01727810-1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

ANGELA SWARTZ and TEDDY SWARTZ,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND

COMPANY and THE CHEMOURS

COMPANY

 

 Defendants.

Case No.: 2:18-cv-136

COMPLAINT FOR MONEY 

DAMAGES

(JURY DEMAND

ENDORSED HEREON)

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, by and through the undersigned counsel, hereby bring this Complaint for 

damages against the Defendants, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (“DuPont”) and The 

Chemours Company (“Chemours”)(collectively “Defendants”), named in the above styled matter, 

and allege the following:

NATURE OF ACTION

1. This is a civil action for equitable relief, compensatory and punitive damages, costs 

incurred and to be incurred by Plaintiffs, and any other damages which the Court or jury may deem 

appropriate for bodily injury and property damage arising from the intentional, knowing, reckless 

and negligent acts and omissions of the Defendants in connection with contamination of human 

drinking water supplies used by Plaintiff Angela Swartz.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. DuPont is a Delaware corporation authorized to conduct business in the State of Ohio

and has a principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19898 with a 

registered agent for service at 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801.

Case: 2:18-cv-00136-EAS-EPD Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/21/19 Page: 1 of 13 PAGEID #: 128
2

3. DuPont owned and operated a manufacturing facility in Wood County, West Virginia 

known as the “Washington Works Plant” until at least 2015. At all times thereto, DuPont was in 

control of the Washington Works Plant, the activities conducted at the facility, and all chemicals 

and/or emissions which were used and/or released from the facility. 

4. Chemours is a Delaware corporation authorized to conduct business in the State of 

Ohio and has a principle place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19898 with a 

registered agent for service at 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801.

5. Chemours is a chemical company that was founded in July 2015 as a spin-off from 

DuPont and maintained control of DuPont’s performance chemical divisions, including 

operations of the Washington Works Plant. At all times prior to this spin-off event, all operating 

elements of Chemours were bound by the covenants of the Leach class settlement agreement and 

at no point did DuPont, Leach class counsel, or any Court absolve the operating units held within 

Chemours from their inclusion in, and control by, the covenants of the Leach class settlement 

agreement. On or about February 13, 2017, Chemours and DuPont jointly announced that 

Chemours would annually pay the first $25 million of any potential future PFOA costs (after 2017) 

through at least 2022. If that amount is exceeded, DuPont will pay any additional amount up to $25 

million, annually. These costs would include those C8 liabilities related to the present lawsuit.

6. At all times material hereto, Defendants each maintained systematic and 

continuous contacts in the state of Ohio, regularly transacted business within this state, and 

regularly availed itself of the benefits of this state. Additionally, Defendants collective and 

independent acts and/or omissions, as described herein, were substantially conducted within the 

state of Ohio and have caused tortious injury to Plaintiffs as well as thousands of other Ohio 

residents and citizens.

Case: 2:18-cv-00136-EAS-EPD Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/21/19 Page: 2 of 13 PAGEID #: 129
3

7. This action is brought for individual claims of Plaintiff, Angela Swartz, who is a 

resident and citizen of Gallipolis, Gallia County, Ohio and Plaintiff’s spouse, Teddy Swartz, who 

is also a resident and citizen of Gallipolis, Gallia County, Ohio.

8. This Court has jurisdiction over Defendants in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1332 because there is complete diversity of citizenship between Plaintiff and Defendants and 

because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs, and because, 

among other reasons, Defendants have significant contacts with this district by virtue of doing 

business within this judicial district.

9. Further, Defendants committed torts in whole or in part against Plaintiff in this 

State. As such, this Court has personal jurisdiction over all named defendants. 

10. Venue is proper within this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a 

substantial part of the acts and/or omissions giving rise to these claims occurred within this 

district.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

11. In connection with its manufacturing operations at the Washington Works Plant,

Defendants used hazardous, toxic and/or carcinogenic wastes, substances, pollutants and/or 

contaminants, including ammonium perfluorooctanoate (a/k/a C-8/FC-143/APFO/ DFS-2/PFOA) 

(hereinafter “C-8”), (collectively the “Materials”) since the early 1950s.

