Complain about a product or service

Pet Owners Eligible For $24 Million in Landmark Melamine Settlement

But many say money is no replacement for loss of beloved animals

By Lisa Wade McCormick
ConsumerAffairs.com

October 15, 2008

News • Mars Recalls Cat Food Sold at Wal-Mart due to Salmonella • Hartz Recalls Rawhide Chips After Possible Salmonella Contamination • Pet Owners Eligible For $24 Million in Landmark Melamine Settlement • Internet Rumor Claims Cocoa Mulch Causes Dog Deaths • Mars Recalls More Pet Food; Possible Salmonella Contamination • Mars Petcare Recalls Some Pedigree Dog Food • Expert Finds Unexplained Pet Deaths 'Not Consistent' • Illness, Death Dog Nutro Pet Food • Feds Raid PETCO Warehouse in Illinois • Pet Owners Not Thrilled with Poison Food Settlement • CDC Links 2006 Salmonella Outbreak to Dog Food • FDA Orders Illinois Pet Food Maker to Clean Up Its Act • String of Illnesses Afflicts NUTRO-Fed Pets --- • More about Pet Food Recalls ...

Pet owners whose dogs or cats became ill or died last year after eating melamine-tainted food are now eligible for a piece of a landmark $24 million settlement. But some pet owners say no amount of money can replace the loss of their best friend.

"She was my constant companion and quite a character," Vicki W. of Sedona, Arizona, said of her cat, which died last year after eating contaminated pet food. "My husband and I miss her greatly."

U.S. District Judge Noel Hillman on Tuesday gave final approval to the settlement, which resolves more than 100 class action lawsuits filed in U.S. and Canadian Courts in the wake of last year's massive pet food recall.

Hillman called the settlement "fair, reasonable and adequate," according to the Associated Press.

The $24 million dollar settlement is in addition to the $8 million in claims some companies involved in the litigation have already paid--bringing the total to $32 million.

Under the deal, pet owners can seek compensation for such expenses as veterinary bills, burial costs, time missed from work to take care of sick animals, and property damage caused by sick pets.

In some cases, the settlement allows consumers to recover up to 100% of "reasonable economic damages" if they can provide documentation for those losses. Even consumers who do not have any documentation can recover up to $900 per pet under the settlement.

Lawyers said more than 10,000 pet owners in the United States and Canada had filed claims as of September 30, 2008. The average cost of the claims analyzed so far is approximately $1,500, attorneys said.

More than 100 people kept their rights to sue the pet food companies and other parties separately.

And 28 people filed objections to the settlement, saying it didn't cover the pain and suffering they endured from losing their pets. They questioned how anyone could put a price tag on the loss of a beloved pet. They're pet owners like Vicki of Arizona.

"She can never be replaced because of her unique personality," Vicki said of her Abyssinian.

That healthy cat suddenly became sick in early 2007 – months before Menu Foods of Canada recalled more than 60 million containers of melamine tainted food. "So I had the vet do blood work on her," Vicki said. "The vet said she had beginning kidney disease and if we changed her food she would be okay for a long time."

Her cat's condition, however, deteriorated.

"I took her back in a month and she had gotten much worse," Vicki said. "The vet was surprised at how fast she had gone down and recommended IV treatment. We gave her IV's at home every day for four months and she died anyway."

At that time, no one knew about the tainted pet food.

"I had an autopsy done on her because the vet was puzzled about why my cat went down hill so fast," Vicki said, adding her cat's medical bill totaled more than $1,000. "When we heard about the food problem, the vet said the autopsy made sense--she definitely was victim of (tainted) cat food."

Does Tuesday's settlement give Vicki any sense of justice? "Nine-hundred dollars is a small price for the vet bills and the months trying to save her," she told us. "The only consultation is that it hopefully won't happen again."

The settlement may also help other animals in need.

It stipulates that any money left after all the plaintiffs are paid--including the 55 law firms involved in the case-- will be donated to various animal charities. One attorney said the lead firms alone had done more than $5 million worth of work.

Consumers with questions about the settlement--or filing a claim--can find answers on the Pet Food Products Liability Settlement Web site.

