New Filings Add 135 Plaintiffs To TCE Litigation
PROTECTED CONTENT
If you’re a current subscriber, log in below. If you would like to subscribe, please click the subscribe tab above.
Username and Password Help
Please enter your email and we will send you a password reset link.
WATER VALLEY — Three new lawsuits filed this month have further expanded the trichloroethylene contamination litigation connected to the former Holley Automotive plant, pushing the total to 13 active cases and more than 385 named plaintiffs or plaintiff representatives in Yalobusha County Circuit Court.
The three new complaints add 135 named plaintiffs or representatives, including 132 personal injury claims and three wrongful death claims, with alleged exposure periods and related injuries spanning more than five decades beginning in 1970. The complaints allege former workers were exposed to trichloroethylene, commonly known as TCE, through contaminated drinking water, vapor intrusion inside the plant and dermal contact while working at the facility at 600 Highway 32 East in Water Valley. The site is currently occupied by a separate industrial operation that is not named in the lawsuits and is not alleged to have any connection to the contamination claims.
The lawsuits also allege the contamination plume spread beyond the plant toward downtown Water Valley and that remediation efforts failed to fully stop or define the spread of contamination.
The new filings are CV-2026-46-JM2, CV-2026-47-JM2 and CV-2026-48-SM2. All were signed April 27 and filed May 4. The plaintiffs are represented by George “Boo” Hollowell and Andrew Tominello of the Hollowell Law Firm in Greenville and Phillip C. Hearn of Hearn Law Firm PLLC in Jackson.
Different Legal Paths
Although all three lawsuits were filed the same day and contain many of the same historical allegations, they do not follow the exact same legal path. Two of the three new lawsuits filed May 4 expand the litigation to include EnPro Industries, EnPro Holdings, Coltec, Goodrich Corporation and OldCo as defendants.
The complaints describe those companies as corporate successors or related entities tied to environmental liabilities associated with the former Holley Automotive plant and decades of remediation work connected to TCE contamination at the site.
None of the previous 10 state court lawsuits filed in the ongoing litigation named those entities as defendants. Earlier lawsuits instead focused primarily on Detrex, Italmatch and engineering or remediation-related defendants. Earlier complaints allege Detrex manufactured the degreasing equipment and supplied the TCE used at the plant, while Italmatch USA Corporation later acquired responsibility for Detrex liabilities through a purchase and merger agreement.
However, the third lawsuit — CV-2026-46-JM2 — filed the same day does not name EnPro, Coltec, Goodrich or OldCo, the corporate successor owners tied to the plant, as defendants. Like the previous 10 lawsuits already filed in the litigation, this lawsuit instead focuses on Detrex Corporation and Italmatch USA Corporation and remediation-related defendants including WSP USA Inc., First Environment Inc., AAE Consulting LLC, Dames & Moore Inc., W.L. Burle Engineers P.A., Avant Construction, Kevin Moore and Michael Slack.
The third case focuses on product liability claims against Detrex and Italmatch, along with negligence claims against engineering, environmental and remediation-related defendants.
All three complaints were filed May 4 by the same attorneys.
CV-2026-48-SM2
Case CV-2026-48-SM2 includes 51 named plaintiffs or representatives, with 49 personal injury claims and two wrongful death claims.
Personal injury plaintiffs are Steven Lamar Johnson, Ticy Johnson, Alma Jones, Arno Jones, Carolyn Jones, Belinda Judson, Tracy Judson, Louise Kimble, Clide Lane, Ora Lawrence, Sammie Laws, Jean Long, Samantha Longstreet, Elizabeth Jenkins Marion, Kendra Marion, Larry Martin, Lucinda Mason, Erica Renee McGowan, Brianna Moore, Kijuana Moore, Chantrius Murray, Anita Nicholson, Johnathan Albert Owens, Kyna Ray, Kenneth Rogers, Howard Rosenbloom, Annette Rudd, Perry Sanford, Rodney Jerome Shaw, Martha Faye Sims, Willie Strickland, Jasmine Suggs, Kakyna Torrance, Tracy Townsend, Betty Turner, Emma Lou Turner, Kenetria Turner, Laqueda Faustin Turner, Tracy Judson Turner, Tyler Jermaine Turner, Yashenna Turner, Jurlean Twillie, Martha J. Watson, Amy Brooks White, Adrianna White, Catherine Gooch White, Linda White, Marshanda White and Toya Lanette Wicks.
