out of or related to BP’s indemnity claims, such liability would be covered by an indemnity by SEACOR Holdings Inc., the former owner of National Response Corporation, in favor of National Response Corporation and its affiliates.
On November 17, 2018, an explosion occurred at our Grand View, Idaho facility. The incident severely damaged the facility’s primary waste-treatment building as well as surrounding waste handling, waste storage, maintenance and administrative support structures, resulting in the closure of the entire facility that remained in effect through January 2019. In addition to initiating and conducting our own investigation into the incident, we fully cooperated with the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) to support their comprehensive and independent investigations of the incident. On January 10, 2020, we entered into a settlement agreement with OSHA settling a complaint made by OSHA relating to the incident for $50,000. On January 28, 2020, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission issued an order terminating the proceeding relating to such OSHA complaint. We maintain workers’ compensation insurance, business interruption insurance and liability insurance for personal injury, property and casualty damage. We believe that any potential third-party claims associated with the explosion in excess of our deductibles are expected to be resolved primarily through our insurance policies. Although we carry business interruption insurance, a disruption of our business caused by a casualty event, including the full and partial closure of our Grand View, Idaho facility, may result in the loss of business, profits or customers during the time of such closure. Accordingly, our insurance policies may not fully compensate us for these losses. In November 2020, we commenced a lawsuit against the generator and broker of the waste, the treatment of which we believe contributed to the Grand View explosion, seeking damages in connection with the losses suffered as a result of the incident. The Company is actively working with its insurance companies on comprehensive property and business interruption insurance claims related to the incident at our Grand View, Idaho facility.
In September 2021, Robert Dell, a Marine Technician for NRC from June 2021 to September 2021, filed a class action complaint against US Ecology in the Alameda Superior Court for the State of California (Robert Dell et. al. v. US Ecology Illinois, Inc., US Ecology, Inc., and US Ecology Vernon, Inc.) alleging the failure by the defendants to pay wages and/or overtime, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failure to provide meal and rest breaks as required by California law. Further, Mr. Dell has put the Labor & Workforce Development Agency on notice in an effort to exhaust administrative remedies and enable him to bring an additional claim under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act, which permits an employee to assert a claim for violations of certain California Labor Code provisions on behalf of all aggrieved employees to recover statutory penalties. Given the recency of the filing, the Company has not yet filed a response to Mr. Dell’s complaint. The Company believes that Mr. Dell’s claims lack merit and intends to vigorously defend this action. The Company is currently unable to estimate the range of possible losses associated with this proceeding.
Commencing on March 15, 2022, purported individual stockholders of US Ecology filed complaints in the United States District Courts for the Southern District of New York, for the Eastern District of New York, and for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in the matters captioned Ryan O’Dell v. US Ecology, Inc., et al, No. 22-cv-2131 (S.D.N.Y., filed Mar. 15, 2022) (“O’Dell”), Ray Pizzaro v. US Ecology, Inc., et al, No. 22-cv-02144 (S.D.N.Y., filed Mar. 15, 2022) (“Pizzaro”), Matthew Whitfield v. US Ecology, Inc., et al, No. 22-cv-01515 (E.D.N.Y., filed Mar. 18, 2022) (“Whitfield”), Lewis D. Baker v. US Ecology, Inc., et al, No. 22-cv-01053 (E.D. Pa., filed Mar. 18, 2022) (“Baker”), and Teresa McCurdy v. US Ecology, Inc. et al, No. 22-cv-01685 (E.D.N.Y., filed Mar. 25, 2022) (“McCurdy,” and together, the “Transaction Litigation”). The complaints in the Transaction Litigation named as defendants the Company and the members of the Board. In addition to the Transaction Litigation, the Company received letters from four purported stockholders of the Company demanding additional disclosures related to the sale process leading to the proposed transaction, the Company's financial projections and the analyses performed by the Co-Financial Advisors.
The complaints in the Transaction Litigation generally alleged that the preliminary proxy statement filed by US Ecology with the SEC on March 11, 2022, in connection with the Merger Agreement was materially incomplete and misleading by allegedly failing to disclose purportedly material information relating to the sale process leading to the proposed transaction, the Company’s financial projections, and the analyses performed by Barclays Capital, Inc. and Houlihan Lokey Capital, Inc. (collectively, the “Co-Financial Advisors”). Each of the Complaints asserted violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. In addition, the complaint in the Pizzaro action also asserted a claim for breach of fiduciary duty by the members of the Board in connection with the approval of the Merger Agreement and the disclosures in the preliminary proxy statement, and a claim against