IBJNews

Foul odor spurs Oliver Winery hard-cider lawsuit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

An agreement Oliver Wine Co. Inc. made with a container manufacturer to purchase cans for the winery’s hard apple cider has gone sour.

Bloomington-based Oliver filed suit against the Broomfield, Colo.-based Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp., once headquartered in Muncie, in Monroe Circuit Court in December. The case was transferred to federal court in Indianapolis last week.

Oliver claims the metal cans Ball supplied for the cider produced a chemical reaction when coming into contact with the beverage, causing a foul odor and spurring customer complaints.

The winery issued a voluntary recall of the cider and since has suffered “significant damages,” according to its complaint.

Oliver does not specify the amount of damages it is seeking. The price Oliver paid to buy a total of 1.3 million cans from Ball has been redacted from a purchase order included in the complaint.

The winery is claiming breach of warranties and contract, negligence and product liability.

Citing company policy, a Ball spokesman declined to comment on the pending litigation.

Oliver has been producing wine since 1972, but only introduced its cider in 2011 under the Beanblossom Hard Cider name.

The cider initially entered the market in 16.9-ounce aluminum bottles, which are manufactured by a vendor other than Ball. The cider sold so well that Oliver expanded the line to include 8-ounce cans, the winery said, to be priced at about $2 each.

In February 2012, Oliver purchased the cans from Ball after the company analyzed cider samples and concluded that they were compatible with the cans and linings selected by Ball, according to the complaint.

But the smell that emanated from the cans when they were opened led Oliver to recall the cider soon after. The winery blames the odor on a chemical reaction caused by the copper pitting in the cans, which produced hydrogen sulfide in the cider.

A lawyer for Oliver said the winery has no comment on the lawsuit. Oliver’s cider is still available in the larger aluminum bottles, which sell for about $4 each.

Ball is the largest supplier of aluminum cans in the United States. The company moved its corporate headquarters from Muncie to Colorado in 1998.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Copper pitting?
    How would copper be in an aluminum can to begin with? Second copper removes hydrogen sulfide by reacting with it. cCopper is commonly used in some form or the other to eliminate or prevent hydrogen sulfide in wine. I would think more likely the petroleum based plastic lining of the cans may have had some residual sulfur in it. Hydrogen sulfide is a byproduct of petroleum based polymer production due to the presence of sulfur in petroleum. It can also be the result of nutrient starved yeast in a fermentation as yeast will produce hydrogen sulfide when stressed.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. First, the Athenaeum is going to have to get past the hurdle with the Lockerbie residents and the agreement that the parcel would be residential. Second, and in my opinion, this prime piece of property should include parking, PLUS, a black box theater(s), some market rate and affordable artist housing and a plan to renovate and reconfigure the second story theater. I would negotiate to add the DeHaan property surface parking lot into the development mix, place a one story surface parking garage on the DeHaan lot on the street level (for the Dehaan tenants use during the daytime) and add a second story to the garage that would become an addition to the current second story theater and then change the direction of the theater by moving the stage across the alley and on top of the DeHaan lot parking. You can add all the stage elements that are currently missing from the Athenaeum stage to make it more attractive for use by Ballet, Opera and traveling productions. Plus, the theater changes would probably help solve some of the soundproofing issues. Alas,it does not seem to be a part of the strategic plan to conduct a study to determine best use of the property. Seems like the current plan is a quick and easy move that ignores the property best use/potential and any strategic property planning for the effect on future generations.

  2. I recall that MSA's pilings are still in the ground and hard to remove. It’s not likely any proposal will include significant underground construction/parking because of this. Start adding 2 floors of retail, 8 floors of parking and 5-10 floors of possible hotel, and/or 10-20 floors of residential, and you are at 30 floors already with possible expansion of all the uses. But then again I could be wrong.

  3. Accoriding to their website there is no deadline to the Do Not Call list. What is this article referring to??

  4. On what planet are they entitled to this largesse from the stockholders? These people make multi-million dollar salaries: Pay for your own personal travel.

  5. It matters because they're already paid enormously fat salaries: Pay for your own personal travel. Being "taxed on it" isn't a valid excuse--so what? They're still being gifted a raft of luxury perks from somebody else's money on top of an enormous, lavish salary.

ADVERTISEMENT