- J, CHCEH COURT OE MASON COUNW, WEST WOW 3 TH ESTATE SJ SORRY CLARY, by JOY CLARY, The ESTATE LARRY by 2?5, LAME T, the ESTATE Of FRED PARKER, by NANCY PAMR, the ESTATE ST JAMES STEWART, by SHAWN STEWART, AdmiRiSHatOr, The ESTATE Of JOAN WAMSLEY, by MW WAMSLEY, He ESTATE Of JUDITH WGHT, Dy THOMAS ROBERT ALLEN, LARRY ANGEL, JQSEPH BALL, EAUL RGBERT BRUCE, RONALD CAJHDELL, ANTHONY CARDHLO, DAYTD CARSEY, JAMES (3mm, RECK CLARY, GARY COOEER, CHARLES ROBERT R, JONES, LAMEE, TANYA LAVENDER, LAUDERWLT, RAUL MCOANIEL, TAM WLENS, TRACY MULLENS, JOHN TOTE, DON REES, ELTON RITCHJE, WILEUR ROELNSON, SHCHAEL SHAW, ROGER SHORT, TVA SJSSON, CARLOS STEPP, THERON SWISTHR, ROY TAYLOR, PAUL THOMAS, JOAN WAMSLEY, SHAREN WAMSLEY, STEVEN WATSON, EDMOND WGHT, THOMAS WGHT, HANNA ANGEL by TINA MSGN, mother ROG next friend, TWA HUDSON, JOYCE EARCES, AUGUSTENE in: i KACEY TORRES, CHERYL CLARY, 2,133; JANET REES, DJANNA WGHT, LAMY ANGEL, H, TEETH BOOTH, SHAWN CAMHLLO, Am EDWARDS, JESSE Em, HAYES, ALEJHS MULLENS, ELIZABETH PIERCE, .f RAMSDURG, REESE, SHAW, JOHN SJSSON, ROBERT SJSSON, JR, KAREN TERRY, DON WAMSLEY, HORNY WAMSLEY, JACOB WATSON, JEREMLAH WATSON, TE CARSEY, SEEM CHAPMAN, DJAN MCDANHL, BRENDA TOTE, CHERYL SHAW, ROBERT TAYLOR, THOMAS, and SJHHA WATSON, VS. (EVIL ACTEQN N6. WM HGN, . AMERICAN ELEchte some. (30., mo, MEGAN ELECTRIC omo POWER comm and cope wo 9 Beferldarrts, NGW CQW the abovemamed 77 Plaintiffs, who, for their Complaint against the Defendants, American Electric Power Co., Inc, American Electric Power Service Corporation, Ohio Power Company and Doug Workman, state as follows: 1. The 77 named Plaintiffs are comprised of 4 subgroups: a. ?Working Direct Claim Plaintiffsg? (39) b. ?Non-Working Direct Claim Plaintiffs,? (ll) aLoss of Spousal Consortium (9) and (1. ?Loss of Parental Consortium Plaintiffs.? - THE omEor CLAEM 2. The Direct Claim Plaintiffs are comprised of a group of ?fty (50) whom are deceased and forty?four (44) of whom are living. M: 3. Of the 50 ?Direct Claim Plaintiffs,? the following thirty~niae (39) Plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the ?Working Direct Claim Plaintiffs?) were employees of VFL Technology, LMS Contracting, and/or Mid~State, inc, and worked in the General James M, Gavin Residual Waste Landfill (hereinafter referred to as ?Gavin Landfill?), where every shj? 1833? 155% they were exposed; unprotected, to coal combustion byproduct waste, a radioactive amalgam of hazardous constituents that pose known risks to human health: Robert Allen; Larry Angel; Joseph Ball; Paul Brarnmer; Robert Bruce; 7 Ronald Campbell; Anthony Cardillo; David Carsey; . James Chapman; 10. Bobby Clary; 11. Rick Clary; 12. Gary Cooper; 13. Charles Ehman; 14. Robert Frazier; 15. David Jones; 16. Richard Lambe; 17. Larry Landermilt; 18. Tanya Lavender; 19. Paul McDaniel; 20. Tanrmay Mullens; 21. Tracy Mullens; 22. Fred Parker; 23. John Poff; 24. Don Rees; 25. Elton Ritchie; 26. Wilbur Robinson; 27. Michael Shaw; 28. Roger Short; 29. Eva Sisson; 30. Carlos Stepp; 31. James Stewart; 32. Theron Swisher; 33. Roy Taylor; 34. Paul Thomas; 35. John Warnsley; 36. Sharon Warnsley; 37. Steven Watson; 38. Edmond Wright; and 39. Thomas Wright. 4. Of the 50 ?Direct Claim Plaintiffs,? the following eleven (1 l) Plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the ?Non?working Direct Claim Plaintiffs?) shared a residence or living space with their spouses, parents, or children, listed above as the Working Direct Claim Plaintiffs: Tianna Angel, daughter of Larry Angel Tina Hudson; Barons, mother of Tammy Tracy Mullens; Augustene Brammer, wife of Paul Kacey Burris, daughter of Roger Short; Cheryl Clary, wife of Rick Clary; Tina Hudson, exwwife of Larry Angel; Harriett Laudermilt, wife of decedent Larry Lauderrnilt; Janet Rees, wife of Donald Rees; Joan Wamsley, deceased, wife of John Wamsley; Dianna Wright, of wife Edmond Wright; and Judith Wright, deceased, wife of Thomas Wright. HO LGSS 0F CONSORTEUM PLAINTEFFS 5. The ?Loss of Consortium Plaintiffs? are comprised of a group of twenty-seven (27) individuals, nine (9) of whom are spouses and eighteen (18) of whom are children of the ?Direct Claim Plaintiffs.? has?i?acssatgnsarnan 6. Of those 27 ?Loss of Consortium Plaintiffs,? the following nine (9) Plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the ?Loss of Spousal Consortium Plaintiffs?) are the spouses of the Direct Claim Plaintiffs, who were working at the Gavin Land?ll at times material and relevant herein: Terri Carsey, wife of David Carsey; Suzanne Chapman, wife of James Chapman; Dian McDaniel, wife of Paul McDaniel; Brenda Poff, wife of John Poff; Cheryl Shaw, wife of Michael Shaw; Robert Sisson, husband of Iva Sisson; Vicki Taylor, wife of Roy Taylor; Karen Thomas, wife of Paul Thomas; and Sheila Watson, wife of Steven Watson. 7. Of those 27 ?Loss of Consortium Plaintiffs,? the following eighteen (18) Plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the ?Loss of Parental Consortium Plaintiffs?) are children of one or more Direct Claim Plaintiffs, who were working at the Gavin Landfill at times material and relevant herein: Alexis Mullens, daughter of Tracy Mullens; Larry Angel, ll, son of Larry Angel; Terri Booth, daughter of Paul Augustene Brammer; Shawn Cardillo, son of Anthony Card-i110; Amy Edwards, daughter of John decedent Joan Warnsley; Jesse Ehman, son of Charles Ehman; Melissa Hayes, daughter of Iva Sisson; Elizabeth Pierce, daughter of Elton Ritchie; 9. Hanna Ramsburg, daughter of Tanya Lavender; 10. Darrin Reese, son of Tanya Lavender; ll. Christopher Shaw, son of Michael Shaw; 12. John Sisson, son of Iva Sisson; 13. Robert Sisson, Jr, son of Iva Sisson; 14. Karen Terry, daughter of Roger Short; 15. Don Warnsley, son of John decedent Joan Wamsley; 16. Robin Wamsley, daughter of John decedent Joan Warnsley; 17. Jacob Watson, son of Steven Watson; and 18. Jeremiah Watson, son of Steven Watson. RESEBENCY 0F 8. The following Plaintiffs are residents of Mason Connty, West Virginia: 1. Paul Thomas; 2. Karen Thomas; and 3. Elizabeth Pierce. 9. The following Plaintiff is a resident of Minge County, West Virginia: 1. Joseph Ball 10. The following Plaintiffs are residents of Caheii Coanty; West Virginia: 9999?)?? 11. The following Plaintiff is a resident of Lawrence County, Kentueky: 12. The following Plaintiff is a residents of Boyd County; Kentucky: 1. 