BerkshireEagleDotNetwork®/               HOME PAGE

The following is the text of the Amended Complaint filed with the federal district Court in Springfield, Massachusetts on March 20th, 2000 by residents of Lakewood and by members of the Residential Environmental Action League (aka Get REAL).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
 (Western Division)
 

MARY KATHRYN LEWIS, CHERYL AND ANGELO AULISIO, JOHN AND KATHLEEN BARBER, RONALD AND JEAN BELLORA, NANCY BERTELLI, DAVID AND ANDREA BLESSING, DOMENICA BOISON, MARYGRACE BROWN, LUIGIA CAPITANIO, MADELINE CARNEVALE, TERENCE AND KATHERINE CHIARETTO, RICHARD CIMINI, IRENE CODY, MARY CORADESCHI, JUNE CORSERI, JOHN AND KRISTIANNA DINICOLA, FERNANDA DELMOLINO, W. FRANK DIXON, KATHY DONDI, JUDITH DORR, WILLIAM ELWORTHY, DIANE FERRERO, RICHARD AND ELLEN FOTHERGILL, TECLA GIUSTI, RODERICK AND JEANETTE GRATTON,  BRUCE AND CHRISTINE LAMBERT, ANTHONY AND ANDREA LANCIA, ROBERT AND MARILYN LYSOBEY, FRED AND JOAN MASTROGIOVANNI, DAVID MOYNIHAN, ALBERT AND SANDY NACHBAUER, ELIZABETH NUGAI, MICHAEL O'KEEFE, ROBERTA ORSI, ROBERT OSTELLINO, DONALD QUADROZZI, GINA PAGLIER, ERIC PLOUFFE, CHARLES AND JOAN REVORD, MARY ROSATI,  FRANCIS AND BERNICE ROY,  MARY-JANE AND RUSSELL SACKETT, JR., JOSEPH SCALISE, JR., KATHARINE AND JOHN STAPLEBERG, PAUL AND LOUISE VAN LOON, AURIE WALSH, AND MARK AND PAULA WANNAMAKER,

                     Plaintiffs,

v.

GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.,

                      Defendant.
 

   JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
   C.A. No. 98-30057-MAP
 

 AMENDED COMPLAINT

 By this Amended Complaint, the plaintiffs make the following allegations, based upon personal knowledge as to the allegations pertaining to themselves, and based upon the investigation of counsel as to all other allegations:

 Introductory Statement

 1. The plaintiffs, property owners in the City of Pittsfield, Massachusetts,  bring this complaint for the damages caused to them by the widespread dissemination of PCB-contaminated soil by the defendant, the General Electric Company ("GE").

 Parties

 2. As more fully identified below, the plaintiffs are residents of Pittsfield, Berkshire County, Massachusetts. 

 3. Defendant General Electric Company is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York, with a principal place of business in Fairfield, Connecticut.  At all relevant times, GE conducted business in Pittsfield, Massachusetts.

 Jurisdiction and Venue

 4. The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §9613 and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332 because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 for each plaintiff.

 5. Venue is proper in this District because the plaintiffs all  reside in this District, all or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the plaintiffs' claims occurred in this District, and because all the real property at issue is located in this District. 

 GE's History of Contamination

 6. From at least 1932 until 1976, GE manufactured and serviced electrical transformers at its plant in Pittsfield, Massachusetts.  The transformers manufactured and serviced at GE's Pittsfield plant contained insulating fluids comprised of various substances, including polychlorinated biphenyls (commonly known as "PCBs").

 7. During the years GE manufactured and serviced transformers at its Pittsfield plant, oils containing PCBs regularly dropped or spilled on the plant floor.  These drops and spills were, on a regular basis, mopped up using absorbent soil, known as "Fuller's earth."  Fuller's earth was also used to filter PCB-containing oils that GE used in manufacturing transformers.

 8. For many years, spent Fuller's earth and other PCB-contaminated material was disposed of in the ground at the GE plant site.  However, during the 1940's, GE began to run out of room at its Pittsfield plant site for disposal of the PCB-contaminated soil being generated in its manufacturing processes, and it began to seek out other nearby locations in Pittsfield for its disposal.

 9. Because of the nature of the material, however, GE faced considerable obstacles in disposing of it.  According to an internal corporate memorandum dated August 23, 1948 (attached as Exhibit 1 and referred to herein as the "1948 Memorandum"), a local ordinance required that all combustible material be incinerated, and GE was running out of places where it could landfill contaminated soil.    The author of the 1948 Memorandum wrote, "This is the last section anywhere near the plant where we can dump most anything that comes out of the factory."

 10. Thus, GE began a program under which it offered to Pittsfield contractors and residents free soil for use in filling in and grading their properties.  GE falsely characterized the soil being offered as "clean, non-combustible" material. 

 11. Although GE characterized the soil being offered under the program as "clean, non-combustible material," GE knew that the soil was in fact contaminated with PCBs and was, in some instances, combustible.

 12. Much of the soil disposed of by GE under this program was disposed of in  residential properties throughout Pittsfield, and this dumping continued for many years.  As PCB-contaminated soil was excavated from GE's plant site over the next four decades, it too was disseminated to Pittsfield contractors and residents, and disposed of on properties throughout Pittsfield.  Unbeknownst to the recipients of the soil, the soil was contaminated with hazardous substances.

 13. Also unbeknownst to the residents of Pittsfield, GE's disposal of PCB-contaminated material also resulted in releases of PCBs to the atmosphere.

 The Dangers of PCBs

 14. PCBs are the principal hazardous substance contained in the contaminated soils that GE disposed of throughout Pittsfield.  The contaminated soil disposed of by GE, in some instances, also contained other hazardous substances, including semi-volatile organic compounds, metals, dioxins and furans.

 15. PCBs are highly toxic substances considered a probable human carcinogen.  PCBs are believed to cause cancer of the liver, gall bladder and gastrointestinal tract.  In addition to cancer, PCB exposure in humans is linked to a variety of neurobehavioral and functional problems, including muscle pain, skin disorders, nervousness, and sleep disorders.

 16. Children are believed to be particularly at risk from PCB exposure, having been shown to suffer developmental deficits and reduced growth due to prenatal exposures. 

 17. In 1976, responding to studies showing substantial health risks posed by PCBs, the federal government ordered a phase-out of PCB production and eventually banned all manufacture, distribution and use of PCBs.

 GE's Cover-Up

 18. After the federal government banned PCBs, GE stopped using them in its manufacturing processes in Pittsfield.  However, GE did not also undertake to clean up the devastation it had wrought on Pittsfield by its disposal of PCBs and other hazardous substances.

 19. Instead, in 1978, GE undertook a plan to quietly acquire residential properties that it learned had been contaminated with PCBs.  In an internal corporate memorandum (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 2), the purpose of the plan was explained as "reducing legal and public exposure by bringing the property under the immediate control of the company."

 20. There is also evidence that GE continued to dispose of contaminated soil in the community even after the federal ban on PCBs.  According to an internal corporate memorandum dated July 2, 1981, allegedly contaminated soil excavated from 
behind GE's Building 119 was disposed of at a residential property in June of 1981. 

 21. Truckloads of contaminated soil were again disposed of at residential properties in 1984.

 22. On May 27, 1981, GE entered into an administrative consent order with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (then known as the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering and hereinafter referred to as "DEP"), under which it agreed to disclose "all past and present PCB and other hazardous waste disposal practices, and the locations, to the extent known, of all past and present hazardous waste disposal sites or storage area used by the Plant [in Pittsfield]."  However, after agreeing to this disclosure, GE instead withheld from regulators and from the community critical information about its disposal of contaminated soil.

 23. For example, in a report it submitted to the DEP in 1982, GE failed to disclose a letter it had received dated May 15, 1981 from a retired GE employee named R. Kelly Niederjohn, which identified numerous locations "around the community" where contaminated Fuller's Earth and PCB-containing oils (known as "Pyranol") had been disposed.  In the letter (attached as Exhibit 3), Mr. Niederjohn wrote:

  "A real thorough study should be made to at least identify where spent Fullers Earth and discarded Pyranol were dumped. If we do not do that now, our children and grand children will get bit by our neglect." (emphasis added)
 24. Mr. Niederjohn also identified in an attachment to the letter numerous former employees with knowledge concerning the disposal of PCB-contaminated soil and Pyranol.  However, GE did not talk with the former employees identified by Mr. Niederjohn.  Instead, in gathering information to report to the DEP in 1982, GE spoke only with its "then-current employees."  GE also sought to limit the information its interviewers sought from the then-current employees, instructing the interviewers that:  "Information should reflect [the employee's] personal experience and not hearsay; nor should consultation with other employees by the person interviewed be encouraged."

 25. GE also failed to disclose to environmental regulators or to the community additional information Mr. Niederjohn provided in 1989 or the information contained in an internal 1992 memorandum (the "1992 Memorandum") about PCB-contamination believed to have been prepared by another former GE employee.

 26. The 1992 memorandum (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 4) listed 13 areas of "potential environmental liability" for GE's Pittsfield operation, including ten residential streets where GE had dumped contaminated materials.

 27. GE did not disclose the Niederjohn information or the 1992 Memorandum to regulators until March 1997, after testing of several residential properties in Pittsfield detected the presence of PCBs at hazardous levels.  The documents were not disclosed to the public until August of 1997, when articles quoting them were published in The Berkshire Eagle and the Boston Globe.

 28. Thus, it was not until August of 1997 that the residents of Pittsfield became aware that GE had contaminated large residential sections of their neighborhood with PCBs and other hazardous materials.

 29. Moreover, GE has not to date produced to the public all of the records it has pertaining to contamination of residential properties.