Wrongful death claims are filed by James Lewis, individually and as representative of the wrongful death beneficiaries of Charlinda Lewis, who the complaint alleges worked at the facility from approximately 2005 until 2008 before later developing breast cancer and dying in 2019. Another wrongful death claim is filed by Reginald Tenner, individually and as representative of the wrongful death beneficiaries of Beverly Walker, who the complaint alleges worked at the facility from approximately 2000 until 2014 before later developing breast cancer and other illnesses prior to her death in 2015.
CV-2026-47-JM2
Case CV-2026-47-JM2 includes 53 personal injury plaintiffs and no wrongful death claims.
The plaintiffs are Odester Andrews, Brenda Annette Armstrong, Dorothy Armstrong, Ray Avant, Talisha Bailey, Chauncy Demond Benson, Sandra Dawson Benson, Quentin W. Berry, Rashannon Blackmon, Alisia Bernice Bland, Brenda Evette Bland, Deon Booker, Monica Delories Booker, Kathleen Boswell, Kini Sherie Bradford, Sumaria Lee Brown, Susie Burt, Tammy Butler, Betty Caldwell-Daniels, David Dewitt Camp, Fredericke Campbell, Janet McKaye Campbell, William Anthony Campbell, Beverly Carr, Delores Carr, Eva S. Cook, Roxanna Cox, Amethia Crosgrove, Lani Easley, Mary Ann Edwards, Monroe Edwards, Rosie Juanita Eubanks, Eric Fleming, Rosemary Gee, Nancy Gentry, Sheila Renee Gooch, Eric Green, Earline Hairston, Sheila Hall, Kiara Hardiman, Joni Harrell, Jamila Harris, Kenyatta Henderson, Kennon Hervey, Milton L. Hervey Jr., Glenda Hodges, Melinda Horton, Telisha Horton, Derron Hoskins, Bobbie Shanell Jenkins, Cherese Chantrelle Jenkins, Angelica Johnson and Doris Rose Johnson.
CV-2026-46-JM2
Case CV-2026-46-JM2 includes 31 named plaintiffs or representatives, with 30 personal injury claims and one wrongful death claim.
Personal injury plaintiffs are Cleveland Earl Alexander, Valerie Belay, Alphonso Caleb Boone, Sally Lester Boyce, Patricia Camp, Jerry Carthon, Willie Fletcher, Eddie Foster, Shirley Hardiman, Billy Russell Harris, Wayne Hatfield, Emrick Lester, Ruby McCoy, James Dewitt Melton, Connie Michelle Morgan, Eddie Doyle Morgan, James Ray Russell, Elizabeth Babo Scott, Melvin Scott, Jerome Scullark, Andrew Suggs, James Wylie Taylor, Linda Fay Taylor, Peggy Taylor, Richard Telford, Roger Lewis Thompson, Clifton Tolbert, George Kenneth Vaughn, Mary Jean Weekley and Charlotte L. White.
The wrongful death claim is filed by Darlene Nixon, individually and as representative of the wrongful death beneficiaries of Theodis Austin, who the complaint alleges worked at the facility from approximately 1974 until 1988. The lawsuit alleges Austin later developed ALS, pneumonia and neuropathy before his death in April 2006.
Corporate Successor Allegations
The two expanded lawsuits – CV-2026-48-SM2 and CV-2026-47-JM2 allege that EnPro Industries, directly or through subsidiaries, assumed or acquired environmental liabilities tied to the former Holley Automotive Division of Colt Industries, Colt Industries, Coltec Industries and Coltec Inc. The lawsuits also allege EnPro Holdings is a wholly owned subsidiary of EnPro Industries that assumed or acquired liabilities tied to the former plant.
The complaints describe Goodrich Corporation as a corporate entity that acquired environmental liabilities through corporate transactions or by operation of law. They describe OldCo LLC as an entity allegedly used to transition environmental liabilities between earlier corporate entities and EnPro-related entities.
The complaints allege Coltec owned or created environmental liabilities related to the former facility beginning in 1972 and that corporate successor relationships should allow plaintiffs to pursue claims against later entities.
Alleged Disposal Practices
The complaints also include extensive allegations involving historical handling and disposal practices at the plant.
According to the filings, Coltec purchased and installed a vapor degreaser manufactured by Detrex Chemical Industries to remove oil, grease, dirt, metal shavings and other contaminants from automotive parts.
The lawsuits allege employees placed parts into a wire basket, lowered them into the degreasing unit and later lifted the parts out after they were cleaned in TCE liquid and vapor. The complaints allege the process produced liquid and semi-solid TCE waste.