13. The following Plaintiffs are residents of Lawrence Coanty, Ohio: wwsawewwr 10. ll. 14. The following Plaintiffs are residents of Gailia County, Ghio: emaawewwr wan?tr?IHM . Charles Ehman; . Don Rees; .Janet Rees; .Roy Taylor; .John Warnsley, individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Joan James Chapman; Suzanne Chapman; wife of James Chapman; Richard Lambe; Michael Shaw; and Cheryl Shaw; wife of Michael Shaw. Robert Allen Robert Frazier Larry Angel; Paul Brammer; Augustene Brammer; John Poff; Brenda Poff, wife of John Poff; Joyce Barons; Tracy Mullens; Tammy Mullens; Roger Short; Carlos Stepp; and Alexis Mullens, daughter of Tracy Mullens. Tiarma Angel; Anthony Caxdillo; Ronald Campbell; Joy Clary; as Administrator of the Estate of Bobby Clary; Tina Hudson David Jones; Kacey Burris; daughter of Roger Short; Rick Clary; Cheryl Clary; Wamsley; 15. Sharon Wamsley; 16. Steven Watson; 17. Edmond Wright; 18.. Dianna Wright; 19. Thomas Wright, individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Judith Wright; 20. Vicki Taylor, wife of Roy Taylor; 21. Larry Angel, 11, son of Larry Angel; 22. Amy Edwards, daughter of John and decedent can Warnsley; 23. Jesse Ehman, son of Charles Ehman; 24. Karen Terry, daughter of Roger Short; 25. Don Wamsley, son of John and decedent Joan Wamsley; 26. Jacob Watson, son of Steven Watson; and 27. Jeremiah Watson, son of Steven Watson. 15. The following Plaintiffs are residents of Athens County, Side: 1. Robert Bruce; and 2. Wilbur Robinson. 16. The following Plaintiffs are residents of Meigs County, tho: 1. David Carsey; 2. Harriett Laudermilt, individually and as Administratrix of the Estate Laudermilt; Iva Sisson; Elton Ritchie; Tanya Lavender; Paul McDaniel; Gary Cooper; Terri Carsey, wife of David Carsey; . Dian McDaniel, wife of Paul McDaniel; 10. Robert Sisson, husband of Iva Sisson; 11. Hanna Ramsburg, daughter of Tanya Lavender; l2. Darrin Reese, son of Tanya Lavender; and 13. Robert Sisson, In, son of Iva Sisson. 17. The following Plaintiff is a resident of Marion County, Ohio: 1. Terri Booth, daughter of Paul and Augustene Brammer 18. The following Plaintiff is a. resident of Warren County, Ghio: 1. Nancy Parker, as Administratrix of the Estate of Fred Parker 19. The following Plaintiff is a resident of Franklin County, tho: of Larry 1. Melissa Hayes, daughter of Iva Sisson 20. The following Plaintiff is a resident of Hiilshoroagh Coanty, Fiorida: 1. Shawn Stewart, as Administrator of the Estate of James Stewart 21. The following Plaintiff is a resident of Napies County, Fiorida: l. Theron Swisher 22. The following Plaintiffs is a resident of Camden Connty, Georgia: 1. Shawn Cardillo, son of Anthony Cardillo 23. The following Plaintiffs is a. resident of Gailt?ord Connty, North Carolina: 1. Christopher Shaw, son of Michael Shaw 24. The following Plaintiffs is a. resident of CravenCennty, North Caroiina: 1. Robin Warnsley, daughter of John Wamsley and decedent JoagWarnsley,w? ire?j: was 25. The following Plaintiff is a resident of Fort Bend County, Texas: 1. John Sisson, son of Iva Sisson. THE DEFENDANTS Athenian 26. The Defendant, American Electric Power Co., Inc. (hereinafter referred to as is a foreign corporation with its principal place of business in Columbus, Ohio. 27. The Defendant, AEP, may be served through its Registered Agent, David A. Laing, who is located at 1 Riverside Plaza, Columbus, Franklin County Ohio, 43215. 28. The Defendant, AEP, was licensed to do business, and was doing business, in the state of Ohio at all times material and relevant herein. i 29. The Defendant, AEP, was doing business in the state of West Virginia at times material and relevant herein? Americas headgear:Series?rrsretisa 30. The Defendant, American Electric Power Service Corporation (hereinafter is a foreign corporation with its principal place of business in Columbus, Ohio. 31. The Defendant, AEPSC, may be served through its Registered Agent, CT Corporation System, 5400 Big Tyler Road, Charleston, WV 25313. 32. The Defendant, AEPSC, was licensed to do business, and was doing business, in the state of Ohio at all times material and relevant herein. 33. The Defendant, AEPSC, was licensed to do business, and was doing business, in state of West Virginia at all times material and relevant herein. the Ernst. ?neness 34-. The Defendant, Ohio Power Company, (hereinafter ?Ohio Power?), is an ()th Corporation, with its principal place of business in Columbus, Ohio. 35. The Defendant, Ohio Power, may be served through its Registered Agent, CT Corporation System, 5400 Big Tyler Road, Charlesten, WV 25313. 36. The Defendant, Ohio Power, was licensed te do business, and was doing business, in the state of Ohio at all times material and relevant herein. 37. The Defendant, Ohio Power, was licensed to do business, and was doing business, in the state of West Virginia at all times material and relevant herein. hess?eahean 38. The Defendant, Doug Workman, is, and has at all times material and relevant herein been, a resident and citizen of Point Pleasant, Mason County, West Virginia. 39. The Defendant, Doug Workman, was, employed as Land?ll Site Superintendent (?Superintendent?) for the Defendant, AEP, and worked in this capacity at the Landfill, in Cheshire, Gallia County, Ohio. . WSDECTEON AND VENUE 40. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 39 above are incorporated herein fully by reference. 41. derisdiction exists by virtue of the Defendant, Doug Workman?s, citizenship and residence in Point Pleasant, Mason County, West Virginia. 42. Jurisdiction also exists by virtue of the Defendants?, AEP, AEPSC, and Ohio Power, presence in the state of West Virginia, and their continuous, systematic contacts with the state of West Virginia. 43. Venue is properunder W. Va. Code because the Defendant, Doug Workman, resides in Mason County, West Virginia. 44. Venae is also proper under W. Va. Code because the Defendants, AEP, AEPSC and Ohio Power, are corporations doing business Within the state of West Virginia, including Mason County, West Virginia. 0N COAL CCMBUSTION WASTE 45. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 44 above are incorporated herein fully by reference. 46. The Ohio Power Company owns and operates the General James M. Gavin Power Plant (hereinafter referred to as ?Gavin Plant?) and its associated facilities. The Gavin Plant consists of two 1,300umegawatt (MW) coal combustion units that began operation in 1974 (Unit 1) and 1975 (Unit 2). Coal combustion byproduct waste, generated at a rate of 2.6 million cubic yards per year, is currently placed in a 246-acre land?ll located north of the Gavin Plant known as the Gavin Land?ll. The Gavin Landfill is expected to reach its capacity in 2015. In 2013, Defendant, AEPSC, prepared a permit application seeking to expand the Gavin Land?ll by 52 million cubic yards. 