 The Devastating Effect of GE's Actions

 30. In 1997, faced with pressure from federal and state regulators, and a huge outcry from Pittsfield community, GE belatedly began the process of identifying the properties it had contaminated with its hazardous wastes.

 31. As of January 2000, approximately 180 properties in Pittsfield outside the GE plant had been tested and found to contain PCBs in soils above the regulatory action level of two parts per million.

 32. This widespread contamination has had a devastating effect on the plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their properties. The plaintiffs have lost a sense of safety and security in their own homes, are afraid to allow children to play in their own backyards, and have been besieged by armies of contractors, consultants and other clean-up personnel in protective suits.

 33.  The plaintiffs' properties contaminated with PCBs and those nearby have also lost value.

 34. The interferences with the use and enjoyment of property continue even for those plaintiffs whose properties have been excavated.  This is because GE has often not fully restored properties to the condition they were in prior to excavation, because excavation continues on other properties in the neighborhood, and because GE has determined to leave behind some of its PCB contamination.

 GE's Failure to Test

 35. The hazards posed to the community by its disposal of PCB-contaminated material was known to GE long before August of 1997.  According to a report by Dr. Ian Nisbet, who studied PCBs for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:

  The extent and geographical patterns of environmental contamination with PCBs were well documented by 1972.  This contamination was identified as due, in part, to leaks from PCB-contaminated equipment. . . . 

  Close parallels between the toxic effects of PCBs and dioxins were established during the 1960's.  These parallels were pointed out not only in some of the original research papers, but also in major scientific reviews. . . .

  The toxicity of PCBs was studied intensively in the period 1969-1972 and fully documented reviews were published in 1972.  Most of the critical toxic effects of PCBs had been reported or suggested by that time.  In particular, adverse effects on reproduction in mammals had been reported, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had pointed out evidence suggesting that PCBs might be carcinogenic.

  The information base on the toxicity of PCBs was expanded rapidly and progressively during the period 1973-1975.  By the time of the First National Conference on PCBs in November of 1975, all of the critical toxic information on mechanisms of action was beginning to appear.  The carcinogenicity of PCBs had been confirmed in several studies in animals, and adverse effects on reproduction in non-human primates had been reported.

  The hazardous nature of PCBs were generally accepted during the 1970s.  Some questions about their hazards to humans were raised during the period 1980-1984, but have already been resolved by additional studies during the 1980s. . . .

  The chemical scavenger ("epoxide 201") used by GE in its transformer fluids to prevent build-up of corrosive acids was known to be carcinogenic at the time of its introduction in 1962 and at all times since.

 36. Under the glare of the public spotlight in August of 1997, GE represented that it would do what was necessary to protect the public against the dangers of PCBs.  Jane Gardner, manager of GE's remediation programs, stated that GE's top priority was to protect the "health of the public."  GE promised to conduct an aggressive program of testing residential properties and to remove all residential soil contaminated with PCBs at a level greater than two parts per million.

 37. Nonetheless, once the glare of the media spotlight faded, GE retreated from its promise to remediate to a level of two parts per million.  It currently offers to clean properties only to an average of two parts per million, and considers in that calculation only the top one foot of soil.

 38.  GE has also refused the requests of many homeowners to test their properties for PCBs at all.

 Facts Relating to the Individual Plaintiffs

 39. Until September 1999, plaintiff Mary Kathryn Lewis owned a home and property located at 121 Dorchester Avenue in Pittsfield, where she lived with her husband and their five children.

