while the defendants pointed to alternate sources and property-level differences.

   The court reviewed this record to determine whether the proposed class could rely on a common theory of proof. Its decision turned on whether the evidence connected alleged contamination to the facility across the class area without requiring separate proof for each property.

4. Environmental Timing and Liability

   The proposed class period ran from 1944 through the present, which created timing issues tied to facility ownership, operations, emissions, and legal standards. The court considered those changes when reviewing breach, causation, liability, and damages.

   Those issues affected whether one set of common answers could resolve the claims for all proposed class members. The court found that the long time period and changing factual conditions weighed against class treatment.

Case Outcome and Litigation Record

Price v. Roy O. Martin moved from property-owner contamination allegations to a class-certification dispute over whether claims involving PAHs, dioxins, and other substances tied to wood-treatment operations could be tried through class-wide proof. The district court certified a property-owner class, and the Third Circuit affirmed. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed after finding that causation and breach depended on individual facts, different facility owners, different time periods, and multiple possible contaminant sources.

ATOKA later identified soil and groundwater investigation work connected to Mr. Price’s property, including monitoring wells and sample collection. The public record addresses class certification, source identification, contaminant pathways, attic-dust evidence, alternate sources, and property-level causation in the context of alleged environmental contamination near the Dura-Wood facility.