10 47. Both the Gavin Plant and the Gavin Land?ll are located at 73 97 State Rte. 7 North, Cheshire, Gallia County, Ohio 45 620. 48. The Working Direct Claim Plaintiffs? operations at the Gavin Land?ll consisted primarily of collecting, shoveling, hauling, dumping, Spreading and otherwise transporting the 2.6 million cubic yards of coal combustion byproduct waste produced each year at the Gavin Plant, which has been accumulating for four decades. 49. Coal combustion byproduct waste (hereinafter ?Coal Waste?) is subcategorized as ?y ash, bottom ash, boiler slag and Fine Gas Desulfurization (FGD). Fly ash is a product 01? bunting ?nely ground coal in a boiler to produce electricity. it is generally captured in the plant?s chimney or stack through a particulate control device and consists of siltusized, Clay?sized and ultrafme particles, giving it a consistency somewhat like talcum powder. 50. Flue gas desulfurization material is a product of a process typically used for~ reducing Sul?lr Dioxide (SOZ) emissions from the exhaust gas system of a coal-fired boiler, The physical nature of FGD varies from a wet sludge to a dry powdered material depending an the process. The powdered FGD consists of small, ?ne particles. 51. Bottom ash is a coarse, gritty material, comprised of agglomerated ash particles that are too large to be carried in ?ue gases. They impinge on the furnace walls or fall through open grates to an ash hopper at the bottom of the furnace. The material is taken from the bottom of the boiler furnace either in its dry form or as slurry (via the addition of water). It has a pawns surface structure and is coarse, with grain sizes spanning from ?ne sand to fine gravel. 52. Due to the variable nature of the coal burned, no uniform composition of constituent 7 Coal Waste materials exists, and each sample has the potential to differ from another, even when samples are gathered in similar locations and/or at similar times. 11 53. However, all Coal Waste includes certain amounts of toxic constituents, primarily heavy metals such as arsenic, beryllium, boron, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, selenium, strontium, thallium and vanadium. Coal Waste also includes a certain level of toxic organic materials such as dioxins, aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) compounds and radioactive isotopes including uranium, radium and thalium, among others. 54. Moreover, the concentration of the more toxic substances in Coal Waste, like arsenic and lead, is higher in Coal Waste than in the coal from which it is derived. Fly ash, in particular, is substantially different from coal, because it produces ultra?ne particles due to the high temperatures Within the combustion chambers. 55. The smaller Coal Waste particles contain more toxins than the larger particles. They also persist in the air longer, travel further from the source, and are inhaled into the deepest portion of the lung Where they are transported into the blood stream, distributed throughout the body and deposited in vital organs. A 2010 study commissioned by the Clean Air Task Force found that over 13,000 deaths and tens of thousands of cases of chronic bronchitis, acute bronchitis, asthma, congestive heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, ischemic heart disease, chronic lung disease, and pneumonia each year are attributable to fine particle pollution from US. coal plant emissions. 56. Coal Waste also contains a multitude of cancer-?causing contaminants that are dangerous to human health, including: I particulates (carbon and quartz silica); aromatic hydrocarbons radioactive compounds (uranium, radium and thorium); inorganic arsenic cadmium hexavalent chromium (Cr6); lead 12 manganese mercury nickel (N and selenium rear?? 57. The Class 1 and Class 2 carcinogens in Coal Waste include radiation, arsenic, lead, hexavalent chromium?, nickel, cadmium, dioxins, particulates, silica and PAHs. 58. ln?vitro and inwvivo (animal) testing and human epidemiology studies have shown that Coal Waste as a mixture is both Inutagenic and carcinogenic. 59. Exposure to Coal Waste, and its constituent materials, occurs by means of inhalation, ingestion, and dermal contact. 60. Fine and ultra?ne particulate matter found in Coal Waste cannot be ?ltered by the human nose, due to its microscopic size and, as a result, enter the bloodstream directly upon inhalation. 61. Ingestion can occur when Coal Waste comes into contact with a worker?s unprotected face, contaminates drinking water or through activities such as eating and drinking that take place in areas where Coal Waste is present. Also, the same occurs where food, beverages, lunch pails, or eating utensils come into contact with Coal Waste, such as on=site at power. plants or land?lls where Coal Waste is produced and/or disposed. 62. Dermal contact with Coal Waste occurs by direct means, such as through contact with the Coal Waste itself in the air, in slurry or water contaminated with coal waste or on the ground, while working onmsite at a power plant or landfill where Coal Waste is produced. 63. Dermal and/or inhalation contact with Coal Waste can also occur by indirect means, such as through contact with clothing, shoes, surfaces, or other materials that have come into 13 contact with the Coal Waste, which occurs when an individual working era?site at a power plant or land?ll carries Coal Waste home on clothing, shoes and/or in a vehicle. itselih?itests eigenstitssutsaadjlr. ass 64. Particulate matter constituents of Coal Waste have been found to cause the following adverse health effects, among others: Respiratory disease, respiratory failure, permanent lung injury, acute silicosis; Cancer; Autoimmune diseases; Heart disease and heart failure; and Strokes. $999535?? 65. Heavy metal constituents of Coal Waste have been found to cause the following adverse health effects, among others: Brain damage; Immunode?ciency and autoimmune diseases; Cancer; Diabetes; Hypertension; Kidney damage; Sperm damage; Lung damage and respiratory diseases; and Gastrointestinal diseases, including Crohn?s disease. ?1??qu rho so we 66. Dioxins have been classified as highly toxic and powerful carcinogens; and have bean found to cause the following adverse health effects, among others: Brain damage; Diabetes; - Birth defects; and Skin rashes. one see 67. Fly ash has been found to cause the following adverse health effects, among others: a. Chromosomal abnormalities; b. Birth defects; c. Cancer; and d. Respiratory diseases, including bronchitis, COPD, acute silicosis. 