CONYERS, Ga. — Three new class action lawsuits have been filed against the companies connected with the large fire at a Conyers chemical plant over the weekend.
The fire, which was extinguished Sunday, caused a chemical reaction when the sprinkler system malfunctioned, mixing hazardous material on site and releasing it into the air. The entire City of Conyers was evacuated, and a shelter-in-place order was issued for the wider Rockdale County. Surrounding counties reported a chlorine odor and a visible haze in some areas.
The shelter-in-place and evacuation orders were lifted Monday night, but a plume of smoke from the remaining reactive material has lingered into Tuesday. While officials have said air tests have not revealed anything harmful in the air, they warned residents to stay inside if shifting winds sent the plume in their direction.
As officials work to remove the still-reactive material, several attorneys have filed lawsuits in the wake of the fire and the subsequent chemical plume it caused. It's worth noting that all three lawsuits aren't only for the named plaintiffs but a class action in which other people can, and likely will, join.
Atlanta-based law firm Stewart Miller Simmons Trial Attorneys filed a lawsuit Monday against BioLab and KIK Consumer Products on behalf of two Rockdale County residents, Fannie and Albert Tartt.
The complaint alleges that the defendants' negligence and recklessness in operating the plant caused the fire and toxic plume, which affected numerous residential, commercial, and public properties near the facility. The class action includes all owners and lessees of real property in Rockdale County and surrounding communities who were subject to evacuation orders or advisories due to the toxic smoke plume.
The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages in excess of $75,000 and injunctive relief to remedy the harm caused to their properties.
“Local communities suffer at the hands of corporations who seek to put profits over people," said attorneys L. Chris Stewart and Justin Miller of Stewart Miller Simmons Trial Attorneys. "In this tragedy, the community is not going [to] remain silent and suffer repercussions that will last a lifetime. We will seek justice on behalf of everyone affected, and we will see those responsible in court."
The suit also cites the plant's history of similar incidents and alleges that the companies responsible failed to implement appropriate safety measures to prevent it from happening again.
11Alive previously reported that the EPA investigated a fire at the plant in 2004 and 2016, and the Chemical Safety Board noted a similar incident at the facility in 2020. More than a dozen OSHA violations were also uncovered at the BioLab facility, with most of them deemed "serious."
All three suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
Second class action suit filed by Morgan & Morgan
This suit was filed on the same day as the Stewart Miller Simmons lawsuit and is on behalf of Conyers resident Tonya Long and the larger group of impacted residents.
The complaint presents several counts, including: ultrahazardous activities, negligence, willful and wanton conduct, private nuisance, and trespass, arguing that the defendants' actions led to significant exposure to toxic chemicals, causing various damages and emotional distress.
"Defendants’ recklessness has upended the lives of nearly 100,000 Georgians, who must now fear for their health and the habitability of their neighborhoods," the suit reads.
The plaintiffs are seeking both compensatory and punitive damages as a result of the massive fire and chemical plume.
Third class action filed by Goldenberg Schneider, LPA
The suit was filed on behalf of four Georgia residents, Bessie Hollingsworth, Kassey Nicole Goolsby, Ernestine Simmons, and Lisa Wise, and claims that the companies were negligent in maintaining and controlling the facility and the hazardous chemicals that led to the incident.
The plaintiffs seek certification of a class action, including all people and businesses affected by the evacuation or shelter-in-place orders and exposure to the hazardous chemicals.
The suit alleges that the defendants' actions constituted a nuisance, negligence per se, trespass, and strict liability for an ultrahazardous activity.
The complaint also outlines the plaintiffs' personal experiences with the incident, including health issues and economic losses. They allege that the defendants' conduct caused property damage, personal injury, and business interruption.
The plaintiffs request various forms of relief, including compensatory and punitive damages, attorney's fees, and a medical monitoring program to assess the long-term health effects of exposure to the chemicals.