As we've reported, this case started last March when Menu Foods recalled millions of containers of dog and cat food tainted with melamine, a chemical used to make plastics. That marked the largest pet food recall in U.S. history.

Thousands of dogs and cats across North America suffered kidney disease or died after eating the contaminated food.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) traced the source of that contamination to the wheat gluten imported from China.

Sherrie Savett, a lead attorney for the plaintiffs in the case estimated more than 1,500 died in the U.S. died last year after eating the tainted food. ConsumerAffairs.Com tried to reach her on Tuesday to discuss the settlement, but she did not return calls.

But in May, Savett said the settlement was a win for pet owners.

"With this settlement, consumers will get as much or more than if they litigated the cases individually," she said. "The claims process allows people to recover as much as 100 percent of all their economic damages.

"What we did get out of this settlement for consumers is the possibility of complete recovery of all economic damages--even for lost carpets and time--in addition to their veterinary bills," she added. "Even in cases where people do not have documentation of their damages, the settlement allows in some cases up to $900 for each person."

Some pet owners, however, have criticized the settlement. Don Earl, whose cat Chuckles died after eating Menu Foods' Pet Pride food, has called the settlement "a slap in the face."

"Extrapolating from the best information available, over a quarter million pets were killed by the poisoned pet food epidemic," he said. "Take a third off the top for the attorneys, and divide by the number of pet owners harmed, they each will get $64."

Another pet owner, whose 13-year-old Sheltie suddenly died after eating some of the tainted pet food, agreed.

"I feel that the $24 million is less than a slap on the wrist," said Jerry L. of Goodyear, Arizona. "It's a sad state of affairs and just goes to prove that until pet owners who really care about their pets push their government for stronger laws, these companies will continue to hold our pets at little or no regard.

Canadian author Ann Martin, who has researched the pet food industry for years, has called on pet food makers and the government to ensure the food consumers' feed their animals is safe.

But she is not convinced that's happened.

"I really don't think the food on the shelves now is any safer than what we saw prior to the massive recall," Martin told us in May. "How many of these pet food companies are testing for contamination in the raw materials they are purchasing? It is my understanding that some are now testing for melamine in the grains, but this is just one toxin that might be in the raw material. Are they testing the vitamin/mineral premixes, many which are coming from China or other countries with questionable practices?"

The settlement requires pet food makers to continue testing ingredients imported from China. That, however, doesn't make Martin feel any safer about feeding her animals commercial pet food.

"I'll continue to feed my pets a homemade diet," she said. "At least I know what they are eating, which is more than you can say with many of the pet foods on the market."

Pet owners like Don Earl said some good has come from the massive recall.

"Many pet owners (including myself) have switched from the recycled garbage promoted as pet food to homemade," he said. "Their pets will live much longer and healthier lives."

Dozens of lawsuits

Pet owners in 19 states and Ontario, Canada filed dozens of lawsuits against Menu Foods in the weeks that followed the March 16, 2007, nationwide recall of dog and cat food. Those cases were consolidated in a federal court in Camden, New Jersey.

The lawsuits alleged unfair and deceptive trade practices, negligence in failing to provide adequate quality control and breach of implied and express warranties.

Some consumers also claimed they suffered emotional trauma after their pets became sick or died. Pet owners sought compensation for their veterinary bills.

Companies named in the lawsuits -- besides Menu Foods -- included Del Monte Foods Inc. of San Francisco; Nestle of Stamford, Conn.; Procter & Gamble in Cincinnati; Xuzhou Anying Biologic Technology Development Co. Ltd. in Pixian, China; and Suzhou Textile Import and Export Co. in Jiangsu, China.

Those defendants -- and Menu Foods' product liability insurance company -- will cover the costs of the settlement. Menu Foods estimated the recall cost the company $53.8 million.

Pet owners have until November 24, 2008 to file their claims. Those claims should be submitted to:

Claims Administrator P.O. Box 890 Philadelphia, PA 19105-0890 USA

claims@petfoodsettlement.com

Report Your Experience
If you've had a bad experience -- or a good one -- with a consumer product or service, we'd like to hear about it. All complaints are reviewed by class action attorneys and are considered for publication on our site. Knowledge is power! Help spread the word. File your consumer report now.