14 WORK PRESTORY FACTS 68. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 67 above are incorporated herein fully by reference. 69. In 1991, the Defendants, AEP, AEPSC and Ohio Power, entered into a contract with VFL Technology under which VFL would provide construction and hauling services an the Gavin Land?ll for the bene?t of the Defendants, AEP, AEPSC and Ohio Power. 70. In 2003, VFL became LMS Contracting and LMS continued to provide construction and hauling services at the Gavin Landfill for the bene?t of the Defendants, AEP, AEPSC and Ohio Power. 71. In 2007, Mid-State, Inc. (?Mid-State?) took over the contract from LMS, and continued to provide construction and hauling services at the Gavin Land?ll for the bene?t of the Defendants, AEP, AEPSC and Ohio Power. 72. The Defendants, AEP, AEPSC and Ohio Power, maintained an office on the premises of the Gavin Land?ll at all times material and relevant herein. 73. The Defendant, Dong Workman, worked onasite at the Gavin Land?ll, in the office maintained by the Defendants, AEP, AEPSC and Ohio Power at all times material and relevant] herein. 74. The Working Direct Claim Plaintiffs worked under the supervision, instruction and, in certain respects, under the control of the Defendant, Doug Workman, at all times material and relevant herein. 75. The Working Direct Claim Plaintiffs were controlled by AEP, AEPSC and Ohio Power, at all times material and relevant herein, as the timing, manner and scope of their work was dictated by the AEP entities and not by their direct employers. 15 76. AER, AEPSC and Ohio Power constituted the only source of work for the Direct; Claim Plaintiffs, each of whom worked inde?nitely for the AEP entities. 7'7. AEP, AEPSC and Ohio Power ?imished the bulk of the working equipment as well as the place of work needed for the work of the Working Direct Claim Plaintiffs. 7 8.. The Working Direct Claim Plaintiffs engaged in work that constituted the business of I the AEP entities? inasmuch as the Gavin Land?ll was at all material times essential component of ongoing power generation at the Gavin Plant. 79. The entities actively participated in the disposal of the Coal Waste at the Gavin Land?ll by performing the work along with the Working Direct Claim Plaintiffs. 80. The AEP entities actively participated in the disposal of the Coal Waste through their retention of control of the Working Direct Claim Plaintiffs as alleged above. 81. The Working Direct Claim Plaintiffs worked long hours each day at the Gavin Land?ll, in direct contact with, and/or in close proximity to, the Coal Waste. lainaathatthe Esr?ns?irsst ?ora 82. On numerous occasions, the Defendant, Doug Workman, and other agents, representatives and employees of the Defendants, AEP, AEPSC and Ohio Power.) informed the Working Direct Claim Plaintiffs: that Coal Waste was a safe and non?hazardous material; that the Working Direct Claim Plaintiffs should not worry about the contents or health effects of exposure to Coal Waste; that Coal Waste ?would not hurt [the Working Direct Claim Plaintiffs] that ?nothing in Coal Waste could harm [the Working Direct Claim Plaintiffs];? and that Coal Waste was ?safe enough to eat.? 83. On one or more occasions, Defendant, Doug Workmans responded to questions from the working direct claim Plaintiffs about the safety of the Coal Waste by sticking his finger into 16 tit the Coal Waste and then placing his fly-ash covered ?nger into his own month, then misrepresented to the Working Direct Claim Plaintiffs that Coal Waste was ?safe enough to eat.? 84. On one or more occasions, the Working Direct Claim Plaintiffs were told that the Coal Waste was only a mixture of ?water and lime.? 85. On one or more occasions, the Working Direct Claim Plaintiffs were told, by Doug Workman and other agents, representatives, and employees of the Defendants, AEP, AEPSC and Ohio Power, that the Coal Waste cantained ?such low levels of arsenic, it made no difference? to their health or safety, and that the ?lime neutralizes the arsenic? in the Coal Waste. 86. The Working Direct Claim Plaintiffs were not provided with written information about the safety of the material and components, known as Material Safety Data Sheets for Coal Waste/F GD until approximately 2012, despite having worked in close contact with Coal Waste for years, and despite being provided MSDS for other chemical materials present on?site at the Gavin Land?ll before 2012. 87. On one occasion during 2011, Plaintiffs, Tammy Mnllens and Tracy Mullens, were cleaning out a shed at the Gavin Land?ll location, as part of their work at the Gavin Landfill, and were working in the midst of a large, thick cloud of Coal Waste, without the use of personal protective gear, such as coveralls, gloves or respirators. Chris McDaniel, an employee of the Defendant, AEP, who worked at the Gavin Plant location, witnessed the Plaintiffs, Tammy Mullens and Tracy Mollens, working without personal protective equipment, and attempted to provide them with respirators, when he was stopped by {the Defendant, Doug \ll/orkrnana who informed Chris McDaniel that because Tammy Mullens and Tracy Mnllens were not employees of Defendant AEP, they were not to be provided with respirators. 88. On one occasion, in 2000, Plaintiff Paul McDaniel was standing near a durup truck hauling Coal Waste err?site at the Gavin Landfill, when the truck released the Coal Waste, 17 burying Paul McDaniel in the material, and. causing the Coal Waste to become embedded in his skin and eyes, causing him to inhale and/or ingest signi?cant amounts of the Coal ill/antea and causing him to lose his voice and suffer from breathing dif?culties for several days following the incident. 89. On numerous occasions, several of the Working Direct Claim Plaintiffs witnessed agents, representatives and employees of the Defendants, AEP, AEPSC and Ohio Power, wearing personal protective equipment, including coveralls, gloves and respirators, While on or around the premises of the Gavin Land?ll. 90. At no time were any of the Working Direct Claim Plaintiffs offered or provided personal protective equipment, including coveralls, gloves, or respirators, by the Defendants, AEP, AEPSC, Ohio Power and/or Doug Workman. 