 a.       In the spring of 1997, Ms. Lewis put the house up for sale, because she found it was becoming too small for the size of her family.  However, despite consistent efforts to sell the house, she was unable to do so.
 b.      According to the broker handling the property for her, Ms. Lewis received three offers to purchase the property, all of which fell through because of the public accounts of PCB contamination in their neighborhood.
 c.      Ms. Lewis' home was across the street from two properties that were found to contain PCBs at hazardous levels, down the street from two other properties that were found to contains PCBs at hazardous levels, one block from Longfellow Avenue (where four properties have been found to contain PCBs at hazardous levels), and two blocks from Edison Avenue (where three properties have been found to contain PCBs at hazardous levels).
 d.     When Ms. Lewis became aware of the contaminated properties in her neighborhood, she began to fear that her own property might be contaminated.  She was particularly concerned about the fact that her young children, ages 1, 3, 5 and 9, regularly played in the dirt in the yard adjoining their home.
 e.     Fearing for the well-being of her children and unable to sell her home, Ms. Lewis contacted GE to inquire whether the company would agree to test their property for the presence of PCBs and other hazardous substances.  Although Ms. Lewis was originally told the property would be tested, Jane Magee, GE's remediation manager in Pittsfield, subsequently advised that GE would not test the property.  Ms. Lewis was unable herself to pay the thousands of dollars it would cost to have her property tested.
 f.     Finally, in 1999, the United States Environmental Protection Agency agreed to test Ms. Lewis' property.  The tests showed that there were PCBs on the property, but at levels the Agency believed did not require excavation.  With test results in hand, Ms. Lewis was able to finally sell the property, although at a price substantially less than she had been offered in 1997. 
 g.     Thus, as a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Ms. Lewis suffered the diminution in her property value, loss of the use and enjoyment of her property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
 40.     Plaintiffs Angelo and Cheryl Aulisio own a home and property at 77 Scalise Drive in Pittsfield, where they reside with their daughter.
 a.     Mr. Aulisio built the house in 1982 and put on an addition in 1984, for which he needed fill.  Unbeknownst to Mr. Aulisio, however, the fill he got was fill from GE that was contaminated with PCBs.  This was seven years after PCBs had been banned.
 b.     Mr. and Mrs. Aulisio first suspected that the fill was contaminated in 1998, when they discovered electrical parts in the fill in the course of digging to build a deck, and brought the parts to the attention of GE.
 c.     Subsequent testing revealed PCB contamination in surface soils around the house and driveway at hazardous levels as well as contamination below the family room and garage.
 d.     Although GE has offered to excavate some of the contamination, it refuses to remove the highest levels of contamination found on the property.
 e.     Since the contamination was discovered, the Aulisios have been afraid to allow their daughter to play outside.  They are concerned that she was exposed to PCBs by playing in their yard before they learned of the contamination.  They are also concerned that they themselves were exposed.  Mr. Aulisio handled the fill in building the addition and garage and Mrs. Aulisio gardened in it.
 f.   As a result of the contamination, Mr. and Mrs. Aulisio have suffered a loss in the value of their property, loss of the use and enjoyment of their property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
 41.     Plaintiffs John and Kathleen Barber own a home and property at 138 Oak Hill Road in Pittsfield, where they reside with their two children.
 a.     When Mr. and Mrs. Barber bought their home in 1988, they had no reason to suspect there was contamination on it.  However, in 1997, they received a letter from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection advising them their property would need to be tested for the presence of PCBs.
 b.     The property was thereafter tested on several occasions, and the testing revealed PCBs in soils throughout the property, including several locations with concentrations above two parts per million.
 c.    However, GE has refused to remove the PCB contamination on the property because, on "average," the concentration of PCBs in soils at the property is below two parts per million.
 d.    The Barbers were greatly distressed to learn that their property was contaminated with PCBs, and even more distressed to learn that the contamination would not be cleaned up.
 e.    The Barbers' home is also adjacent to and down the street from other properties that have been found to be contaminated with PCBs.
 f.     Thus, the Barbers have been left, through no fault of their own, with a property that is contaminated with PCBs, on a street with other contaminated properties.
 g.    As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, the Barbers have suffered a loss in the value of their property, loss of the use and enjoyment of their property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
 42.    Plaintiff Sherman Bastow owns a home and several parcels on Melrose Avenue in Pittsfield, where he resides with his wife.
 a.     Mr. Bastow moved into his home in 1960, and purchased the adjoining parcels thereafter.  When he purchased the properties, he had no reason to suspect that they were contaminated.
 b.     However, in 1997, Mr. Bastow became concerned when he read in the newspaper that properties in his neighborhood had been tested and found to contain PCB's at hazardous levels, and then observed testing being conducted on a property across the street.
 c.    Mr. Bastow requested that his properties be tested.  GE agreed to test two of his parcels, alongside Goodrich Pond, and found hazardous levels of contamination there.  However, GE refused to test the adjoining parcel where Mr. Bastow and his wife live, and refused to excavate all the areas where PCBs were found.
 d.     Then, in the fall of 1999, Mr. Bastow's street was turned into a construction site.  Noisy tanker trucks operated outside his house from early in the morning until late in the afternoon.  Truckloads of dirt came and went every day for months.  Construction vehicles created holes in the street, and blocked the entrance to his driveway.
 e.     Although GE initially promised to relocate Mr. Bastow and his wife during the work, the company never did so.  When, during the course of the excavation work, GE broke their sewer pipe, Mr. and Mrs. Bastow were forced to leave the house at their own expense.
 f.     When the construction site conditions finally ended, GE failed to restore Mr. Bastow's property to the condition it was in before the work.  In addition to ruts left in his grass and rocks pushed up onto his property, regrading has caused flooding onto his property.
 g.     Mr. Bastow is also concerned that he and his family were needlessly exposed to contamination over the years.
 h.     As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Mr. Bastow has suffered a loss in the value of his property, loss of the use and enjoyment of his property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
 43.    Plaintiffs Ronald and Jean Bellora own a home and property at 41 Brattle Street in Pittsfield, where they reside.
 a.     The Belloras moved into their home when it was first built in 1973, and had no reason to suspect that the property was contaminated.
 b.     However, in 1998, they became concerned when they learned that their street, Brattle Street, was being tested for PCB contamination.
 c.     The Belloras learned thereafter that the street was contaminated with PCBs (and that the PCBs will be left there), that a vacant lot they own on the street was contaminated with PCBs, and that several other properties on the street were contaminated with PCBs.
 d.    Although the Belloras have requested testing on their own property, GE has refused to test.
 e.    The Belloras have been distressed by the refusal to test, and by the presence of contaminated properties all around them.  Others refer to their neighborhood as "PCB-ville," and ask them, "Are you glowing yet?"
 f.   As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, the Belloras have suffered a loss in the value of their property, loss of the use and enjoyment of their property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
 44.   Plaintiff Nancy Bertelli owns a home and property at 10 Longview Terrace in Pittsfield, where she resides with her husband.
 a.    Mrs. Bertelli moved into the house six years ago, when her mother-in-law moved to a nursing home, and had no reason to suspect that the property was contaminated.
 b.    However, she became concerned in 1997, when she learned that a property down the street was being tested for PCB contamination and, subsequently, that the property down the street had been found to have PCBs at concentrations exceeding 40,000 parts per million.
 c.    Mrs. Bertelli asked GE to test her own property, but GE refused.  Then, in 1999, the United States Environmental Protection Agency agreed to test Mrs. Bertelli's property, and found that her property was in fact contaminated with PCBs at hazardous levels.
 d.    In 1998, Mrs. Bertelli was exposed to constant truck traffic, dust, dirt and noise as numerous properties on her street were excavated to remove PCBs.
 e.    Mrs. Bertelli now faces the prospect of further testing, excavation, and disruption at her own property.  She is also concerned about how she has been exposed to PCBs at her property over the years.
 f.    As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Ms. Bertelli has suffered a loss in the value of her property, loss of the use and enjoyment of her property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
 45.   Plaintiffs David and Andrea Blessing own a home and property at 124 Oak Hill Road in Pittsfield, where they reside, and a business property at 717 ½ Crane Avenue, where they work.
 a.    When the Blessings bought their home, they had no idea that the property was contaminated with PCBs.
 b.     In 1998, however, the Blessings were distressed to learn that numerous other properties on their street had been tested and had been found to contain PCBs in soil.
 c.    Although GE agreed to test the Blessings' properties for PCBs, GE refused to test in places where the Blessings thought the contractors were most likely to find contamination. 
 d.    Nonetheless, the testing that GE did do revealed PCBs on their property at hazardous levels. 
 e.    When GE then came to excavate the areas where it had found PCB contamination, it left behind damage to the Blessing's property.
 f.    The Blessings are also concerned about the extent of contamination at their business property, where they operate a greenhouse.  As with their residential property, GE has refused to test the Blessings' business property in appropriate places, and now says it needs to do no further work there.
 g.    The Blessings are concerned that they may have been exposed to PCBs for years at their properties without knowing it.
 h.      As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, the Blessings have suffered a loss in the value of their properties, loss of the use and enjoyment of their properties, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
 46.    Plaintiff Domenica Boison owns a home and property at 72 Parkside Avenue in Pittsfield, where she resides.
 a.    Mrs. Boison moved into her home in 1949, when it was built by her husband.  When she moved in, Mrs. Boison had no reason to suspect the property was contaminated.
 b.    However, in 1998, Mrs. Boison became concerned when other properties on her street and on nearby Herie Avenue were tested and found to have PCBs at high levels (in several cases exceeding 500 parts per million).
 c.    Since then, Mrs. Boison, who is unable to afford to test the property herself, has made repeated requests to have her property tested, but her requests have gone unheeded. 
 d.     Mrs. Boison wants to maintain a garden on her property, but is afraid to do so because she does not know if the property is contaminated. She has also put off work on her lawn, not knowing if her yard is going to need to be dug up.  She is also afraid she may have trouble selling her property if she should need to do so.
 e.    In addition to her fears about her own property, Mrs. Boison has been distressed by the noise, dust and dirt associated with the excavations nearby, and the accompanying truck traffic.
 f.       As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Mrs. Boison has suffered a loss in the value of her property, loss of the use and enjoyment of her property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
 47.    Plaintiff Marygrace Brown owns a home and property at 48 Ventura Avenue in Pittsfield, where she resides with her husband and two daughters.
 a.     She and her husband moved into the property thirteen years ago, and had no reason to suspect at the time that the property was contaminated.
 b.     In the spring of 1997, however, she noticed people doing work in the stream that ran alongside her property and asked what they were doing.  She was referred to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, who apprised her that the people were doing testing for the presence of PCBs in the stream and on the property next door to hers.
 c.     Mrs. Brown asked if her property should be tested as well, and although state officials originally said no, they later called and requested permission to test her property. 
 d.    Subsequent testing revealed extremely hazardous levels of PCBs on Mrs. Brown's property, and she was told her property would need to be excavated.  However, she was not told the extent of the excavation until shortly before the work began.  The uncertainty of not knowing what would happen to her property greatly distressed Mrs. Brown. 
 e.    Then, when Mrs. Brown was told the extent of the excavation that would need to be done at her property, she pleaded with GE to buy the property so that she would not have to watch all her years of work on the property be torn apart.  GE refused.   Mrs. Brown next raised with GE ways to reduce the devastating loss of  privacy that appeared imminent, and offered to contribute money to the restoration of the property that would ameliorate this loss.  Again, GE refused.
 f.    Once the work began, it went on for months.  GE's contractors spent weeks on the property just tearing down trees and other structures in order to prepare for the excavation, which stretched all the way to the next street.
