IBM CORP. WILL SETTLE A LAWSUIT BROUGHT BY 1,000 PLAINTIFFS WHO ALLEGED THAT TOXIC SPILLS FROM THE COMPANY'S FORMER ENDICOTT MANUFACTURING PLANT IN NY CAUSED ILLNESSES AND DEATHS, DAMAGED PROPERTY VALUES AND HURT BUSINESSES.
February
11, 2015
ENDICOTT,
NEW YORK:
IBM Corp.
will settle a lawsuit brought by 1,000 plaintiffs who alleged that toxic spills
from the company's former Endicott manufacturing plant caused illnesses and
deaths, damaged property values and hurt businesses.
Both sides
announced the settlement Tuesday night without revealing details of the
agreement.
"IBM
and the plaintiffs' counsel have reached this agreement in an effort to resolve
these cases without further burdensome and expensive litigation," said the
joint statement from the litigants.
The
settlement brings to a close a more-than six-year saga in which IBM and those
who claim they were harmed by the toxic releases waged a fierce legal battle on
monetary rewards. Affected residents, in a multimillion-dollar liability
lawsuit against IBM, claimed the company should pay for the damage caused to
residents around what once was the company's main domestic manufacturing
facility.
From 1935
to the mid-1980s, IBM used TCE (trichloroethylene) to clean metal parts in
degreasers at its industrial campus in the Village of Endicott. In 1979, the
company discovered some of the TCE had pooled in groundwater beneath the
facility and appeared to be migrating.
Contamination
from soil vapor intrusion was detected by the late 1990s, and by 2002, IBM
began testing the air at the request of state health and environmental
agencies. Basement ventilation systems were eventually installed in more than
400 homes.
Settlement
negotiations between the parties began last July, when state Supreme Court
Justice Ferrous D. Lebous requested that representatives of both sides start
meeting about an out-of-court settlement. Negotiations were apparently
successful, culminating with Tuesday night's release that the parties agreed to
a settlement that satisfied both sides.
Lawyers of
those who brought the suit against IBM said they will conduct meetings with
clients over the coming weeks to present terms of the settlement.
IBM
representatives said the company will continue the environmental cleanup that
has been ongoing since the widening toxic plume was discovered.
Pumps
spread throughout Endicott pull pollution from the ground through structures
called recovery wells. Over time, these wells have grown in number from four to
more than 22, and to date, they have recovered more than 815,000 pounds of
trichloroethylene and other toxic chemicals, with an unknown amount remaining
beneath the village.
Company
officials have never publicly explained IBM's role in the disaster, and their
legal position was that the company always handled chemicals responsibly and in
accordance with standards of the day. They have not denied their former
operations were a primary contributor to the pollution. They have not admitted
it, either, nor have they offered a detailed explanation of the source of the
problem.
Representatives
of the company said it was cleaning up the solvents from multiple industries
that have operated in the region's industrial corridor for generations.
Endicott was also home to the vast shoe manufacturing empire of Endicott
Johnson Corp., once the region's largest employer.
However,
the toxic-liability suit named only IBM as the source of the chemicals that
tainted parts of Endicott's commercial district and nearby residences.
IBM sold
the 140-acre campus to Huron Real Estate Associates in 2002. Current tenants
include i3 Electronics (formerly Endicott Interconnect), BAE Systems and
Binghamton University, among others.
Lawyers for
IBM have long contended it was following the responsible path, picking up the
sizable costs for cleaning the spill and providing venting systems for
properties designated at-risk for vapor intrusion.
Both sides
scored initial victories as the case wound its way through the courts. Lower
courts ruled against IBM's motion to have the case dismissed, and ruled in
favor of a plaintiff's motion to have charges of negligence — the underpinnings
of the case — tried before a jury.
But lower
court rulings also eliminated or limited some aspects of the litigation,
including the charge that the pollution constitutes a trespass in all cases,
and the claim that IBM should be held accountable for monitoring the medical
condition of all plaintiffs, including non-property owners.
IBM was
also able to limit claims for medical monitoring to only people claiming other
damages, such as illness or property loss. That eliminated claims for a
potentially large group of plaintiffs — renters and children, for example — who
may have been exposed but did not develop illnesses or suffer property damage.