12. C-8 is a toxic chemical used in the production of Teflon®. An artificial chemical, 

C-8 has been proven to be toxic and hazardous. It has been linked in some studies with prostate 

cancer, breast cancer, bladder cancer, liver disease, cholesterol, and possible birth defects. A 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency advisory board determined in 2005 that C-8 “likely” 

causes cancer in humans. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00136-EAS-EPD Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/21/19 Page: 3 of 13 PAGEID #: 130
4

13. During the course of its operations at its Washington Works Plant, Defendants 

have negligently, recklessly, knowingly, carelessly, wrongfully and/or intentionally allowed, 

caused, and/or otherwise permitted and is continuing to so allow, cause, and otherwise permit 

releases of Materials, from the Washington Works Plant into those waters that are and have been 

used for human drinking water purposes (the “Releases”).

14. C-8 is a bioretentive substance.

15. C-8 is a bioaccumulative substance.

16. C-8 is a biopersistent substance.

17. C-8 is an animal carcinogen.

18. C-8 is a proven hazardous substance.

19. DuPont has established a “community exposure guideline” (“CEG”) of 1 part per 

billion (1 ppb) for C-8 in public drinking water supplies for humans.

20. C-8 poses a risk to human health at a concentration of less than 1 ppb in water.

21. By at least 1984, DuPont had detected C-8 in water supplied for human 

consumption at levels exceeding 1 ppb.

22. By 1991, DuPont had detected C-8 in water obtained from local wells 

and in groundwater and surface waters otherwise impacted by the Releases at levels exceeding 1 

ppb.

23. DuPont negligently, recklessly, carelessly, wrongfully, and/or intentionally failed to 

disclose to those other individuals who were using water impacted by the Releases that the levels of 

C-8 detected in the water exceeded DuPont’s own internal CEG for C-8 in drinking water.

24. By at least May of 2000, DuPont had learned that the manufacturer of the C-8 used 

by DuPont at its Washington Works Plant, the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company 

Case: 2:18-cv-00136-EAS-EPD Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/21/19 Page: 4 of 13 PAGEID #: 131
5

(“3M”), had decided to stop manufacturing and selling C-8, based upon concerns associated with 

the bio-persistence and relative toxicity of C-8.

25. By at least 2001, DuPont had learned that C-8 had been detected in private water 

wells hydraulically down-gradient from one or more of the locations where DuPont had dumped 

C-8 into the ground, including DuPont’s Dry Run Landfill in Wood County, West Virginia, and 

DuPont’s Letart Landfill in Mason County, West Virginia.

26. Despite knowledge of the same bio-persistence and toxicity concerns known to 3M 

relating to the use of C-8 and its release into the environment and the fact that C-8 was getting into 

public and private human drinking water supplies, DuPont refused to stop using C-8 or releasing C8 into the environment and now planned to begin direct manufacture of its own C-8 at the 

Washington Works Plant.

27. DuPont knew for several years that the C-8 being discharged from its Washington 

Works Plant, and discharge of C-8 into the Ohio River, was directly contributing to the levels of C8 found in local human water supplies. 

28. Two West Virginia water districts and four Ohio water districts turned out to be 

the most contaminated by C-8. These districts were: (1) Little Hocking, Ohio; (2) Lubeck Public 

Service District, West Virginia; (3) City of Belpre, Ohio; (4) Mason County Public Service 

District, West Virginia; (5) Tuppers Plains, Ohio; (6) Village of Pomeroy, Ohio.

29. DuPont knew for several years that the level of C-8 discharged from its 

Washington Works Plant could be reduced substantially by use of a carbon absorption treatment 

system at the Washington Works Plant.

30. DuPont took steps to purposely and intentionally conceal from the public the 

fact that C-8 had been detected in the human drinking water supplies at levels exceeding DuPont’s 

1 ppb CEG for C-8 in drinking water, including purposeful and intentional omissions of any 

Case: 2:18-cv-00136-EAS-EPD Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/21/19 Page: 5 of 13 PAGEID #: 132
6

reference to such test results when specifically asked about C-8 levels by members of the 

Parkersburg, West Virginia media and in a letter co-drafted by DuPont which was sent to local 

Ohio water customers, dated October 31, 2000.