The complaints allege Coltec used a 4,000-gallon above-ground storage tank for virgin TCE and a 1,000-gallon above-ground tank for liquid TCE waste. The lawsuits claim TCE sludge accumulated inside the degreaser and was difficult to remove.
The filings allege employees were directed to drain sludge through a small drum and then manually scoop out the rest. The complaints allege employees were not properly warned about risks or required to use proper protective equipment.
The complaints also allege Coltec did not dispose of TCE waste through proper hazardous waste disposal methods and instead used Mississippi as “dumping ground for hazardous waste.”
Among the most striking allegations, the complaints claim employees were instructed to open the bottom valve on a 1,000-gallon tank and drain TCE waste into a ditch behind the plant. The complaints allege about 20 dead turtles were found in the ditch the next day.
The lawsuits further allege Coltec allowed the 1,000-gallon tank to overflow, sending TCE waste onto the ground. They also allege employees were told to spray TCE waste on the gravel parking lot and around buildings to control weeds and knock down dust.
The complaints claim employees were told they could take TCE waste home to kill weeds in their yards and that Coltec gave large quantities of TCE waste to the Yalobusha County Road Department to spray on county roads and rights-of-way.
Groundwater And Plume Claims
The complaints allege that in 1988, Coltec tested the municipal well that supplied water to the facility and learned it contained TCE above the maximum contaminant level.
The lawsuits allege Coltec began preparing an action plan that included disclosing the contamination to the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, initiating drinking water construction by connecting the facility to the City of Water Valley water system and preparing an official company statement.
According to the complaints, Coltec did not issue a public press release at that time and told only employees that the plant was being connected to the city water supply. The complaints allege employees were told not to use or drink water from fountains or sinks and were provided bottled water until the new water line was connected.
The lawsuits allege MDEQ later directed Coltec to develop and implement plans to identify the extent of TCE contamination and remove it from the environment.
The complaints claim soil and groundwater samples from the facility contained concentrations of TCE as high as 1,500,000 parts per billion.
The complaints also allege the TCE plume covered approximately 340 acres, measured 3,900 feet long by 2,100 feet wide and extended north from the facility toward the Otoucalofa Creek and downtown Water Valley business district.
Maps included in the complaints show the alleged plume area extending north and northwest of the plant site.
Remediation Allegations
The lawsuits allege Coltec proposed using thermal desorption to remediate the contamination. The process allegedly involved placing pumps along the northern boundary of the plume to pull air through underground substrate and aquifer toward a pump near the plant.
The complaints allege that under a 1990 MDEQ order, Coltec was required to collect and test samples from monitoring wells monthly from 2006 to 2015. The lawsuits claim EnPro Industries did not conduct required sampling and testing from June 2008 through June 2013.
The complaints allege EnPro sent letters to MDEQ each month during that period stating there was “no discharge during the period” because of equipment malfunctions or because the system was down for maintenance.
The lawsuits claim monitoring wells contained TCE above the maximum contaminant level, with some concentrations ranging from 1,000 parts per billion to 4,300 parts per billion.
The complaints also allege TCE entered the air inside the plant through vapor intrusion and that indoor air testing found concentrations well above generally accepted indoor air levels.
Broader Community Claims
The complaints go beyond worker exposure and repeatedly frame the contamination as a broader Water Valley community issue.
The filings allege the known extent of the plume lies only about 4,000 feet from downtown Water Valley and that the plant is about 7,000 feet from downtown. The complaints allege operators of the facility did not undertake additional water, soil or vapor intrusion testing to determine whether the plume continued moving northward toward downtown.
The lawsuits state that many public and private places in Water Valley are either within the known plume, near its northern edge or in the expected northward flow path. The complaints list hospitals, medical offices, the sheriff’s department, city buildings, stores, restaurants, churches, schools, athletic fields, banks, the courthouse and the local museum among places allegedly within or near the area of concern.
The complaints allege some monitoring wells in the plume showed testing levels more than 2,400 percent above known safety levels for TCE exposure. Other wells allegedly showed levels more than 300,000 percent higher than known safe levels for human exposure.
The lawsuits also allege Yalobusha County has experienced an unusually high cancer rate, describing the situation as a “Cancer Cluster.” Those allegations are claims made by the plaintiffs and have not been proven in court.
Claims For Damages
The lawsuits seek compensatory and punitive damages. The complaints ask for damages related to physical injuries,
