You Paid WHAT at your Closing? Time to Check your HUD-1 Form…

March 5th, 2013. By AbiK

We’ve had a number of people ask us about real estate fees this week after our story entitled “Illegal California Real Estate Fees Costing Consumers” posted. One of the biggest questions everyone has is this: How do you know—or where do you find out—if you’ve either paid too much in real estate fees, or worse, have been charged a fee illegally?

Anyone who’s bought a home knows that last day—the day when everything is finalized and you get the keys to your new home—is a day fraught with both excitement and the overwhelming sense that you’re signing your life away. If you were completely lucid for even one small moment, you might remember that you signed a form that looked like this—it’s the HUD-1 Settlement Statement that every home buyer signs at the closing:

Unfortunately, while in the throes of signing all the paperwork, who has time to really read every line item? And that’s what’s at the heart of some recent real estate fee investigations in California—some attorneys are investigating potentially illegal real estate fees that homeowners may have paid—without even realizing it—at their closing.

How do you know if you paid any illegal closing costs? Well, it’s best to have an attorney look at your HUD-1 form—you probably have that along with your title and any mortgage documents. But the first place to look on the HUD-1 if you have it, is on page 2 (see image below), under the section called “Title Charges”. Some of the real estate fee investigations have been focusing on things like exorbitant messenger fees. The HUD-1 will also show whether your homeowner’s insurance company is charging more than it is allowed to charge by law.

So, particularly if you bought a home in California, take a look at your HUD-1 form—and if you find anything that you don’t understand or think is questionable, reach out to a California consumer fraud attorney.

 

 

 

 

Asbestos News Roundup: 3.1.13 – Veterans & Asbestos

March 1st, 2013. By LucyC

A roundup of recent asbestos-related news and information that you should be aware of. An ongoing list of reported asbestos hot spots in the US from the Asbestos News Roundup archive appears on our asbestos map.

US Veterans and Merchant Marines at Risk for Asbestos Disease

Beginning in the 1930s, nearly all ships built by the US Navy—including submarines—contained insulation or other machine parts containing asbestos. From that time, until the 1970s, when the US Navy stopped using asbestos in shipbuilding, thousands of US Navy Veterans and former Merchant Marines who served during World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and other conflicts were exposed to harmful levels of asbestos, placing them at risk of developing mesothelioma, lung cancer, asbestosis or other asbestos diseases. Shipyard workers, boiler mechanics, electricians and pipefitters who handled asbestos products are also at risk of developing asbestos-related diseases.

Because of the long latency period of the disease, it may take up to 30 years—or more—before Veterans who were exposed to asbestos begin to develop the first symptoms of mesothelioma or other asbestos-related cancers.

Many Veterans who were exposed to asbestos during their time in the military have filed lawsuits against the companies who manufactured asbestos products and the equipment that utilized these products on board US Navy and Merchant Marine ships. In their lawsuits, the Veterans’ alleged they were not warned about the risks of asbestos exposure, even when the companies who manufactured these asbestos products were fully aware of the danger they posed.

Asbestos Lawsuits

Jefferson County, TX: Chevron, Exxon Mobil and Shell Oil are among the companies facing an asbestos lawsuit brought by the widow and children of Louis Darjean who died from asbestos-related lung cancer. According to the lawsuit Darjean was exposed to asbestos through his work as a supervisor at the defendants’ refineries. The lawsuit claims that during his work, Louis Darjean was exposed to asbestos fibers and dust, which caused his disease and subsequent death, the complaint says.

Pamela Herbert, Mary Darjean and Ricky Darjean also name Huntsman Petrochemical, Guard-line, Triplex, Elliott Turbomachinery, Yarway Corporation and Zurn Industries as defendants in their asbestos lawsuit, alleging they knew about the harms of asbestos for decades, but failed to warn Louis Darjean of the product’s danger and failed to ensure that its employees were not exposed to the carcinogen. (setexasrecord.com)

Charleston, WV: 55 companies have been named as defendants in an asbestos lawsuit brought by a man who claims they are responsible for his asbestos-related lung injury.

Charles William Dawson has been diagnosed with asbestosis, which, he alleges in his lawsuit, is a result of his exposure to asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products during his employment at various job sites in West Virginia from 1960 until 2010.

The defendants are being sued based on theories of negligence, contaminated buildings, breach of expressed/implied warranty, strict liability, intentional tort, conspiracy, misrepresentation and post-sale duty to warn, according to the lawsuit.

Dawson is seeking a jury trial to resolve all issues involved. He is being represented by Bronwyn I. Rinehart of James F. Humphreys & Associates.

The 55 defendants named in the suit include: 3M Company; Aleris International, Inc.; A.W. Chesterton Company; Borg-Warner Corporation; Brand Insulations, Inc.; CBS Corporation; Certainteed Corporation; Cleaver Brooks Company; Columbus McKinnon Corporation; and Copes-Vulcan, Inc. (wvrecord.com)

Charleston, WV:  A couple from Huntington have named 61 companies as being responsible for Robert Leon Null’s recent diagnosis of asbestosis. Mr. Null was diagnosed with asbestosis on February 7, 2011, according to the Null’s asbestos lawsuit.

