Carl J. Fabry and Patricia P. Fabry - Page 14

                                       - 14 -                                         

          within the meaning of section 104(a)(2).  None of the other                 
          injuries alleged in the complaint is a personal injury:  plant              
          damage, lost profits, or loss of going-concern value.                       
          Petitioners do not claim that the cause of injury, defective                
          manufacture of an agricultural chemical, necessarily results in a           
          personal injury within the meaning of section 104(a)(2).                    
          Petitioners did not particularize their claim of injury to                  
          business reputation, so we might work backwards to a claim of               
          defamation or some other “dignatory” or nonphysical (but                    
          personal) tort.  The plant damage averred by petitioners no doubt           
          injured their business and, consequentially, their business                 
          reputation.  Nowhere in the complaint, however, is there any                
          claim of personal injuries as the term is used in section                   
          104(a)(2).                                                                  
               In addition to examining the release and the complaint, we             
          have considered the mediation that preceded settlement, as well             
          as the settlement negotiations between du Pont and petitioners.             
          We have found no evidence of a claim for personal injuries within           
          the meaning of section 104(a)(2).  As part of the mediation,                
          petitioners filed a statement with the mediators (the statement).           
          The statement recites petitioners’ injuries in much the same                
          terms as the complaint (i.e., a discussion of plant damage and              
          the destruction of the nursery business).  None of petitioners’             
          expert reports accompanying the statement, including the expert             





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011