## Facts

- A fire at a chemical plant in Institute, West Virginia released a toxic cloud containing toluene and methyl isocyanate (MIC) into the atmosphere on February 15, 1996.
- Public officials implemented emergency measures, including “shelter-in-place” instructions and temporary road closures.
- Putative class members alleged a range of harms, including physical injury from exposure and non-physical harms such as inconvenience and emotional distress tied to the emergency conditions.
- Plaintiffs sued in federal court under diversity jurisdiction, asserting strict liability (including for abnormally dangerous activity), negligence (as an alternative to strict liability), and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
- Plaintiffs also sought equitable relief requiring regular independent safety audits of the plant.
- The proposed class included all persons and entities sustaining damage from the February 15, 1996 toxic gas leak.
- Defendant opposed certification, arguing individualized questions of exposure, causation, and damages would predominate.

## Issues

1. Whether the proposed class satisfied Rule 23(a) (numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy) and Rule 23(b)(3) (predominance and superiority) for claims arising from the February 15, 1996 toxic release.
2. Whether the court should certify proposed subclasses immediately or defer subclass determinations until after Rule 23(c)(2) notice and responses.

## Decision

- The court conditionally granted class certification.
- The court found Rule 23(a) satisfied, including numerosity based on the large number of potentially affected persons and common liability questions arising from a single incident.
- The court concluded common questions predominated under Rule 23(b)(3) because central liability issues concerning the release and defendant’s conduct could be resolved on a classwide basis, even if individual damages would later require separate proof.
- The court held a class action was superior to individual litigation given the likelihood of many modest claims and the risk of repetitive, inconsistent adjudications.
- The court declined to certify subclasses at that stage, deeming subclass division premature and deferring the question until after class notice and any responses.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 23(a) requires numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy; these elements may be met where claims arise from a single mass-incident event and share core liability questions.
- Differences in the extent of individual injury or damages do not necessarily defeat typicality when representatives’ claims arise from the same event and rest on the same liability theories.
- Under Rule 23(b)(3), predominance can be satisfied when common issues concerning defendant’s conduct, the nature of the release, and classwide liability are central to the litigation, notwithstanding later individualized determinations of exposure and damages.
- Superiority is supported where many claims are relatively small, making individual suits impractical, and where class treatment reduces duplicative proceedings and inconsistent results.
- Subclass certification may be deferred when the record is insufficient to determine whether subdivisions are necessary or workable before notice and class-member responses.

## Conclusion

The court conditionally certified a Rule 23(b)(3) class for damages allegedly stemming from a chemical-release emergency, reasoning that common liability issues predominated and that class treatment was the most workable method for resolving many related claims, while postponing any subclass structure until after notice and further development of the record.


Black v. Rhone-Poulenc, Inc., 173 F.R.D. 156 (S.D.W. Va. 1996)