91. At no time were any of the Working Direct Claim Plaintiffs advised or instructed to obtain personal protective equipment, including coveralls, gloves or respirators, by the Defendants, AEP, AEPSC, Ohio Power and/or Doug Workman. 92. Upon information and belief, the Defendants, AEP, AEPSC and Ohio Power, bid the contracts for the Gavin Land?ll construction and. hauling at such low prices that the Working Direct Claim Plaintiffs were forced to exercise strict frugality in their daily work at the Gavin Landfill, including foregoing the use of air conditioning in work vehicles, compelling the Working Direct Claim Plaintiffs to drive the hot vehicles with the windows down in warm weather, thus further exposing them to Coal Waste. 93. Upon information and belief, the Defendants, AEP, AEPSC and Ohio Power, were more concerned with saving money and remaining on schedule than with the health and safety of the Working Direct Claim Plaintiffs. 18 LEABELETY WRONGFUL DEATH 94. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendants, AEP, AEPSC, Ohio Power and Doug Workman, the following Plaintiffs (?Deceased Direct Claim Plaintiffs?) died: Bobby Clary; Larry Laudennilt; Fred Parker; James Stewart; Joan Wainsley; and Judith Wright. 95. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendants, AEP, AEPSC, Ohio Power and Doug Workman, the statutory bene?ciaries of these Deceased Direct Claim Plaintiffs suffered sorrow, mental anguish and solace, including the loss of the society, companionship, comfort, guidance, kindly of?ces, advice, services, care, protection, and assistance of their decedents and will continue to suffer such losses in the future. 96. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendants, AEP, AEPSC, Ohio Power and Doug Workman, the statutory bene?ciaries of these Deceased Direct Claim Plaintiffs have endured mental and emotional anguish and distress because of the premature death of the Deceased Direct Claim Plaintiffs. 97. As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct of the Defendants, AEP, AEPSC, Ohio Power and Doug Workman, the statutory bene?ciaries of these Deceased Direct Claim Plaintiffs incurred funeral expenses. FAILURE TO WARN, ELEMINATE, 98. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 97 above are incorporated herein fully by reference. 19 99. The Defendants, AEP, AEPSC, Ohio Power and Doug Workman, had a duty to warn the Working Direct Claim Plaintiffs of the nature and presence of health and safety hazards in the workplace at the Gavin Land?ll, including those hazards posed by the presence of Coal Waste and its constituents. 100. The Defendants, AEP, AEPSC, Ohio Power and Doug Workman, had a duty to the Working Direct Claim Plaintiffs to take all reasonable measures to eliminate health and safety hazards present in the workplace at the Gavin Land?ll, including those health and safety hazards posed by the presence of Coal Waste and its constituents, to the extent that elimination of such hazards was possible. 101. The Defendants, AEP, AEPSC, Ohio Power and Doug Workman, had a duty to the Working Direct Claim Plaintiffs to take all reasonable steps to protect the Working Direct Claim Plaintiffs from any health and safety hazards present in the workplace at the Gavin Landfill, including those health and safety hazards posed by the presence of Coal Waste and its constituents, where complete elimination of the health and safety hazard posed by Coal Waste, through reasonable measures, was not possible. 102. Due to their knowledge of the toxicity of Coal Waste and its constituents, and the nature of Coal Waste and its ability to remain on clothing, shoes, skin, hair or other materials with which Coal Waste came into contact, it was, or should have been, reasonably foreseeable to the Defendants, AEP, AEPSC, Ohio Power and Doug Workman that the Working Direct Claim Plaintiffs would carry Coal Waste and its constituents away from the Gavin Land?ll when they left the work site, and that others, including spouses and children of the Working Direct Claim Plaintiffs, would, therefore, likely become exposed to Coal Waste and its constituents, and such spouses and children, thus, were also likely to be exposed to the health and safety hazards, 20 associated with Coal Waste. The Defendants, AEP, AEPSC, Ohio Power and Doug WOrkman, breached their duties to the Direct Claim Plaintiffs in at least the following particulars: a. Failing to take reasonable steps to eliminate the risks posed by Coal Wastg and its constituents, to the extent that such elimination may have been possible; Failing to comply with United States Occupational Safety and Health standards for handling and disposal of Coal Waste and its constituents; Failing to take reasonable steps to protect the Plaintiffs from the health and safety risks posed by Coal Waste and its constituents, to the extent that elimination of these risks was not possible; Failing to provide the Plaintiffs with personal protective equipment, including coveralls, gloves, or respirators; Refusing to permit Plaintiffs to use available personal protective equipment, including coveralls, gloves, or reSpirators, and actively instructing others not to provide such items to Plaintiffs; Failing to ensure that Plaintiffs had a clean place to eat, drink and store their food on?site at the Gavin Landfill; Failing to conduct consistent, reliable, and accurate testing of the Coal Waste present on?site at the Gavin Land?ll; Failing to inform Plaintiffs of the toxicity of Coal Waste and its constituents, and the health and safety risks posed by exposure to Coal Waste and its constituents; Failing to provide Plaintiffs with safe, reliable vehicles equipped with air~ conditioning or other cooling systems and working Windows; Instructing and/or requiring Plaintiffs to handle the Coal Waste and work long hours each day in close contact with the Coal Waste Without protective clothing or gear, or respirators; Failing to provide Plaintiffs with accurate MSDS or other health and safety literature pertaining to Coal Waste and its constituents; Failing to conduct regular safety and or hazard training about Coal Waste; 21 In. Failing to instruct Plaintiffs in proper cleaning or ?washing up? techmques that would reduce or eliminate the risk of carrying Coal Waste and its constituents away ?orn the Gavin Land?ll; n. Failing to provide Plaintiffs with proper facilities in which Plaintiffs mum remove clothes, shoes, or other materials that had come in contact with the Coal Waste and its constituents, or in which Plaintiffs could ?wash up? after contact with the Coal Waste; - o. Failing to respond honestly and thoroughly to Plaintiffs? inquiries about the dangerous nature of Coal Waste and its constituents; p. Intentionally misrepresenting to Plaintiffs that the Coal Waste and its constituents were safe, non?hazardous and posed no health or safety risks to Plaintiffs; and q. Other acts and omissions known and unknown to the Plaintiffs. 103. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful conduct of the Defendants, AEP, AEPSC, Ohio Power and Doug Workman, the Working Direct Claim Plaintiffs have suffered the harms and injuries detailed herein. 104. As a direct and proximate result of the mong?il conduct of the Defendants, AEP, AEPSC, Ohio Power and Doug Workman, the Non~working Direct Claim Plaintiffs (Spouses, parents or children who resided with the Working Direct Claim Plaintiffs), came into contact with Coal Waste from the Gavin Land?ll site that their family members carried home. 105. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful conduct of the Defendants, AEP, AEPSC, Ohio Power and Doug Workman, the Non?working Direct Claim Plaintiffs have suffered the harms and injuries detailed herein. NEGLIGENCE PER SE 0F OSHA. STANDARD) 106. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through l05 above areincorporated herein fully by reference. 22 107. The United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations establish a standard of care for protecting workers Who handle hazardous materials, These standards are set forth in 29 CPR. et. and are more speci?cally detailed in 29 GER, 19101027 and 19101096. 108. The failure of the Defendants, AEP. AEPSC, Ohio Power and Doug {0 ensure compliance with worker protection regulations, constitutes a per se breach of a duty of care cured by the Defendants to the Working Direct Claim Plaintiffs. 109. As a direct and proxirnate result of the negligence per se of the Defendants, AEP, I AEPSC, Ohio Power and Doug Workman, the Direct Claim Plaintiffs have suffered the harms and injuries detailed herein. NEGLEGENCE 110. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 109 above are incorporated herein fully by reference. 111. The Defendants, AEP, AEPSC, Ohio Power and Doug Workman, owed the Direct Claim Plaintiffs a duty of ordinary care in operating their facilities and equipment at the Gavin Plant and the Gavin Land?ll. 112. The Defendants, AEP, AEPSC. Ohio Power and Doug Workman, breached their duties of ordinary care to the Direct Claim Plaintiffs in at least the particulars, previously detailed in Paragraph 102 I 113. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants, AEP. AEPSQ Ohio Power and Doug Workman, the Direct Claim Plaintiffs have suffered the hanns and injuries detailed herein. 23 HEEGHTENED DUTY 114. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 113 above are incorporated herein fully by reference. 115. Because of the radioactive and toxic nature of Coal Waste, a circumstance known t0 the Defendants, AEP, AEPSC, Ohio Power and Doug Workman, but not to the Direct Claim Plaintiffs, the Defendants had a heightened duty of care to the Direct Claim Plaintiffs, and to any other persons who might corne in contact with the radioactive and toxic Coal Waste at or around the Gavin Land?ll. 116. The Defendants, AEP, AEPSC, Ohio Power and Doug Workman, breached their heightened duties to the Direct Claim Plaintiffs in at least the particulars, previously detailed in Paragraph 102 117. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants? breach of their heightened duty to the Direct Claim Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs have suffered the harms and injuries detailed herein. 1 18. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 1 17 above are incorporated herein fully by reference. 119. At all times material and relevant herein, there existed a high degree of risk of harm to the Direct Claim Plaintiffs, and the likelihood that the resultant harm to the Direct Claim Plaintiffs would be great. 120. Although the Defendants, AEP, AEPSC, Ohio Power and Doug Workman, failed to eliminate the risk to the Direct Claim Plaintiffs by the exercise of reasonable care, the name of the Defendants? Coal Waste handling and disposal operations is such that, even with the exercise of reasonable care, the high degree of risk of harm to the Direct Claim Plaintiffs is incapable of 24 I being completely eliminated because of the manner and environment in which the Defendants? handle and dispose of their Coal Waste. 121. The handling and disposal of multiple tons of Coal Waste is not a matter of commgn usage, and the size and scope of the li)efendantsa Coal Waste handling operations present a particularized and high degree of risk of exposure and great harm to the Direct Claim Plaintiffs, 122. The Direct Claim Plaintiffs cannot be said to have assumed the risk of voluntary encounters with a known danger regarding their work in and around Coal Waste because the Defendants, AEP, AEPSC, Ohio Power Company and Doug Workman, af?rmatively, deliberately and while in possession of specific knowledge unknown to the Plaintiffs, made false statements to the Direct Claim Plaintiffs and misinformed and misled the Direct Claim Plaintiffs about the hazardous nature of Coal Waste. 123. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants, AEP, AEPSC, Ohio Power and Doug Workman carrying on an abnormally dangerous activity, the Defendants are strictly liable for the Plaintiffs? harms and injuries as more fully detailed herein, BATTERY 124. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 123 above are incorporated herein fully by reference. 125. By misleading and misinforming the Direct Claim Plaintiffs about the nature of Coal Waste, the Defendants, AEP, AEPSC, Ohio Power and Doug Workman, caused the Direct Claim Plaintiffs to believe they were coming into contact with a harmless dust during the Direct Claim Plaintiffs? work on?site at the Gavin Land?ll or when exposed to material that would be carried on clothing, in lunchupails, in vehicles, or on other items from the Gavin Land?ll to other locations. 25 I dangerous substance. - substance they would not have otherwise allowed themselves to come into contact with by Workman, were causing the Direct Claim Plaintiffs to come into contact with a highly toxic and 126. In fact, as set forth herein, the Defendants, AEP, AEPSC, Ohio Power and Doug 127. Had the Direct Claim Plaintiffs not been misled about the nature of the Coal Waste, they would have found such contact with the Coal Waste to be an offensive and unwanted touching of their person and could have refused to come into contact with the Coal Waste. 