 g.    Mrs. Brown's property was literally turned into a construction site for months.  Although GE offered her family housing at another location for part of this time, the place they were housed was also under construction, so they could not escape from noise and disruption.  Also, the excavation work on Mrs. Brown's property was not completed before the family had to leave the temporary housing, and they therefore had to spend weeks living in construction site conditions.  Then, after the excavation work was completed, GE's work on Mrs. Brown's property dragged on for more months.
 h.     GE's work entailed constant intrusions to Mrs. Browns' privacy.  There were constantly stranger around, strangers walking through her property, and cars and people stopping and staring as the work was being done.
 i.    GE did not restore Mrs. Brown's property to its prior condition.  GE could not replace the forty foot trees that had surrounded her back yard, and that provided security and privacy for her family.  GE dug up the family's pet cemetery, and left the exhumed pets lying around for Mrs. Brown's daughters to see when they came home one day.  GE also could not replace the stone structures that Mrs. Brown and her husband had built with their own hands.
 j.     In addition to the intrusion caused by the work on her own property, Mrs. Brown and her family had to incur extreme noise, dust and dirt from the excavation work done on the two properties next to hers.  Her property was used as an access route for the other properties, and as a parking lot for GE's excavation vehicles.  Her house also shook from the work next door, and the family could not open their windows or use their backyard for months. 
 k.    As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Mrs. Brown has suffered a loss in the value of her property, loss of the use and enjoyment of her property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
 48.    Plaintiff Luigia Capitanio owns a home and property at 30 Melrose Avenue in Pittsfield, where she resides.
 a.      Mrs. Capitanio moved into her home in 1966.  When she moved in, Mrs. Capitanio had no reason to suspect the property was contaminated.
 b.    However, in 1998, Mrs. Capitanio became concerned when other properties on her street and along nearby Goodrich Pond were tested and found to have PCBs at high levels (in some cases exceeding 24,000 parts per million).
 c.    Since then, Mrs. Capitanio, who is unable to afford testing herself,  has made repeated requests to have her property tested, but her requests have gone unheeded. 
 d.     Mrs. Capitanio wants to maintain a garden on her property, but is afraid to do so because she does not know if the property is contaminated.  To Mrs. Capitanio, gardening is one of the pleasures of life.
 e.    Mrs. Capitanio is also afraid she may have trouble selling her property if she should need to do so.
 f.    In addition to her fears about her own property, Mrs. Capitanio has been distressed by the noise, dust and dirt associated with the excavations nearby, and the accompanying truck traffic, which went on for months.
 g.        As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Mrs. Capitanio has suffered a loss in the value of her property, loss of the use and enjoyment of her property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
 49.    Plaintiffs Madeline and Anna Carnevale own a two-unit property at 42-44 Longview Terrace in Pittsfield, where they formerly resided.
 a.     Anna Carnevale has owned the property since 1953, and had no reason to suspect that the property was contaminated with PCBs.
 b.      In 1997, however, the Carnevales learned that the property across the street was  contaminated with PCBs, and became concerned that their own property might be contaminated. 
 c.      Subsequent testing revealed only low levels of PCBs on their property, but extremely high levels (44,000 parts per million) in the property across the street.
 d.      General Electric erected an obtrusive fence on the property across the street, and began testing and excavation activities in the fall of 1997 which continued through the spring and summer of 1998.  Anna Carnevale, who was then 82 years old and who was living in the unit at 44 Longview Terrace, was distressed by the noise, dust and dirt associated with the excavations, and the accompanying truck traffic, which went on for months.
 e.     The conditions across the street made it difficult for the family to rent the unit at 42 Longview Terrace, which became vacant in October of 1997, and they were forced to lower the price in order to obtain tenants there.
 f.     The family considered selling the property in May of 1998, when Anna had to move out of the unit at 44 Longview Terrace due to poor health, but could not sell due to the contaminated conditions in the neighborhood.  Again, they were forced to accept a tenant at a lower rent.
 g.       As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, the Carnevales have suffered a loss in the value of their property, loss of the use and enjoyment of their property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
 50.   Plaintiffs Terence and Kathy Chiaretto own a home and property at 134 Oak Hill Road, where they reside with their two children.
 a.     When they purchased the property, they had no reason to suspect that it was contaminated with PCBs.  In fact, in the 1990's, Mrs. Chiaretto began to operate a home day care center on the property.
 b.    In 1997, however, the Chiarettos were distressed to learn that their property was contaminated with PCBs at hazardous levels. They feared for the safety of their family and of the children who attended the day care center.
 c.     The Chiarettos felt that they had to disclose the contamination conditions to the parents of the children attending the day care, and these disclosures affected their ability to retain children in the center and to attract new children when there were vacancies.
 d.    In the summer of 1998, the Chiarettos had to close the day care center and vacate their home on two occasions, in order to accommodate a planned excavation of the property by GE.  They requested that GE reimburse them for the income they lost during the shutdowns, but GE refused.
 e.    GE also promised to restore the landscaping on the property when it completed its excavation work, but then failed to do so.  Shrubs and grass GE planted did not match with existing plantings.  Other plantings died, or looked like an eyesore. 
 f.     In addition to their fears about their own property, the Chiarettos were distressed by the noise, dust and dirt associated with the excavations on other properties on their street, and the accompanying truck traffic, which went on for months.  These conditions were also embarrassing to explain to the parents of the children in the day care center.
 g.    As a result of the contamination on their property and neighboring properties,  the Chiarettos concluded in May of 1999 that they had to shut down the day care center.   Since closing the daycare, Mrs. Chiaretto has not had a regular income.
 h.    As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, the Chiarettos have suffered a loss in the value of their property, a loss in income, a loss of the use and enjoyment of their property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
 51.    Plaintiffs Richard Cimini owns a home and property at 18 Brattle Street in Pittsfield, where he resides with his wife and their two children.  They also own rental property at 94 Lyman Street.
 a.    When Mr. Cimini moved into the home in 1988, he had no reason to suspect that the property was contaminated with PCBs.
 b.    However, in 1998, he was contacted by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and was asked to allow testing on the property for PCBs.  When the testing was completed, Mr. Cimini was distressed to learn that his property was contaminated with PCBs at hazardous levels, including in the area of the yard where his children, ages 3 and 8, regularly play. 
 c.    Mr. Cimini was also distressed to learn that the street he lives on and that was unpaved until 1998 is contaminated with PCBs, and will not be excavated.
 d.     Mr. Cimini fears for his own safety and the safety of his children.
 e.     The contamination, which remains on their property, has also affected the reputation of the neighborhood, which the Ciminis have heard referred to as "PCB-ville," and the value of their property.
 f.     PCB contamination has also reduced the value of the rental property the Ciminis own at 94 Lyman Street, because that property is surrounded by properties contaminated with PCBs.
 g.        As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, the Ciminis have suffered a loss in the value of their property, loss of the use and enjoyment of their property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
 52.    Plaintiff Irene Cody owns a home and property at 113 Deming Street in Pittsfield, where she resides.
 a.    Mrs. Cody bought the property in 1966, and had her home built on it in 1971.  Although the property is near the Housatonic River, Mrs. Cody had no reason to suspect when she bought it  that the property itself was contaminated.
 b.     However, Mrs. Cody was distressed to learn in 1995 that her property was contaminated with PCBs at hazardous levels.
 c.     Her property was thereafter the subject of an "Immediate Response Action," lasting six months, in which 130 cubic yards of soil were removed from her property.
 d.    In addition to the intrusion caused by this excavation, Mrs. Cody was distressed to learn that, even after its excavation, GE had left PCBs in the soil on her property an concentrations exceeding 43 parts per million.
 e.    GE also failed to restore Mrs. Cody's property to the condition it was in prior to the excavation.  It replanted tiny trees in place of the large ones there had been prior to the excavation, and many are in poor condition. 
 f.       As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Mrs. Cody has suffered a loss in the value of her property, loss of the use and enjoyment of her property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
 53.    Plaintiff Mary Coradeschi owns a home and property at 36 Richardson Street in Pittsfield, where she resides.
 a.    Mrs. Coradeschi moved into her home in 1952, when it was built by her husband (now deceased), and she had no reason at the time to suspect that the property was contaminated with PCBs.
 b.    However, Mrs. Coradeschi became concerned when she learned that other properties in her neighborhood were being tested for the presence of PCB contamination.
 c.    Mrs. Coradeschi requested that her property be tested as well, but had to wait many months before testing was done.
 d.    Mrs. Coradeschi was distressed to learn as a result of the testing, that the soil on her property contained PCBs at hazardous levels, and worried that she has been exposed to PCBs over the years. 
 e.    She was particularly distressed to learn that the contaminants were located in her garden, which she has used for years to grow vegetables.  Since Mrs. Coradeschi has been ill and gets around little, her home and garden are an extremely important part of her life.
 f.       As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Mrs. Coradeschi  has suffered a loss in the value of her property, loss of the use and enjoyment of her property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
 54.     Plaintiff June Corseri owns a home and property at 21 Ventura Avenue, where she resides.
 a.    She moved into her home in 1962, when her husband (now deceased) finished building it, and had no reason to suspect at the time there was contamination on or near the property.
 b.    However, Mrs. Corseri became concerned when she learned that the property next door to hers had been tested and found to contain hazardous levels of PCBs.
 c.    Mrs. Corseri requested testing, and the testing revealed that her property was not contaminated with PCBs.
 d.    However, numerous properties on her street were found to contain PCBs at hazardous levels.  One property was so contaminated that the house on the property had to be torn down and truckloads of contaminated soil  hauled away.
 e.    Mrs. Corseri has been distressed that others have spoken of her neighborhood as "PCB land", and she fears for the safety of her three grandchildren who visit her every week.
 f.       As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Mrs. Corseri has suffered a loss in the value of her property, loss of the use and enjoyment of her property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
 55.    Plaintiffs Kristianna and John Dinicola own a home and property at 118 Oak Hill Road in Pittsfield, where they reside with Mrs. Dinicola's son.
 a.    Mrs. Dinicola's parents bought the house when she was 11 years old.  At the time they bought the property, they had no reason to suspect that it was contaminated with PCBs.
 b.   In 1998, the Dinicolas decided  to purchase the house from Mrs. Dincola's mother who could no longer afford the upkeep.
 d.   After purchasing the property, Mr. and Mrs. Dinicola were distressed to learn that the property was contaminated with PCBs.
 e.   Although GE promised that the excavation project would be completed within two weeks, it lasted for most of the summer.  Although GE agreed it would use the Dinicola's driveway only to gain access to excavate their property, GE in fact used it to excavate two neighboring properties.  Although GE said that relocation for their family was not necessary because the excavation would last only a short-time, the Dinicolas lived in construction site conditions, with limited use of their property, for almost the entire summer.
 f.   As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, the Dinicolas have suffered a loss in the value of their property, loss of the use and enjoyment of their property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
 56.    Plaintiff Fernanda Delmolino owns a home and rental property at 20 Allessio Street in Pittsfield.  She resides in one of the two units there. 
 a.    Mrs. Delmolino moved into the house in 1946, and had no reason to suspect that the property was contaminated.
 b.    However, she became concerned when she read in the newspaper that other properties in her neighborhood were contaminated with PCBs.
 c.    When she learned that the property next door to hers was being tested for PCB contamination, she requested testing of her own property, but was told it would not be done.
 d.   She became even more distressed when she learned that a property down the street had to have PCBs removed, and trucks full of contaminated soil traversed her street.
 e.   The existence of the PCB contamination in the neighborhood has deterred people from renting the rental unit in her house.  One couple told her specifically that they would not rent the unit because the house was in the "PCB section, " and she was unable to rent the unit to others for over half a year.
 f.  As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Mrs. Delmolino has suffered a loss in the value of her property, loss of the use and enjoyment of her property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
 57.    Plaintiff W. Frank Dixon owns a home and property at 80 Parkside Avenue in Pittsfield, where he resides.