The lawsuit claims that it was during his employment as an insulator and machinist, from 1959 until 2013, that Mr. Null was exposed to asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products.

The defendants are being sued based on theories of negligence, contaminated buildings, breach of expressed/implied warranty, strict liability, intentional tort, conspiracy, misrepresentation and post-sale duty to warn, according to the suit.

Certain defendants are also being sued as premise owners and as Robert Null’s employers for deliberate intent/intentional tort, according to the suit.

The 61 defendants named in the suit are: 3M Company; A.W. Chesterton Company; American Electric Power Company Inc.; American Electric Power Service Corporation; Appalachian Power Company; Ashland Inc.; Beazer East Inc.; Borg-Warner Corporation; Brand Insulations Inc.; Certainteed Corporation; Cleaver-Brooks Inc.; Cooper Industries Inc.; Copes-Vulcan Inc.; Crane Co.; Crown Cork & Seal USA Inc.; Dravo Corporation; Eaton Electrical Inc.; Flowserve Corporation; FMC Corporation; Ford Motor Company; Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation; General Electric Company Inc.; Genuine Parts Company; Georgia Pacific Corporation; Goulds Pumps Inc.; Grinnell LLC; Hercules Inc.; Honeywell International; IMO Industries Inc.; Industrial Holdings Corporation; Ingersoll-Rand Company; ITT Corporation; Lockheed Martin Corporation; Mack Trucks Inc.; McJunkin Corporation; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; Nitro Industrial Coverings Inc.; Ohio Valley Electric Corporation; Ohio Valley Insulating Company Inc.; Owens-Illinois Inc.; Rapid American Corporation; Riley Power Inc.; Rockwell Automation Inc.; Rust Constructors Inc.; Rust Engineering & Construction Inc.; Sargent & Lundy, LLC; Schneider Electric; State Electric Supply Company; Sterling Fluid Systems (USA) LLC; Tasco Insulations Inc.; UB West Virginia Inc.; Union Carbide Chemical & Plastics Company; Uniroyal Inc.; United Conveyer Corporation; United Engineers & Constructors and Washington Group International; Viacom Inc.; Vimasco Corporation; Warren Pumps Inc.; West Virginia Electric Supply Company; Yarway Corporation; and Zurn Industries Inc. (wvrecord.com)

 

Infographic: Depakote Birth Defects, Off-Label Marketing by the Numbers

March 1st, 2013. By AbiK

Recently, a small British study that was published in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry (1/30/13), suggested women who take valproate while pregnant have an increased risk of having children with autism and neurodevelopment problems. The study also suggested that damage to the fetus happens during the early stages of pregnancy.

Valproate-based anti-convulsants (drugs used to treat seizure disorders including epilepsy) include brand-name drugs Depakote, Depakene, Depacon and Stavzor–all of which are pregnancy risk Category D drugs. Category D drugs have shown positive evidence of fetal risk based on adverse reaction data from investigation or marketing experience or clinical studies in humans.

The Depakote infographic below highlights some of the potential adverse effects in newborns that have been associated with taking Depakote during the first trimester of pregnancy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Budweiser Watered-Down? That’s just Un-American! (if true)

February 27th, 2013. By AbiK

Budweiser is taking some heat in the form of a class action lawsuit alleging that the most American of American beer brewers adds water to its beer thereby reducing the alcohol content by three to eight percent compared to what’s indicated on its beer label (and yes, I know Bud merged with Belgian In-Bev, but it will always be the iconic American beer).

If the allegations are true, it puts into question everything the red, white and blue stands for: honesty, hard work, integrity, and a nice cold brew as reward for it all. Hell, those Clydesdales have continued to unite us all in red-blooded pride each holiday season—what with their showing up every winter on our t.v. screens, tugging at our heartstrings better than the best Hallmark card could.

Gosh darnit where’s that House Committee on Un-American Activities when you need them?

Now what’s interesting with the Budweiser class action lawsuit here is that the folks who filed the lawsuit are not the ones you’d expect. C’mon—when you hear someone’s suing a beer company because they’re thinking there ain’t the right amount of alcohol in their beer, you’re thinking of some beer-loving redneck, right? Wrong.

The folks that filed the Budweiser class action are Budweiser employees. And, according to a report from MSN, some are “in high-level plant positions”. They ought to know.

The MSN article quotes lead attorney Josh Boxer as stating, “Our information comes from former employees at Anheuser-Busch, who have informed us that as a matter of corporate practice, all of their products mentioned (in the lawsuit) are watered down. It’s a simple cost-saving measure, and it’s very significant.”

According to the lawsuit, the deceptive practice and false advertising began after the 2008 merger between Anheuser-Busch and In-Bev. The lawsuit states, “Following the merger, AB vigorously accelerated the deceptive practices described below, sacrificing the quality products once produced by Anheuser-Busch in order to reduce costs.”