31. It was not until the Spring of 2001, after the West Virginia Division for 

Environmental Protection (“WVDEP”) first asked DuPont to begin monitoring and reporting to 

WVDEP the levels of C-8 discharged from DuPont’s Washington Works Plant into the Ohio 

River, that DuPont installed a carbon absorption treatment system at its Washington Works Plant 

to attempt to begin reducing the levels of C-8 discharged directly from the Washington Works 

Plant into the Ohio River.

32. Since approximately 1979, DuPont had arranged and paid for medical monitoring, 

including periodic blood sampling, of those DuPont employees working at the Washington 

Works Plant who had been exposed to C-8 during the course of their employment at the 

Washington Works Plant.

33. At no time since C-8 was first detected in human drinking water had DuPont 

provided or paid for medical monitoring for the water customers known to be exposed to the 

probable C-8 exposure plume until after a class action settlement was reached in the Leach v. E.I. 

DuPont matter.

34. Effective December 1, 2006, the Ohio EPA listed C-8 as a toxic air contaminant.

35. In a March 2009 US Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) Safe Drinking 

Water Act Consent Order with DuPont, the EPA determined that C-8 may present an “imminent 

and substantial endangerment to human health at concentrations at or above 0.40 ppb in drinking 

water.” The levels from DuPont’s own testing demonstrated C-8 levels in excess of this amount 

had emanated from its Washington Works facility.

Case: 2:18-cv-00136-EAS-EPD Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/21/19 Page: 6 of 13 PAGEID #: 133
7

36. The 0.40 ppb danger level expressed by EPA does not account for chronic exposure 

to C-8. In an effort to account for chronic lifetime exposure, independent researchers at the New 

Jersey Department of Environmental Protection identified a C-8 drinking water guidance value of 

0.04 ppb, and entire order of magnitude, ten times lower, than the level set forth in the March 2009 

Safe Drinking Water Act consent order and over twenty five times lower than DuPont’s own 

testing demonstrated C-8 levels emanating from its Washington Works facility to be.

37. The United States EPA has found that C-8 can remain in the human body for years 

after initial exposure and that drinking water contaminated with C-8 can produce concentrations of 

C-8 in the blood serum that are higher than the concentrations present in the water itself.

38. In a 2003 C-8 related class action lawsuit (“class action”) where DuPont was a 

named defendant:

DuPont represented to the Court that there was no way for DuPont to 

prevent its C-8 emissions from getting into the class members’ drinking 

water;

DuPont represented to the Court that there were no alternatives to using C-8 

in the Washington Works Plant’s manufacturing operations; and

The Court found that DuPont was continuing to actively and intentionally 

release C-8 from the Washington Works Plant into the air and water.

39. On October 18, 2006, a settlement to the class action was approved.

40. Part of the class action settlement created an independent Science Panel to conduct 

research into whether there is a probable link that exists between C-8 and human diseases.

41. On December 5, 2011, the Science Panel concluded there was a probable link 

between C-8 exposure and pregnancy induced hypertension.

Case: 2:18-cv-00136-EAS-EPD Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/21/19 Page: 7 of 13 PAGEID #: 134
8

42. On April 15, 2012, the Science Panel concluded there was a probable link between C8 exposure and kidney cancer.

43. On April 15, 2012, the Science Panel concluded there was a probable link between C8 exposure and testicular cancer.

44. On July 30, 2012, the Science Panel concluded there was a probable link between C-8 

exposure and thyroid disease.

45. On July 30, 2012, the Science Panel concluded there was a probable link between C-8 

exposure and ulcerative colitis.

46. On October 29, 2012, the Science Panel concluded there was a probable link between 

C-8 exposure and high cholesterol.

