EAST PALESTINE Norfolk Southern and attorneys representing nearly 200 people impacted by the 2023 East Palestine train derailment have asked a judge to reject attempts to overturn the $600 million class action settlement of the case.

In a filing submitted last week, the railroad stated that the motions seeking to revoke the settlement's final approval were "without merit" and relied on publicly available information that was previously presented to the court.

The motions for relief from judgment, filed by a group of class members, assert that the final settlement should be voided based on fraud and concealment of critical information claims by both the attorneys who represented them and Norfolk Southern.

Those calling for the settlement’s rejection claim that the alleged misconduct fundamentally undermines the integrity of the settlement process and induced class members to sign personal injury releases for inadequate compensation. The motions were filed approximately one year after the court granted final approval of the settlement on Sept. 27, 2024.

Norfolk Southern's opposition targets two similar motions filed by the same legal counsel. The railroad company argued that the motions fail because they lack legal and factual substance, asserting that the court should deny them on their merits.

Norfolk Southern claims that the court lacks the authority to grant the requested relief because the final judgment approving the settlement is already on appeal. While arguing the court should deny the motions outright, the company maintained that the ongoing appeal prevents the court from approving requests to vacate the judgment.

Norfolk Southern also argues that the current motions are an inappropriate attempt to re-litigate objections that were previously presented and overruled during the settlement's approval process. Norfolk Southern characterized the current filing as an improper repetition of concerns regarding environmental harm and toxic exposure that were repeatedly aired by objectors and their supporters in public filings throughout the summer of 2024. These concerns were also presented during the public fairness hearing, where the court considered and overruled them, according to Norfolk Southern.

"Movants fail to point to any material, new information that was not publicly available before the Settlement was approved, much less any such information that was fraudulently concealed," the company argued. Norfolk Southern emphasized that the information is indistinguishable from the arguments presented during the final approval proceedings.

Derailment victims who want the settlement thrown out claim that their attorneys and Norfolk Southern "concealed" certain evidence regarding environmental contamination and the risk of future injury. Norfolk Southern responded that the accusations against it personally were general and lacked specificity.

The railroad says the complainants have failed to establish any fraud.

Those seeking to dismiss the settlement claim that official U.S. Environmental Protection Agency testing results were "invalid" and failed to accurately reflect the contamination's true extent.  Norfolk Southern pointed out that the same claim about testing results was raised by objectors over a year earlier.

The company also countered arguments related to the long-term environmental impact of the derailment and the subsequent controlled burn of vinyl chloride. Movants had cited an air modeling analysis by Dr. Peter DeGaetano, which they claimed supported a theory of widespread, long-term contamination. Norfolk Southern dismissed this analysis, calling the claims of a significant chemical plume from the vent and burn "misguided speculation" that contradicts validated environmental testing.

Norfolk Southern stressed that validated testing was conducted by several government regulators, including the U.S. EPA and the Ohio EPA, and that their results contradict claims of concealed data. The company maintained that the information cited to overturn the judgment is "unreliable and flawed".

The motions for relief from judgment seek withdrawal of the personal injury releases that victims voluntarily signed as part of the settlement. Norfolk Southern defended the settlement structure, arguing that the attempt to set aside the releases fails for several reasons.

The company highlighted that the settlement agreement clearly and explicitly reserved the right for class members to pursue future injury claims. The personal injury releases covered only past and current known injuries.

The railroad said the settlement carves out explicit exceptions, allowing class members to file a separate lawsuit if they develop a future, currently undiscoverable illness, including cancer, because of the derailment and the controlled burn. The releases do not bar future claims for latent illness, according to Norfolk Southern.

The company asserted that the argument does not center on an extraordinary and unforeseen circumstance, which would typically be necessary to justify overturning a judgment, but rather on an attempt to overturn a voluntary agreement based on previously known information.

The fact that some claimants have already accepted compensation in exchange for their release was also cited by their attorneys, noting that at least 13 people had already received and negotiated checks or direct deposits.

Norfolk Southern concluded that the challenge is an attempt to use the mechanism for extraordinary relief as a backdoor appeal to overturn previously decided issues.

The filing notes that the underlying claims—that class counsel misrepresented health risks and concealed expert findings—are currently the subject of an appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court by objectors to the final approval.

The company stated that the motions are untimely because they seek to rehash arguments based on environmental data and expert opinions that have been known for more than a year.

The final judgment, approving the class action settlement, was entered in September 2024, meaning the claims being presented now were available to objectors before the deadline for challenging the settlement.

Norfolk Southern’s position is that the court should deny the motions on either the jurisdictional grounds that the judgment is currently under appeal, or those challenging the settlement have failed to present new facts or establish that any fraud occurred.