In re FTCA Flint Water Cases

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan addresses the United States’ motion for summary judgment in consolidated Federal Tort Claims Act litigation arising from the Flint Water Crisis. The court denies summary judgment based on the FTCA statute of limitations, concluding that the Government had not shown when the plaintiffs knew or should have known of the EPA’s alleged causal role, and considers the Government’s arguments concerning causation. The court also denies as moot the plaintiffs’ motion to compel compliance with the case management order.

Holdings

1. The Government failed to carry its burden to establish that the claims of Anderson, Langston, Keys, Crews, McClain, and Cooley accrued more than two years before their administrative claims were received. The claims therefore were not barred on the record presented.
2. The plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to permit reasonable inferences of causation for the challenged personal-injury and property-damage claims, except for Margie McClain's business-loss claims.
3. Langston and Campbell presented sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment on their skin-injury claims.
4. Vance, Langston, Cooley, Crews, Keys, and McClain presented sufficient evidence of causation for their property-diminution claims.
5. McClain failed to present sufficient evidence to support her business-loss claims involving lost rental income and alleged damage to hot-water heaters, furnaces, pipes, and related property.
6. Plaintiffs' motion to compel was denied as moot because the Government's summary-judgment motion was being decided and the Government acknowledged its duty to meet and confer after that decision.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the FTCA claims of Vivian Anderson, Stanley Langston, Jason Keys, Patricia Crews, Margie McClain, and Lawrence Cooley were barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b).
2. Whether the identified bellwether plaintiffs and Carolyn Daly, Anthony Vance, and John Campbell presented sufficient evidence of causation to survive summary judgment.
3. Whether Margie McClain presented sufficient evidence to support her business-loss claims.
4. Whether Plaintiffs' motion to compel compliance with Case Management Order No. 4 was moot.

Disposition

other