47. As part of the class action settlement, DuPont affirmatively agreed that any individual 

who was exposed to potentially C-8 contaminated drinking water, for at least one year prior to 

December 3, 2004, from any of six water districts ((1) Little Hocking, Ohio; (2) Lubeck Public 

Service District, West Virginia; (3) City of Belpre, Ohio; (4) Mason County Public Service 

District, West Virginia; (5) Tuppers Plains, Ohio; (6) Village of Pomeroy, Ohio would be

members of the class at issue in the settlement.

48. Any class member who was diagnosed with an injury for which the Science Panel had 

determined there was a probable link to C-8 exposure would be able to pursue an independent cause 

of action following the Science Panel’s finding.

49. DuPont further agreed to and acknowledged that it has waived and would be unable to 

raise any general causation defense to the fact that a Science Panel determined probable link could in 

fact be caused by the C-8 contamination released from its Washington Works Plant.

50. Plaintiff was diagnosed with Kidney Cancer, an injury for which the Science Panel 

has issued a C-8 exposure probable link finding.

Case: 2:18-cv-00136-EAS-EPD Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/21/19 Page: 8 of 13 PAGEID #: 135
9

51. Plaintiff was exposed to potential C-8 contamination for at least a year prior to 

December 3, 2004 from at least one of the 6 designated water districts as outlined in the class action 

settlement.

52. The Releases have made and/or continue to make Plaintiff and 

other exposed individuals physically ill and otherwise physically harmed, and/or have caused and 

continue to cause associated emotional and mental stress, anxiety, and fear of current and future 

illnesses, including but not limited to, fear of significantly increased risk of cancer and other disease, 

among Plaintiffs and the other class members.

FIRST COUNT

BREACH OF DUTY, NEGLIGENCE, CONCEALMENT, MISREPRESENTATION, AND 

FRAUD

53. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate by reference all the foregoing language of this 

Complaint as if fully set forth herein and further states as follows.

54. In connection with its operation of the Washington Works Plant, Defendants have had 

and continue to have a duty to operate and manage the Washington Works Plant in such a way as to 

not create a nuisance or condition causing any injury or damage to human health or the environment.

55. Defendants breached this duty of care by negligently operating and managing the 

Washington Works Plant and conducting other operations and activities at the Washington Works 

Plant in such a manner as to negligently cause, permit, and allow the Releases.

56. Defendants’ negligent acts and omissions proximately caused and continue to 

proximately cause damage to Plaintiff in the form of bodily injury and economic damage, in 

addition to creating conditions that are harmful to human health and the environment, for which 

the Defendants are liable.

Case: 2:18-cv-00136-EAS-EPD Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/21/19 Page: 9 of 13 PAGEID #: 136
10

57. Defendants knowingly, intentionally, recklessly and/or negligently failed and/or 

refused to advise the Plaintiff, other exposed individuals, and the public at large of the dangers to 

their health and property posed by the Releases.

58. Defendants negligently, knowingly, recklessly and/or intentionally withheld, 

misrepresented, and/or concealed information from the Plaintiff, other exposed individuals, and the 

public at large who had a right to know of information which would have prevented the Plaintiff, 

other exposed individuals, and the public at large from being exposed to the Releases.

59. Plaintiff did not have sufficient information to determine the safety of the drinking 

water impacted by the Releases and, therefore, relied upon the superior knowledge of Defendants in 

deciding to purchase and ingest the drinking water, and, as a result of Plaintiff’s reliance on 

Defendants’ false and misleading affirmative misrepresentations and intentional omissions and 

hiding of relevant, significant and material facts and information, the Plaintiff, other exposed 

individuals, and the public at large were misled into believing the drinking water was safe and 

effective for human consumption.

60. Defendants withheld information which it had in its possession concerning research, 

testing, lack of research and testing, studies of humans and animals who had been exposed to C-8 

that demonstrated that the Releases cause damage to humans and animals, as well as other 

information that medically, legally, scientifically and ethically the Plaintiff, other exposed 

individuals, and the public at large had a right to know before ingesting the drinking water and 

which DuPont had a duty under Ohio law to disclose.