 a.     Mr. Dixon purchased the property 15 years ago, and had no reason at the time to suspect that the property was contaminated.
 b.     However, he became concerned when he learned that other properties in her neighborhood were contaminated with PCBs.
 c.    When he learned that other properties nearby were being tested for PCB contamination, he requested testing of his own property.  However, GE still has not tested his property, and he is concerned whether he has been exposed to PCBs.
 d.   Mr. Dixon became even more distressed when he learned that other properties in the neighborhood were being excavated extensively to remove PCB-contaminated soil, and trucks full of contaminated soil traversed his street.
 e.  As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Mr. Dixon has suffered a loss in the value of his property, loss of the use and enjoyment of his property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
 58.    Plaintiff Kathy Dondi owns a home and property at 44 Melrose Avenue in Pittsfield, where she resides.
 a.    Ms. Dondi bought the property in 1973, and had no reason at the time to suspect that it was contaminated.
 b.     However, Ms. Dondi was distressed to learn in 1997 that properties in her neighborhood, including a property next door and a property across the street from hers, had been tested and found to contain PCBs at hazardous levels.
 c.    Ms. Dondi was even more distressed when her street was turned into a construction site for months, and she had to see and hear tanker trucks and heavy construction equipment traversing her street from morning until night.  Construction vehicles created holes in the street, and repeatedly blocked the entrance to her driveway.
 d.    GE has refused to test her property, despite the fact that the property next to hers and the one across the street were tested and found to contain PCBs at very high levels.
 e.   Ms. Dondi is also distressed because does not know whether it is safe to eat the vegetables out of her garden, which she has maintained for many years.
 f.   As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Ms. Dondi has suffered a loss in the value of her property, loss of the use and enjoyment of her property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
 59.    Plaintiff Judith Dorr owns a home and property at 56 Dorchester Avenue in Pittsfield, where she resides with her husband and two children.
 a.    When she bought the property in 1991, Mrs. Dorr had no reason to suspect that the property was contaminated with PCBs.
 b.    However, in or about 1997, she was distressed to learn that numerous other properties in the neighborhood had been found to contain PCBs at hazardous levels, and she began to see men in protective suits excavating soil from other properties on her street and down the block on Newell Street.
 c.    Mrs. Dorr fears that her own property might be contaminated, and that she, her husband, and their children are being exposed to contamination.
 d.    The widespread contamination in her neighborhood has also reduced the value of her home.
 e.  As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Mrs. Dorr has suffered a loss in the value of her property, loss of the use and enjoyment of her property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
 60.   Plaintiff William Elworthy owns a home and property at 50 Valentine Road, where he resides with his wife.
 a.    When Mr. Elworthy purchased the property in 1970, he had no reason to suspect that the property was contaminated with PCBs.
 b.    However, in or about 1997, when he heard about GE's dissemination of PCB-contaminated soil throughout Pittsfield, he called and requested that his property be tested for contamination.  When the property was subsequently tested, Mr. Elworthy was distressed to learn that the soil on the property contained PCBs at hazardous levels.
 c.   Mr. Elworthy was particularly distressed because high concentrations of PCBs were found next to his former garden, in which he had grown tomatoes, carrots, and beans for years, and from which he had fed his family.
 d.   The subsequent excavation of his property caused Mr. Elworthy further anguish.  GE cut down two 40-foot red maple trees next to his house, which had long graced the property and created shade from the summer heat for Mr. Elworthy and his wife, who is disabled and homebound.
 e.   When the excavation was done, GE planted trees that did not survive and resurfaced the driveway with asphalt that cracked.  Moreover, the excavation did not remove all the contaminants on Mr. Elworthy's property; a further excavation had to be done the following year, but that, too, did not remove all contamination.  Mr. Elworthy found electrical parts and tainted soil in an area where he had repeatedly requested, but GE has refused, to excavate.
 f.  As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Mr. Elworthy has suffered a loss in the value of his property, loss of the use and enjoyment of his property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
 61.    Plaintiff Diane Ferrero owns a home and property at 14-16 Richardson Street in Pittsfield, where she resides.
 a.    Ms. Ferrero has lived at the property since she was born in 1948, and until recently had no reason to suspect it was contaminated.
 b.    However, she became concerned in 1997 when she read in the newspaper that PCB contamination had been discovered in her neighborhood.
 c.    Then, in 1998, three properties across the street from hers were found to contain PCBs at hazardous levels, and were extensively excavated.  The work, which was done in the summer, filled the air with noise, dust and dirt, and interfered with her use and  enjoyment of her own property.
 d.    Ms. Ferrero requested testing of her own property, but GE refused.  It was only in 1999 that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency agreed to test her property, and that she learned that her property had "low" levels of PCBs.
 e.   Ms. Ferrero is still concerned about the risks even of "low" levels of PCBs, and about her exposure to such contaminants over time.
 f.  As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Ms. Ferrero has suffered a loss in the value of her property, loss of the use and enjoyment of her property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
 62.    Plaintiffs Richard and Ellen Fothergill own a home and property at 141 Oak Hill Road in Pittsfield, where they reside.
 a.     Mr. and Mrs. Fothergill purchased the property in 1978, and had no reason at the time to suspect that the property was contaminated.
 b.    However, in 1997, they were distressed to learn that other properties on their street had been tested and found to contain PCBs at hazardous levels.
 c.    Then, in 1998 and 1999, several other properties on their street were extensively excavated.  The work, which was done in the summer, filled the air with noise, dust and dirt, created construction conditions on the street for months, and interfered with their use and enjoyment of their own property.
 d.    The Fothergills requested testing on their own property and, even though other properties on their street that were built by the same developer have been tested and found to contain contamination, their own requests for testing have gone unheeded.
 e.     The Fothergills are particularly concerned because, in 1982, at a time when other properties received PCB contaminated soil, the City of Pittsfield placed eight feet of fill on their property.  They are also concerned because a drainage swale carrying runoff floods on their property. 
 f.      The Fothergills are concerned about the extent to which they have been exposed to unhealthy conditions, and about the effect of PCB contamination on the value of property in their neighborhood.
 g.   As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, the Fothergills have suffered a loss in the value of their property, loss of the use and enjoyment of their property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
 63.    Plaintiff Tecla Giusti owns a home and property at 19 Arch Street in Pittsfield, where she resides.
 a.    Ms. Giusti has lived at the property since her parents purchased it in 1938, and until recently had no reason to suspect it was contaminated.
 b.    However, in 1998 she was distressed to learn that other properties in her neighborhood had been tested and found to contain hazardous levels of PCBs, and was particularly concerned when her neighbor's property was tested for the presence of PCBs.
 c.    Then, three properties down the street from hers were found to contain PCBs at hazardous levels, and were extensively excavated.  The work filled the air with noise, dust and dirt, and caused extensive truck traffic.
 d.    Ms. Giusti requested testing of her own property, and in 1999 learned that her property had "low" levels of PCBs.
 e.    Ms. Giusti remains concerned about the extent to which she has been exposed to unhealthy conditions, and about whether she will be able to recover the value of her property when she needs to sell it.
 f.   As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Ms. Gusti has suffered a loss in the value of her property, loss of the use and enjoyment of her property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
 64.   Plaintiffs Roderick and Jeanette Gratton own a home and property at 32 Richardson Street, where they reside.  They also own rental property next door, at 22-24 Richardson Street.
 a.     Mr. and Mrs. Gratton moved into their home at 32 Richardson Street in 1964, and had no reason at the time to suspect that the property was contaminated.  Mrs. Gratton grew up at the property at 22-24 Richardson Street, and also had no reason until recently to suspect that it was contaminated.
 b.    However, in 1997, the Grattons were distressed to learn that a number of properties across the street from theirs had been tested and found to contain PCBs at hazardous levels.
 c.    Then, in 1998, the properties across the street were extensively excavated.  The work, which was done in the summer, filled the air with noise, dust and dirt, created construction conditions on the street for months, and interfered with their use and enjoyment of their own property.
 d.    The properties behind the Grattons were subsequently tested and also found to contain PCBs at hazardous levels, and PCBs have also been found in Goodrich Pond and numerous properties in the neighborhood.
 e.    In 1997, the Grattons requested testing of their own properties, but GE refused.  However, the United States Environmental Protection did agree to test the Grattons' properties in 1998, and discovered that both were contaminated with PCBs at hazardous levels.  The properties were thereafter tested three or four more times by GE.
 f.    Despite the discovery of contamination in 1998, the Grattons' properties still have not be excavated.  The delay has forced them to defer improvements on the properties that they need and want to make, including installation of a gas line, installation of a fence, and landscaping work in the front yard.
 g.  As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Mr. and Mrs. Gratton have suffered a loss in the value of their property, loss of the use and enjoyment of their property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
 65.    Plaintiffs Bruce and Christine Lambert own a home and property at 98 Cromwell Avenue in Pittsfield, where they reside with their son.
 a.     When Mr. and Mrs. Lambert bought the property in 1982, they had no reason to suspect the property was contaminated with PCBs.
 b.     In 1998, however, they learned that other properties in Pittsfield had been tested and found to contain PCB contaminated soil originating from GE, and they were warned by two of their neighbors that their property might also contain PCB contaminated soil from GE.
 c.     The Lamberts contacted GE about testing their property, but GE declined to do so.   However, the United States Environmental Protection Agency agreed to test the property, and testing revealed that the property was contaminated with PCBs at hazardous levels.
 d.    The Lamberts were very distressed when they learned that their property was contaminated with PCBs.  They feared they and their young son had been exposed to contamination.
 e.    The Lamberts asked GE to remove all the contamination from their property, but GE agreed to remove only certain areas of contamination.
 f.    GE's plan for excavation of the Lambert's property also contemplated removing beautiful perennial flowers and several planted areas of the property, as well as several structures, and GE would not agree reasonably to restore the Lambert's property.
 g.  As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Mr. and  Mrs. Lambert have suffered a loss in the value of their property, loss of the use and enjoyment of their property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
 66.   Plaintiffs Anthony and Andrea Lancia own a home and property at 114 Oak Hill Road in Pittsfield, where they reside.
 a.    When Mr. and Mrs. Lancia bought the property in 1977, they had no reason to suspect that the property was contaminated.
 b.    In 1997, however, they were distressed to learn that another property on their street was being tested for PCB contamination.
 c.    They called GE and requested that their property be tested as well.  Although GE initially refused to test, it eventually did so.
 d.   In the summer of 1998, after extensive testing,  the Lancias were distressed to learn that their property was highly contaminated, and would require extensive excavation.
 e.    GE made a proposal to excavate the Lancias' property before it completed all of the required testing on the property.
 f.     Then, in June of 1999, GE prepared to commence excavation before ever discussing with the Lancias how the excavation would affect them or their property. 
 g.    The excavation and restoration of the Lancias' property lasted over fourteen weeks, instead of the six weeks that GE promised, and still was not completed before the ground froze.  While the property was being excavated, it was turned into a construction site, and was an unbearable place in which to live.
 h.    Although GE initially promised the Lancias hotel accommodations during the period of the excavation, the company then reneged and offered them the use of a sparsely furnished, insecure house on another property GE had had to excavate.  GE also reneged on other agreements with the Lancias.
 i.    In the course of its work on the Lancias' property, GE damaged ten foot trees on the property, pulled siding off the Lancias' house, put in sod that did not take, and used the Lancias' electricity to power its water pumps.  GE also refused to remove all the PCBs left on the property.
 j.   As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Mr. and  Mrs. Lancia have suffered a loss in the value of their property, loss of the use and enjoyment of their property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
 67.   Plaintiffs Robert and Marilyn Lysobey own a home and property at 176 Newell Street in Pittsfield, where they reside.
