ELR Citation: ELR 20218
No(s). s. 08-2311, 02312 (6th Cir. Sep 22, 2009)

The Sixth Circuit affirmed, except with respect to the award of attorney fees, a lower court's approval of a settlement agreement concerning residents' class action lawsuit against a neighboring steel mill. The $4.45 million settlement distributed $300 to each covered member of the class, limited to one award per household; $10,000 to the seven class representatives; and $1.335 million in attorney fees and $622,279.86 in costs to class counsel. Any residual goes to public schools in the area. The agreement discharged residents' continuing nuisance claims relating to pollutants emitted "at any time up to and including" the agreement’s execution date. It also released continuing nuisance claims for all alleged damages arising out of or relating to the maintenance of any structures, any acts, any operations, or any conditions that existed, began, or were initiated at the mill prior to the execution date. Objectors argued that the release of the continuing-nuisance claims is unfair because the complaint contained no such claims and, at a minimum, the scope of the release goes well beyond the claims pled in the complaint. But every version of the plaintiffs' complaint—three versions in total—included a claim for continuing private nuisance. Moreover, the bar on future continuing-nuisance claims applies only to claims arising out of conditions that existed prior to the settlement. The settlement process depends on compromise, and here, the release reasonably balances the steel company's interest in resolving the claims and the public interest in protecting the residents from future harmful emissions. In addition, the award of $300 to each class member is not low, as the objection was based on the misconception that the agreement releases all future tort claims. However, although the attorney fee award is not, on its face, unreasonable, the lower court did not adequately explain its reason for approving the amount.