The lawsuit, filed in California, Pennsylvania and additional states including one due this week in New Jersey, involve ten Anheuser-Busch beers: Budweiser, Bud Ice, Bud Light Platinum, Michelob, Michelob Ultra, Hurricane High Gravity Lager, King Cobra, Busch Ice, Natural Ice and Bud Light Lime. Each lawsuit is seeking at least $5 million in damages.

We’ll keep an eye on this one as not only is it nation-wide, but it also involves “insider info” (always making for good story line) and the most iconic American beer for heaven’s sake!

Asbestos News Roundup: 2.21.13 – Asbestos in Schools

February 21st, 2013. By LucyC

This week’s asbestos news roundup includes all the recent asbestos-related news and information that you should be aware of. An ongoing list of reported asbestos hot spots in the US from the Asbestos News Roundup archive appears on our asbestos map.

Asbestos in Schools—Did You Know?

Federal law requires schools to conduct an initial inspection using accredited inspectors to determine if asbestos-containing building material is present and develop a management plan to address the asbestos materials found in the school buildings.

Schools are also required to appoint a designated person who is trained to oversee asbestos activities and ensure compliance with federal regulations. Finally, schools must conduct periodic surveillance and re-inspections of asbestos-containing building material, properly train the maintenance and custodial staff, and maintain records in the management plan.

Local education agencies must keep an updated copy of the asbestos management plan in its administrative office and at the school which must be made available for inspection by parents, teachers, and the general public.

For more information about federal asbestos regulations visit: http://www.epa.gov/asbestos/lawsregs.html

Asbestos Lawsuits

Charleston, WV: Thelma Absten has filed an asbestos lawsuit naming 44 companies as defendants responsible for her late husband’s lung cancer and resulting death.

Diagnosed with lung cancer on Jan. 10, 2011, Delmer Absten subsequently died on April 15, according to the lawsuit.

Mrs. Absten alleges her late husband worked as a laborer and carpenter from 1964 to 2003, and it was as a result of this work that he was exposed to asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products. She claims the defendants failed to warn husband of the dangers of asbestos.

The defendants are being sued based on theories of negligence, contaminated buildings, breach of expressed/implied warranty, strict liability, intentional tort, conspiracy, misrepresentation and post-sale duty to warn, according to the suit.

The 44 companies named as defendants include 3M Company; A.W. Chesterton Company; Beazer East, Inc.; Certainteed Corporation; Cleaver-Brooks, Inc.; Dravo Corporation; FB Wright Company; FMC Corporation; Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation; and General Electric Company.

Charleston, WV: 55 companies have been named as defendants responsible for the asbestos-related death of Virginia Sue Thompson’s late husband, Lonnie Jay Thompson.

In her lawsuit Mrs. Thompson alleges Mr. Thompson was diagnosed with lung cancer on February 17, 2011, from which he died on October 14, 2011. She further alleges that it was during her late husband’s career as a drywall installer, carpenter and pipefitter (1963 – 1999) that he was exposed to asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products.

The defendants are being sued based on theories of negligence, contaminated buildings, breach of expressed/implied warranty, strict liability, intentional tort, conspiracy, misrepresentation and post-sale duty to warn, according to the lawsuit.

The 55 companies named as defendants include: 3M Company; A.C.F. Industries, LLC; Borg-Warner Corporation; Brand Insulations, Inc.; CBS Corporation; Certainteed Corporation; Cleaver Brooks Company, Inc.; Columbus McKinnon Corporation; Copes-Vulcan, Inc.; and Crane Company.

Asbestos Law

San Francisco, CA: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has fined six Arizona school districts a combined total of $94,575 for Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) violations. More than 15,000 children attend the 25 schools not in compliance with the federal AHERA in these districts.

During inspections conducted in 2011, EPA inspectors discovered numerous violations, from failing to inspect facilities for asbestos containing materials, failing to re-inspect campuses with known asbestos containing materials, and failing to have an Asbestos Management Plan. All of the school districts have since taken necessary actions to comply with the law, with the cost of compliance reducing the penalties in most cases to zero.

“Asbestos in schools has the potential to harm the health of students, teachers, and maintenance workers,” said Jared Blumenfeld, EPA’s Regional Administrator for the Pacific Southwest. “EPA takes these violations seriously, and we are satisfied the schools have now conducted inspections and put their asbestos plans in place.”

Each school district is allowed to subtract properly documented costs of complying with the regulations from the penalty amount. The six school districts are:

• Apache Junction Unified School District (Pinal County): fined $21,675, but this was reduced to $7,933 because of the school district’s cost of achieving compliance.

• St. John’s Unified School District (Apache County): fined $14,195, reduced to $824 by the school district’s cost of achieving compliance.

• Florence Unified School District (Pinal County): fined $31,705, but no cash payment was due because the documented costs of compliance exceeded the penalty.

• Vernon Elementary School District (Apache County): fined $2,700, but no cash payment was due because the documented costs of compliance exceeded the penalty.

• McNary Elementary School District (Fort Apache Indian Reservation): fined $14,200, but no cash payment was due because the documented costs of compliance exceeded the penalty.

• Round Valley Unified School District (Apache County): fined $10,100, but no cash payment was due because the documented costs of compliance exceeded the penalty.