 a.    When the Lysobeys purchased the property in 1979, they had no reason to suspect that the property was contaminated.
 b.    However, in 1998, they were distressed to learn that other properties in their neighborhood were contaminated with PCBs at hazardous levels, and were particularly distressed in 1999 when workers in protective suits came to test the property next door for PCBs.
 c.   The Lysobeys were also distressed to learn that several properties across the street from theirs were found to contain hazardous concentrations of PCBs, and that there was also underground contamination across the street that could be leaching toward their property.
 d.   The Lysobeys have made several requests to have their own property tested, but the requests have been refused.
 e.    The Lysobeys fear that they have been exposed to contamination, and that the value of their property has been hurt by the contamination and excavation going on around them. 
 f.  As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Mr. and  Mrs. Lysobey have suffered a loss in the value of their property, loss of the use and enjoyment of their property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
 68.   Plaintiffs Fred and Joan Mastrogiovanni own a home and property at 123 Oak Hill Road in Pittsfield, where they reside.
 a.     When Mr. and Mrs. Mastrogiovanni purchased the property in 1976, they had no reason to suspect that the property was contaminated.
 b.     In 1997, however, they were distressed to learn that other properties on their street had been tested and found to contain PCBs at hazardous levels.
 c.    The Mastrogiovannis requested testing on their own property, but GE refused.  Then, in 1999, the United States Environmental Protection Agency agreed to test their property, and found that the property was in fact contaminated with PCBs at hazardous levels.
 d.    While waiting for their property to be tested, the Mastrogiovannis were exposed to constant truck traffic, dust, dirt and noise as numerous properties on their street were excavated to remove PCBs.
 e.   Mr. and Mrs. Mastrogiovanni now face the prospect of further testing, excavation, and disruption at their own property. 
 f.    The Mastrogiovannis also fear that they and their now grown children have been needlessly exposed to contaminants.
 g.   As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Mr. and  Mrs. Mastrogiovanni have suffered a loss in the value of their property, loss of the use and enjoyment of their property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
 69.    Plaintiff David Moynihan owns a home and property at 83 Ventura Avenue in Pittsfield, where he resides.
 a.    When Mr. Moynihan first moved into the property in 1994, he had no reason to suspect that the property was contaminated.
 b.    In 1997, however, he was distressed to learn that several properties down the street from his had been tested and found to contain PCBs at hazardous levels.
 c.    Mr. Moynihan requested testing at his own property.  Initially, GE refused testing.  Then, a GE contractor conducted a small number of surface tests on the property, which detected small amounts of contamination, but which were inadequate to properly assess the presence of contamination.
 d.    Meanwhile, numerous properties on Mr. Moynihan's street were found to contain PCBs at hazardous levels.  One property was so contaminated that the house on the property had to be torn down and truckloads of contaminated soil were hauled away.
 e.    The excavation of the contaminated properties on Mr. Moynihan's street created noise, dust, and dirt and filled the street with truck traffic, all of which interfered with his use and enjoyment of his own home.  Mr. Moynihan is also concerned that his family has been needlessly exposed to contaminants.
 f.   As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Mr.  Moynihan has suffered a loss in the value of his property, loss of the use and enjoyment of his property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
 70.   Plaintiffs Albert and Sandy Nachbauer own property at 190 Newell Street, where Mr. Nachbauer lived for many years and where his mother lived until 1971.
 a.   When Mr. Nachbauer and his mother moved to the property in 1957, they had no reason to suspect that the property was contaminated.
 b.    In 1997, however, Mr. Nachbauer was distressed to learn that numerous properties in the neighborhood had been tested and found to contain PCBs at hazardous levels.
 c.    Mr. Nachbauer was particularly distressed to learn that several properties across the street from his were heavily contaminated and have required and will require extensive excavation.
 d.    In light of the contamination all around his property, Mr. Nachbauer is concerned that he has been needlessly exposed to contaminants and that the value of the property has been diminished.
 e.   As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Mr. Nachbauer has suffered a loss in the value of his property, loss of the use and enjoyment of his property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
 71.   Plaintiff Elizabeth Nugai owns a home and property at 95 Longview Terrace in Pittsfield, where she resides with her husband.
 a.   When Mrs. Nugai and her husband bought the property in 1956, they had no reason to suspect that it was contaminated.
 b.   However, in 1997, Mrs. Nugai was distressed to learn that other properties on her street were being tested for the presence of PCBs.
 c.    Mrs. Nugai requested testing at her own property, but nothing was done until 1999, when the United States Environmental Protection Agency tested the property for PCBs.  Testing revealed that there were PCBs on the property at concentrations below 10 parts per million.
 d.    Meanwhile, numerous properties on Mrs. Nugai's street were found to contain PCBs at hazardous levels.  One property was so contaminated that the house on the property had to be torn down and truckloads of contaminated soil hauled away.
 e.    The excavation of the contaminated properties on Mrs. Nugai's street created noise, dust, and dirt and filled the street with truck traffic, all of which interfered with her enjoyment of her own home.  Mrs. Nugai is also concerned that her family has been needlessly exposed to contaminants.
 f.   As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Mrs. Nugai has suffered a loss in the value of her property, loss of the use and enjoyment of her property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
 72.    Plaintiff Michael O'Keefe owns a home and property at 723 East Street.  He resides in one unit in the home, and the other unit is occupied by his son and three grandchildren, aged 4, 8 and 10.
 a.    When Mr. O'Keefe bought the property twelve years ago, he had no reason to suspect that the property was contaminated with PCBs.
 b.    Then, in the winter of 1998, he was contacted by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and asked for permission to test the soil on his property.
 c.    Testing revealed that there were PCBs behind Mr. O'Keefe's home, in some places exceeding 1,000 parts per million.  Some of the contamination was in an area of the property where Mr. O'Keefe's grandchildren regularly play.
 d.   The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection directed GE to conduct an Immediate Response Action to remove the high levels of contaminants at Mr. O'Keefe's property, and an extensive excavation was conducted there in the summer of 1998.
 e.   In addition to the intrusion caused by having his back yard turned into a construction site, and having heavy equipment repeatedly passing through his driveway, Mr. O'Keefe and his family lost the use of the yard for the summer of 1998.
 f.    GE also failed to restore the property to its prior condition, failing to replace the twenty foot trees that grew in the yard, to replace the soil that they excavated, and  to replace Mr. O'Keefe's lilacs and 10 foot hedge.
 g.   Then, after telling Mr. O'Keefe at the end of the summer of 1998  that the excavation work was completed, GE informed him in the spring of 1999 that more testing was required and thereafter that more excavation would be needed.
 h.    Mr. O'Keefe is concerned about the extent to which his family has been needlessly exposed to PCBs; he is angry that his property has not been restored to the condition it was in before excavation; and he now faces the prospect of further testing, excavation, and disruption at the property.
 i.  As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Mr. O'Keefe has suffered a loss in the value of his property, loss of the use and enjoyment of his property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
 73.   Plaintiff Roberta Orsi owns a home and property at 50 Longview Terrace, where she resides with her husband and son.  Mrs. Orsi also has an interest in rental property at 727 East Street, where she formerly resided.
 a.    When Mrs. Orsi moved into the Longview Terrace property in 1985, she had no reason to suspect there was contamination there.
 b.    In 1997, however, Mrs. Orsi was distressed to learn that a property across the street from her property on Longview Terrace was being tested for PCB contamination, and thereafter that high concentrations of PCBs (over 40,000 parts per million) had been found there.
 c.    Mrs. Orsi requested testing of her own property.  Subsequent testing revealed PCBs at concentrations above two parts per million.  However, GE refused to test the back yard of Mrs. Orsi's property, nor any of the area behind her home that abuts another heavily contaminated property along Goodrich Pond (that has been found to contain concentrations of PCBs over 20,000 parts per million).
 d.   From the spring to the fall of 1998, Mrs. Orsi's street was turned into a construction site.  The house on the heavily contaminated property across the street was torn down, large trees were removed, and a ten foot hole was dug there.  The back yard of another property across the street was leveled.  Noise, dust and dirt filled the air for months.  There was incessant pounding, and truck traffic filled the street.
 e.   Mrs. Orsi's own property was also excavated for approximately two weeks, but Mrs. Orsi and her family were not offered an opportunity to move elsewhere during the excavation.
 f.    During the course of the excavation of her property, GE damaged Mrs. Orsi's sewer line.  GE also removed Mrs. Orsi's driveway, and replaced it with a substantially inferior one, ignoring explicit requests Mrs. Orsi made concerning grading.
 g.   Mrs. Orsi was distressed by the contamination on her property, by the contamination all around her property, and by the construction site conditions in which she and her family were forced to live for weeks. 
 h.   Mrs. Orsi also reasonably fears that she and her family have been needlessly exposed to PCBs for years.
 i.    As in the case of the Longview Terrace property, Mrs. Orsi had no reason to suspect that there was contamination on the East Street property when she moved in there in 1983.
 j.    However, in 1997, in light of the furor surrounding the contamination found on Longview Terrace, Mrs. Orsi requested that the East Street property be tested as well.  Subsequent testing revealed that the property was contaminated with PCBs at concentrations exceeding 13,000 parts per million.
 k.   The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection directed GE to conduct an Immediate Response Action at the East Street property, which lasted most of the summer of 1998. 
 l.   The tenants on the property, who had lived there for over six years with their three children, moved out in the summer of 1998.  When trying to fill a subsequent vacancy at the property, Mrs. Orsi and her husband found that there were prospective tenants who were not interested in renting when they learned about the contamination on the property.
 m.   GE failed to timely complete work on the excavation, and also failed to restore the property to the condition it was in before the excavation.   GE's excavation work damaged the sewer line on the property.  GE's inadequate filling of soil around the foundation of the house has caused flooding in the basement, which never occurred before.
 n.   Then, after going through the intrusion and inconvenience of an excavation in 1998, Mrs. Orsi was informed that further testing was needed on the property and  that there were more contaminants, including mercury and lead, that needed to be removed.
 o.    Mrs. Orsi is concerned about the extent to which her family has been needlessly exposed to PCBs at the Longview Terrace property; Mrs. Orsi is angry that the two properties have not been restored to their condition before excavation; and she now faces the prospect of further testing, excavation, and disruption.
 p.   As a result of GE's wrongful conduct,  Mrs. Orsi has suffered a loss in the value of her properties, loss of the use and enjoyment of her properties, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
 74.   Plaintiff Robert Ostellino resides in Boca Raton, Florida, and formerly owned a home and property at 35 Brattle Street in Pittsfield, where he resided.
 a.   When Mr. Ostellino purchased the property in 1973, he had no reason to suspect that the property or the neighborhood was contaminated with PCBs.
 b.    However, in the fall of 1997, Mr. Ostellino was unable to sell his property because of the discovery of PCB contamination on other properties in the neighborhood.
 c.    In the summer of 1997, just before widespread reports of PCB contamination on Longview Terrace and Ventura Avenue, a broker advised Mr. Ostellino to list the property for sale at $119,900.
 d.   However, after the news of the contamination was disseminated, when he proceeded to list the property at that price there were absolutely no buyers interested.  It was only after he dropped the price to $98,000 that he found a buyer, and even then the buyer was a relative who had grown up in the area and wanted to return.
 e.  As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Mr. Ostellino suffered a loss in the value of his property, loss of the use and enjoyment of his property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
 75.    Plaintiff Donald Quadrozzi owns a home and property at 14 Brattle Street in Pittsfield, where he resides with his wife.
 a.   When Mr. Quadrozzi and his wife purchased the property in 1968, they had no reason to suspect that the property or the neighborhood was contaminated with PCBs.
 b.   However, in 1997, Mr. Quadrozzi was distressed to learn that numerous properties in the neighborhood had been tested and found to contain PCBs at hazardous levels.  Then, he learned that the road in front of his house was being tested for PCB contamination.
 c.    Concerned about whether his own property was contaminated, Mr. Quadrozzi called to request testing.  When the testing was completed, Mr. Quadrozzi was distressed to learn that there was contamination on the border of his property with his next door neighbor's.  He also learned that the street was contaminated and that several other properties on the street were contaminated.