128. Knowingly causing the Direct Claim Plaintiffs to come into contact with a hamful misleading and misinforming Plaintiffs about the nature of the harmful substance is a battery, or the in?iction on the Direct Claim Plaintiffs of an offensive and unwanted touching of their person. 129.. As a direct and proximate result of such unwanted touchings caused by the Defendants, AEP, AEPSC, Ohio Power and Doug Workman, the Plaintiffs have suffered the harms and injuries detailed herein. FRAUD AND FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT 130. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 129 above are incorporated herein fully by reference. 131. As set forth speci?cally and in detail in paragraphs 82-86, and also generally throughout this Complaint, the Defendants, AEP, AEPSC, Ohio Power and Doug Workman, af?rmatively, deliberately and while in possession of specific knowledge unknown to the Plaintiffs, made false statements to the Direct Claim Plaintiffs, and misinformed and misled the Direct Claim Plaintiffs about the nature of Coal Waste, 132. Defendants, AEP, AEPSC, Ohio Power and Doug Workman, were under a duty to honestly disclose their knowledge of the toxicity and hazards of Coal Waste and failed to do so. 26 133. In reliance upon the false statements of Defendants, ABP, AEPSC, Ohio Power and Doug Workman, about the nature of Coal Waste, the Direct Claim Plaintiffs allowed themselves to become exposed to Coal Waste when they otherwise would not have, incurring the damages described herein as a result. or A TGXEC sonsrancr. 134-. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 133 above are incorporated herein ftu by reference. 135. The Defendants, AEP, AEPSC, Ohio Power and Doug Workman, had knowledge of the toxicity of Coal Waste, and the health and safety dangers to which the Working Direct Claim Plaintiffs were continuously exposed as a result of being compelled to work long hours in close contact with the Coal Waste without any personal protective equipment, including coveralls, gloves, or respirators. 136. Despite having knowledge of the toxicity of Coal Waste and the health and safety dangers to which Plaintiffs were exposed during the course of their work at the Gavin Landfill, Defendants, AEP, AEPSC, Ohio Power and Doug Workman: a. intentionally and repeatedly stated, informed, assured, and misrepresented to the Working Direct Claim Plaintiffs that the Coal Waste was safe, non- hazardous, and would not pose a risk to the Plaintiffs? health or safety; b. intentionally failed to provide the Working Direct Claim Plaintiffs with any type of personal protective equipment, including coveralls, gloves, or respirators; and 0. took intentional actions to conceal and misrepresented evidence of the toxicity and hazardous nature of the Coal Waste from the Working Direct Claim Plaintiffs. 137. As a direct and proximate result of the intentional misrepresentations made by the Defendants, AEP, AEPSC, Ohio Power and Doug Workman, the Plaintiffs have suffered the harms and injuries detailed herein. 27 NEGLIGENT ENFLICTEGN 9F EMGTIONAL DISTRESS 138. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 137 above are incorporated herein I fully by reference. 139. At all times material and relevant herein, the Direct Claims Plaintiffs were continuously exposed to Coal Waste and a high degree of risk of harm as a result of being compelled by the Defendants, AEP, AEPSC, Ohio Power and Doug Workman to work long hours in close contact with Coal Waste without any personal protective equipment, including coveralls, gloves or respirators. 140. The Defendants, AEP, AEPSC, Ohio Power and Doug Workman, had knowledge of the toxicity of Coal Waste, and the health and safety dangers to which the Working Direct Claim Plaintiffs were continuously exposed as a result of being compelled to work long hours in close contact with the Coal Waste Without any personal protective equipment, including coveralls, gloves or respirators. It was reasonably foreseeable to the Defendants that the Direct Claim Plaintiffs would suffer serious emotional distress if and when the toxicity, hazards and health and safety dangers associated with Coal Waste were made known to the Direct Claim Plaintiffs, 141. The Plaintiffs recently learned of the toxicity, hazards and health and safety dangers associated with Coal Waste, to which the Working Direct Claim Plaintiffs were continuously exposed as a result of being compelled to work long hours in close contact with the Coal Wasta without any personal protective equipment, including coveralls, gloves or respirators. Thereby, the Direct Claim Plaintiffs have been caused to suffer serious emotional distress as a direct result of their exposure to Coal Waste. 28 email. McDaniel, Brenda Poff, Cheryl Shaw, Vicki Taylor, Karen Thomas and Sheila Watson have MEDECAL MONITGRENG 142. The Direct Claim Plaintiffs have, relative to the general population, signi?cantly exposed to a proven hazardous substance, to?wz't Coal Waste, as a result of being compelled by the Defendants, AEP, AEPSC, Ohio Powerand/or Doug Workman, to work long hours in close contact with the Coal Waste without being provided any personal protective equipment, including, but not limited to, coveralls, gloves, or respirators. 143. As a direct and proximate result of the Direct Claim Plaintiffs? exposure to Coal Waste, the Direct Claim Plaintiffs have suffered an increased risk of contracting one or more of the serious, latent diseases referenced in this Complaint. 144. The increased risk to the Direct Claim Plaintiffs of contracting one or more serious, latent diseases makes it reasonably necessary for the Direct Claim Plaintiffs to undergo periodic diagnostic medical examinations different from what would be prescribed in the absence of their heavy exposure to Coal Waste. Monitoring procedures now exist that make possible the early detection of one or more of the serious, latent diseases caused by exposure to Coal Waste. 145. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and/or omissions by the Defendants, AEP, AEPSC, Ohio Power and Doug Workman, the Direct Claim Plaintiffs seek damages for medical monitoring. I LOSS OF CQNSORTEUM 146. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 145 above are incorporated herein fully by reference. Latest Qatar 147. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful conduct of the Defendants, AEP, AEPSC, Ohio Power and Doug Workman, the Plaintiffs, Terri Carsey, Suzanne Chapman, Dian 29 a. - protection and assistance provided by his wife, and all have suffered annoyance, aggravation, losses and harms on a permanent basis into the future. 3 suffered a loss of the services, care, comfort, protection and assistance provided by their husbands, and Plaintiff Robert Sisson has suffered a loss of the services, care, comfort, inconvenience, and emotional distress, and are reasonably certain to continue to suffer such assist retreat. Einasnrtiarngaiae 148. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful conduct of the Defendants, AEP, AEPSC, Ohio Power and Doug Workman, the Plaintiffs, Larry Angel, ll, Terri Booth, Shawn Cardillo, Amy Edwards, Jesse Ehman, Melissa Hayes, Alexis Mullens, Elizabeth Pierce, Hanna Ramsburg, Darrin Reese, Christopher Shaw, John Sisson, Robert Sisson, Jr,, Karen Terry, Den Wamsley, Robin Warnsley, Jacob Watson and Jeremiah Watson have suffered a loss of the services, care, comfort, protection and assistance provided by their parents, and have suffered annoyance, aggravation, inconvenience and emotional distress, and are reasonably certain to continue to suffer such losses and harms on a permanent basis into the future. DAMAGES 149. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 148 above are incorporated herein fully by reference. 150. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful conduct of the Defendants, the Direct Claim Plaintiffs have suffered one or more serious, permanent and disabling injuries, including, but not limited to, the following particulars: a. Cancer, including brain cancer, lung cancer, bladder cancer, skin cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, ovarian cancer, colon cancer, cancer of the nodes, leukemia and/or thyroid cancer; 30 Respiratory distress and diseases, including COPD, bronChitis, asthma, sleep apnea, spots on the lungs, chronic cough, chest pain and/or other breathing problems; Skin lesions, scarring, skin discoloration, psoriasis, skin rashes, chronic itching and/or other skin problems; Heart failure, Postural orthostatic tachycardia mitral valve prolapse and/or other heart problems; Breast nodules, thyroid nodules and/or nodules in the throat; Psoriatic arthritis; Bladder stones; Gastrointestinal and/or stomach problems; Tumors of the thyroid and/or voicebox; Raynaud?s Disease; Memory loss; and Other harms and injuries. warren we 151.. It is reasonably certain that many of the injuries sustained by the Direct Claim Plaintiffs are permanent in nature. 152. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful conduct of the Defendants, the Direct Claim Plaintiffs have required a host of medical treatments, including, but not limited to, the following particulars: Surgeries and/or other invasive operations; Cancer treatments, including chemotherapy and/or radiation; Prescription medications; and Other medical treatments and therapies. 9?99?? 153. It is reasonably certain that many of the Direct Claim Plaintiffs will continue to require medical treatment on a permanent basis into the future. 154. As a direct and proximate result of the wrong?rl conduct of the Defendants, the Direct Claim Plaintiffs have incurred, and are reasonably certain to continue to incur, medical bills. 155. As a direct and proximate cause of the wrongful conduct of the Defendants, the Direct Claim Plaintiffs have incurred wage losses due to missed work, and will suffer lost wages and reduced eaming capacity in the future. 31 156. As a direct and proximate cause of the wrongful conduct of the Defendants, the Direct Clairn Plaintiffs are reasonably certain to incur medical monitoring costs on a permanent basis into the future. 157. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful conduct of the Defendants, the Direct Claim Plaintiffs have suffered, and are reasonably certain to continue to suffer, annoyance, inconvenience, physical pain and suffering, mental and emotional anguish and a diminishmentin the ability to fully and enjoy life. 158. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful conduct of the Defendants, the Direct Claim Plaintiffs have suffered, and are reasonably certain to continue to suffer, an inability to perform the daily functions, tasks and activities of life. PUNETIVE DAMAGES 159. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 158 above are incorporated herein fully by reference. 160. The acts and omissions of the Defendants, AEP, AEPSC, Ohio Power, individually and through their agents, representatives and employees and of the Defendant, Doug Workman, were intentional, willful, unlawful and outrageous and were done in bad faith and exhibited a conscious disregard for the safety and rights of the Plaintiffs. 161. The acts and omissions of the Defendants, AEP, AEPSC, Ohio Power, individually and through their agents, representatives and employees and of the Defendant, Doug Workman, were of such a nature that the Plaintiffs are entitled to receive punitive damages in order to punish the Defendants, and to deter similar conduct in the future. the Working Direct Claim Plaintiffs, Non-=Working Direct Claim Plaintiffs, Loss of Spousal Consortium Plaintiffs and Loss of Parental Consortium Planitiffs demand judgment against the Defendants, American Electric Power Co., Inc, American Electric Power 32 Service Corporation, Ohio Power Company and Doug Workman; for an amount that will fully, fairly and reasonably compensate them for all damages, hams, losses; and injuries caused by the conduct of the Defendants, including, without limitation, punitive damages, medical monitoring costs and for the (costs, expenses and fees incurred in pursuit of this action and for all of the re?ef to which they are entitled by law, including, but not limited to, pre- and. postujudgtnent interest on all amounts and for such other relief as this Court deems proper. A TRIAL BY EURY IS 0N ALL ISSEJES PLAINTEFFS By: I Christopher. Regan, . Bar 8593 Scott S. Bless, Esq. (WV Bar 4628) J. Zachary Zstezalo, Esq. (WV Bar 9215) Laura, P. Pollard, Esq. (WV Bar 12302) Bordas Bordass PLLC 135 8 National Road Wheeling, WV 26003 Telephone: (304) 242?8410 atad L. Dvid Duffield, -r Chad S. Lovejoy, Esq. Bat~ 7478) A. David Nichols, Esq. (WV Bar 11927) Duf?eld, Lovejoy, Stemple Boggs, PLLC PO. Box 608 Huntington, WV 25710=0608 Telephone: (304) 522?3038 33