61. As a proximate result of the aforesaid acts and omissions by Defendants, acting for 

and on its own behalf and as agent, ostensible agent, employee, and conspirator of others, 

contaminated drinking water was placed in the stream of commerce, distributed and sold to customers 

Case: 2:18-cv-00136-EAS-EPD Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/21/19 Page: 10 of 13 PAGEID #: 137
11

in West Virginia and Ohio, and ingested by the Plaintiff, other exposed individuals, and the public at 

large, and Plaintiff was injured as herein alleged.

62. The aforesaid acts and omissions of Defendants were negligent and as a proximate 

result the Plaintiff, other exposed individuals, and the public at large have suffered and will in the 

future suffer some or all of the following damages:

a. Medical and hospital bills treatment of injuries;

b. Physical injury, both temporary and permanent;

c. Economic damages;

d. Severe and significant emotional distress and mental pain and suffering;

e. Humiliation, embarrassment and fear;

f. Loss of enjoyment of life;

g. Annoyance and inconvenience; and

h. Other damages, which, under the law and circumstances, Plaintiffs are 

entitled to recover, including attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the 

prosecution of this action.

SECOND COUNT

PUNITIVE DAMAGES

63. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate by reference all the foregoing language of this 

Complaint as if fully set forth herein and further states as follows.

64. Defendants’ acts and omissions as described above were conducted with such 

intentional, malicious, wanton, willful, grossly negligent, and/or reckless indifference to the 

rights of Plaintiff, other exposed individuals, and the public at large that Defendants are liable for 

punitive damages.

65. Defendants’ acts and omissions as described above were conducted with such 

flagrant disregard for the safety and wellbeing of Plaintiff, other exposed individuals, and the 

public at large that Defendants are liable for punitive damages.

THIRD COUNT

LOSS OF CONSORTIUM

Case: 2:18-cv-00136-EAS-EPD Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/21/19 Page: 11 of 13 PAGEID #: 138
12

66. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate by reference all the foregoing language of this 

Complaint as if fully set forth herein and further states as follows.

67. Plaintiff Teddy Swartz is, and at all times relevant was, the lawful spouse of Angela 

Swartz.

68. As a direct, legal, and proximate result of the culpability and fault of Defendants, be 

such fault through strict liability or negligence, Plaintiff Teddy Swartz suffered the loss of support, 

service, love, companionship, affection, society, intimate relations, and other elements of 

consortium, all to her general damage in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this 

court.

69. Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants for compensatory and punitive 

damages such as a jury may award, and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper in order 

to remedy the Plaintiff’s loss of consortium. Plaintiffs demand such other and further relief as this 

Honorable Court deems proper and just.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs hereby demand to be awarded damages, equitable and 

injunctive relief as follows:

a. A judgment against Defendants that Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs in an 

amount to be determined at trial;

b. Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

c. Punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

d. Damages including equitable and injunctive relief;

e. The costs and disbursements of this action, including attorneys’ fees;

f. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and

g. For all other further and general relief, whether compensatory, punitive, 

equitable or injunctive relief as this Court or the jury may deem just and 

appropriate.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs hereby demand trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Case: 2:18-cv-00136-EAS-EPD Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/21/19 Page: 12 of 13 PAGEID #: 139
13

Date: February 21, 2019

BY: /s/ Jon C. Conlin_____________

Jon C. Conlin

Elizabeth E. Chambers

Nina Towle Herring

CORY WATSON, P.C.

2131 Magnolia Avenue

Birmingham, Alabama 35205

(205) 328-2200 (Phone)

(205) 324-7896 (Fax)

jconlin@corywatson.com

bchambers@corywatson.com

nherring@corywatson.com

Debra Nelson

THE NELSON LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C.

4357 Ferguson Drive #280 

Cincinnati, Ohio 45245

304-736-7400

304-736-7402 (fax)

dnelson@debranelsonlaw.com

Case: 2:18-cv-00136-EAS-EPD Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/21/19 Page: 13 of 13 PAGEID #: 140