 d.    Mr. Quadrozzi, who grew up in the area, fears that he and his wife have been needlessly exposed to contaminants.
 e.    The contamination has also affected the reputation of Mr. Quadrozzi's neighborhood and the value of his home and property.
 f.  As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Mr. Quadrozzi suffered a loss in the value of his property, loss of the use and enjoyment of his property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
 76.    Plaintiff Gina Paglier owns a home and property at 92 Circular Avenue, where she has lived since she was born.
 a.    Until she read about PCB contamination at other residential properties in Pittsfield, Ms. Paglier had no reason to suspect that her property was contaminated.
 b.    However, in investigating the history of the property, she learned that there was fill on the property, and also learned that her father had worked for GE in the 1940's, when GE delivered fill to the properties of other GE workers. 
 c.   Ms. Paglier requested that GE test her property, but GE has refused.  Ms. Paglier cannot afford to test the property herself.
 d.  As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Ms. Paglier suffered a loss in the value of her property, loss of the use and enjoyment of her property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
 77.     Plaintiff Eric Plouffe owns a home and property at 45 Ventura Avenue, where he resides.
 a.  When Mr. Plouffe bought the property in 1992, he had no reason to suspect that it was contaminated with PCBs.
 b.  In 1997, however, Mr. Plouffe was distressed to learn that properties across the street from his were being tested for PCB contamination and were subsequently found to contain PCBs exceeding 40,000 parts per million.
 c.  In 1998, the excavation of the contaminated properties on Mr. Plouffe's street created noise, dust, and dirt and filled the street with truck traffic, all of which interfered with the use and enjoyment of his home.
 d.  Mr. Plouffe asked GE to test his own property, but GE refused.  Then, in 1999, the United States Environmental Protection Agency agreed to test Mr. Plouffe's property, and found that his property was in fact contaminated with PCBs at hazardous levels.
 e.  Mr. Plouffe now faces the prospect of further testing, excavation, and disruption at his own property.
 f.  As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Mr. Plouffe suffered a loss in the value of his property, loss of the use and enjoyment of his property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
 78.     Plaintiffs Charles and Joan Revord own a home and property at 55 Ventura Avenue, where they reside.
 a.  When the Revords bought the property in 1964, they had no reason to suspect that it was contaminated with PCBs.
 b.  In 1997, however, the Revords were distressed to learn that properties across the street from theirs were being tested for PCB contamination and were subsequently found to contain PCBs exceeding 40,000 parts per million.
 c.  In 1998, the excavation of the contaminated properties on the Revord's street created noise, dust, and dirt and filled the street with truck traffic, all of which interfered with the use and enjoyment of their home.
 d.  The Revords asked GE to test their own property, but GE refused, even after Mr. Revord pointed out an area in the stream along the border of their property that showed visible signs of contamination.  Then, in 1999, the United States Environmental Protection Agency agreed to test their property, and found that the property was in fact contaminated with PCBs at hazardous levels, including in the area that Mr. Revord had pointed out to GE.
 e.  The Revords now face the prospect of further testing, excavation, and disruption at their own property.
 f.  As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, the Revords have suffered a loss in the value of their property, loss of the use and enjoyment of their property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
 79.     Plaintiff Mary Rosati owns a home and property at 68 Valentine Road in Pittsfield, where she resides.
 a.  When Mrs. Rosati and her husband bought the property in 1972, they had no reason to suspect that it was contaminated with PCBs.
 b.  However, in 1997, Mrs. Rosati received a letter from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection advising her that her property would need to be tested for the presence of PCBs.
 c.  The property was thereafter tested on several occasions, and the testing revealed PCBs in soils throughout the property, including several locations with concentrations above two parts per million.
 d.  However, GE has refused to remove the PCB contamination on the property because, on "average," the concentration of PCBs in soils at the property are below two parts per million.
 e.  Mrs. Rosati was greatly distressed to learn that her property was contaminated with PCBs, and even more distressed to learn that the contamination would not be cleaned up.  Mrs. Rosati's grandchildren frequently play in her backyard, as do her sister's children.
 f.  Mrs. Rosati's home is also next to two other properties that were found to be contaminated with PCBs, and that were extensively excavated, right up to her property line.
 g.  As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Mrs. Rosati suffered a loss in the value of her property, loss of the use and enjoyment of her property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
 80.     Plaintiffs Francis and Bernice Roy own a home and property at 54 Parkside Avenue, where they reside and which contains two rental units.
 a.  When Mrs. Roy bought the property in 1968, she had no reason to suspect that it was contaminated with PCBs.
 b.  In 1997, however, Mr. and Mrs. Roy were distressed to learn that properties in their neighborhood were being tested and found to contain PCBs at hazardous levels.
 c.  In 1998, the property across the street from the Roys' was found to contain PCBs at high levels, and was extensively excavated.
 d.  The Roys asked GE to test their own property, but GE refused.  Then, in 1999, the United States Environmental Protection Agency agreed to test the Roys property, and found that the property was in fact contaminated with PCBs at hazardous levels.
 e.  Mr. and Mrs. Roy now face the prospect of further testing, excavation, and disruption at their own property.
 f.  Their property has also been stigmatized by the presence of PCBs in the area, which they have heard others refer to as "PCB-ville."
 g.  As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, the Roys have suffered a loss in the value of their property, loss of the use and enjoyment of their property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
 81.     Plaintiffs Mary-Jane and Russell Sackett, Jr. own a home and property at 142 Oak Hill Road, where they reside with their children.
 a.  When Mr. and Mrs. Sackett purchased the property in 1991, they had no reason to suspect that the property was contaminated with PCBs.
 b.  However, in 1998, the Sacketts were distressed when GE asked to test their property for the presence of PCBs.  The test results revealed "low" levels of PCBs.
 c.  The Sacketts subsequently learned that properties next door to theirs and down the street from theirs had been found to contain PCBs at hazardous levels.  They remain concerned whether their property was adequately tested, and are concerned that their children have been needlessly exposed to contamination.
 d.  Moreover, the excavation of the other properties on the street created noise, dust and dirt and filled the street with truck traffic, which interfered with the Sacketts' use and enjoyment of their own home.
 e.  The discovery of contamination and continuing excavation of properties on Oak Hill Road has also affected the reputation of the Sacketts' neighborhood, which people now refer to as "one of the PCB areas," and therefore hurt property values.
 f.   As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, the Sacketts have suffered a loss in the value of their property, loss of the use and enjoyment of their property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
 82.     Plaintiff Joseph Scalise resides in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, and formerly owned a home and property at 9 Hope Street, where he resided with his wife and children.
 a.  When Mr. Scalise and his wife purchased the property in 1984, they had no reason to suspect that it was contaminated with PCBs, and over the course of the next 15 years, Mr. Scalise extensively renovated the property.
 b.  However, in 1998, Mr. Scalise was distressed to learn that other properties on his street were contaminated with PCBs at hazardous levels.
 c.  Then, GE requested to test Mr. Scalise's property, and testing revealed PCBs there, as well.
 d.  Upon learning of the results, Mr. Scalise was concerned that he and his family had been needlessly exposed to contamination.  His children had played on the property when they were young, and the family had eaten vegetables out of the garden for years.
 e.  With contamination all around him, Mr. Scalise also became concerned that he would not be able to sell his house, into which he had invested time and money.  In the fall of 1998, they decided to try to sell.
 f.  For six months, there were no offers to purchase the property.  Prospective purchasers who visited expressed concern that the property was in the "PCB area."  Ultimately, in June 1999, Mr. Scalise was able to sell the property, but at a price significantly below the asking price.
 g.  As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Mr. Scalise has suffered a loss in the value of his property, loss of the use and enjoyment of the property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
 83.     Plaintiffs John and Katharine Stapleberg reside at 1-3 Naples Avenue in Pittsfield, on property owned by Mrs. Stapleberg.  They reside in one of the two units there, and a tenant resides in the other unit.
 a.  When Mr. and Mrs. Stapleberg purchased the property in 1951, they had no reason to suspect that the property was contaminated.
 b.  However, in 1997, they were distressed to learn that two properties next door to theirs had been tested and found to contain PCBs at hazardous levels.
 c.  Then, in the spring of 1998, the Staplebergs' own property was tested, and found to contain PCBs at hazardous levels.
 d.  In the fall of 1998, GE conducted a major excavation on the Staplebergs' property and the two properties next door.  The excavation created noise, dust and dirt, generated truck traffic, and interfered with the use and enjoyment of their property.
 e.  GE failed to return the property to its prior condition: their large maple tree was replaced with a tiny tree that died; the property next door now floods their backyard every time there is a heavy rain; they have flooding in their basement that they never had before; and all the grass GE put in has died.
 f.  The contamination and excavation on their street has also hurt the value of the Staplebergs' property.
 g.  As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, the Staplebergs have suffered a loss in the value of their property, loss of the use and enjoyment of their property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
 84.     Plaintiffs Paul and Louise Van Loon own a home and property at 29-31 Longview Terrace, where they reside.
 a.  Mr. Van Loon has lived on the property all his life, and until 1997 had no reason to suspect that the property was contaminated.
 b.  In 1997, however, Mr. and Mrs. Van Loon were distressed to learn that the property next door to theirs was heavily contaminated with PCBs, at levels exceeding 20,000 parts per million.
 c.  In 1998, the property next door was fenced off, the house on the property was torn down, and workers dug a hole and excavated soil ten feet down.  The excavation filled the air with noise, dust and dirt, generated truck traffic, and interfered with the Van Loon's use and enjoyment of their own property.  There were also extensive, intrusive excavations on properties farther down the street.
 d.  Although the Van Loons were told that their own property was not contaminated, the excavation next door carried over onto their property.  The Van Loons fear that they were needlessly exposed to contamination.
 e.  The contamination and excavation in their neighborhood, as well as the fact that GE left PCBs in the property next to theirs, has also decreased the value of the Van Loons' property.
 f.  As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, the Van Loons have suffered a loss in the value of their property, loss of the use and enjoyment of their property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
 85.     Plaintiff Aurie Walsh owns a home and property at 34 Pembroke Avenue in Pittsfield, where she resides.
 a.  When Ms. Walsh bought the property in 1992, she had no reason to suspect that the property was contaminated.
 b.  However, in 1998, Ms. Walsh was distressed to learn that numerous properties in her neighborhood had been tested and found to contain PCBs at hazardous levels.
 c.  In June of 1998, Ms. Walsh who cannot afford to test herself, requested GE to test her property, but her property still has not been tested to date.
 d.  In the meantime, properties down the street from hers, and on streets all around hers, have been tested and found to contain contamination.
 e.  Ms. Walsh, who loves to garden, is particularly concerned because she has found metal parts and other refuse in the soil in her property, and does not know whether it is safe for her to continue to garden.
 f.  The contamination and excavations throughout her neighborhood have also reduced the value of her property.
 g.  As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, Ms. Walsh suffered a loss in the value of her property, loss of the use and enjoyment of her property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
 86.    Plaintiffs Mark and Paula Wannamaker own a home and property at 21 Brattle Street in Pittsfield, where they reside.
 a.    When the Wannamakers bought the property in 1983, they had no reason to suspect that the property was contaminated.
 b.   In 1998, however, the Wannamakers were distressed to learn that other properties in their neighborhood had been tested and found to contain PCBs at hazardous levels.
 c.     The Wannamakers requested testing of their own property, and testing revealed that their property is not contaminated.
 d.    However, the Wannamakers have been distressed to learn that the street in front of their house, Brattle Street, is contaminated with PCBs at hazardous levels, and that other properties on their street are contaminated and will need to be excavated.
 e.   The contamination and excavation in their neighborhood has hurt the value of their home and property.
 f.    As a result of GE's wrongful conduct, the Wannamakers have suffered a loss in the value of their property, loss of the use and enjoyment of their property, and the annoyance, upset and inconvenience associated with the nuisance.
   Count I  -  Nuisance
 (As to All Plaintiffs)

 87.  Each of the allegations above is incorporated herein by reference.

 88.  GE, by its handling, disposal and release of hazardous substances, including PCB-contaminated soil, has interfered unreasonably with the rights of the plaintiffs to use and enjoy their properties, and has created a nuisance.

 89.  As a proximate result of the  nuisance created by GE, the plaintiffs have suffered a loss of value of their properties, lost use and enjoyment of their properties, and the upset, annoyance and inconvenience associated with the nuisance, and GE is liable for all such damages suffered by the plaintiffs.

 Count II - Negligence
 (As to Plaintiffs Aulisio, Barber, Bastow, Bertelli, Blessing, Brown, Carnevale, Chiaretto, Cimini, Cody, Coradeschi, Corseri DiNicola, Elworthy, Ferrero, Giusti, Gratton, Lambert, Lancia, Mastrogiovanni, Moynihan, Nugai, O'Keefe, Orsi, Plouffe, Quadrozzi, Revord, Rosati, Roy, Sackett, Scalise, and Stapleberg)

 90.  Each of the allegations above is incorporated herein by reference.

 91.  GE negligently disposed of and/or released hazardous substances on the properties of the plaintiffs over the course of many years and negligently failed to warn such property owners of the hazards it had created.

 92.  By its negligent acts and omissions described above, GE breached its duty to the plaintiffs.

 93.  As a proximate result of GE's negligent acts, the plaintiffs have suffered damages as outlined above.

 94.  GE is liable for all direct and consequential damages suffered by the plaintiffs as a result of its negligent acts.

 Count III - Trespass
 (As to Plaintiffs Aulisio, Barber, Bastow, Bertelli, Blessing, Brown, Carnevale, Chiaretto, Cimini, Cody, Coradeschi, Corseri, DiNicola, Elworthy, Ferrero, Giusti, Gratton, Lambert, Lancia, Mastrogiovanni, Moynihan, Nugai, O'Keefe, Orsi, Plouffe, Quadrozzi, Revord, Rosati, Roy, Sackett, Scalise, and Stapleberg)

 95.   Each of the allegations above is incorporated herein by reference.

 96.   By arranging for and disposing of hazardous substances on  the plaintiffs' properties over the course of many years without disclosing the nature of the material disposed, GE trespassed against the rights of the plaintiffs.

 97.  As a proximate result of GE's actions, the plaintiffs have suffered direct and consequential damages as outlined above and GE is liable to the plaintiffs for all such damages.

 Count IV - Recovery Under M.G.L. c. 21E
 (As to Plaintiffs Aulisio, Barber, Bastow, Bertelli, Blessing, Brown, Carnevale, Chiaretto, Cimini, Cody, Coradeschi, Corseri, DiNicola, Elworthy, Ferrero, Giusti, Gratton, Lambert, Lancia, Mastrogiovanni, Moynihan, Nugai, O'Keefe, Orsi, Plouffe, Quadrozzi, Revord, Rosati, Roy, Sackett, Scalise, and Stapleberg)

 98.  Each of the allegations contained above is incorporated herein by reference.

 99.  GE is the owner and operator of a site from which there has been a disposal and release of materials defined as hazardous materials under M.G.L. c. 21E § 2, 42 U.S.C. § 9601(14) and 40 CFR Part 302.4, or is otherwise legally responsible for the releases from the site.

 100.  GE, directly or indirectly, also arranged for the transport and disposal of hazardous materials from its site to residential properties throughout Pittsfield.

 101.  The plaintiffs have incurred damage as a result of GE's disposal, release and threat of release of hazardous material, and GE is liable for all such damages incurred by the plaintiffs.

REQUESTS FOR RELIEF

 WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs request the following relief:

 A.  An award of all direct and consequential damages incurred by the plaintiffs as a result of GE's wrongful acts, and such punitive damages as may be allowed by law; and

 B.  An award to the plaintiffs of all costs of litigation, including attorneys' fees and expert witness fees.
 

The Plaintiffs
By their attorneys,

       Andrew A. Rainer BBO No. 542067
       Christine E. Morin BBO No. 600237
       SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
       75 State Street
       Boston, MA 02109
       (617) 439-3939

       Peter Langrock
       Emily Joselson
       LANGROCK, SPERRY & WOOL, LLP
       111 South Pleasant Street
       P.O. Drawer 351
       Middlebury, VT 05753
       (802) 388-6356

 Certificate of Service

 I, Andrew Rainer, hereby certify that on this 18th day of March, 2000,  I served a copy of the foregoing by overnight delivery upon defendant's counsel.
 

 ___________________________
 Andrew Rainer


HOME PAGE

©2000 BerkshireEagleDotNetwork®/