
    Eula Guidry ARDOIN, et al. v. STINE LUMBER COMPANY, INC., et al.
    No. 04-165.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
    Sept. 29, 2004.
    Jimmy Simien, Eulis Simien, Jr., Mark Wayne Simien, Simien & Simien, Luther F. Cole, Attorney at Law, Baton Rouge, Mark Anthony Delphin, Delphin Law Firm, Lake Charles, Hugh Edward McNeely, Attorney at Law, Baton Rouge, Jack C. Watson, Attorney at Law, Lake Charles, Richard S. Lewis, James J. Pizzi-russo, Washington, DC, James M. Papan-tonio, Mark J. Proctor, Frederick T. Kuyk-endall, III, James M. Messer, Troy A. Rafferty, Attorneys at Law, Pensacola, FL, for Plaintiffs/Appellees Jason M. Broussard, Jason M. Broussard, on behalf of a Putative Nationwide Class and Eula Guidry Ardoin.
    Thomas M. Bergstedt, Bergstedt & Mount, Lake Charles, Scott Edward Delacroix, Jeffrey Edward Richardson, Adams and Reese, New Orleans, Robert L. Shuf-tan, David A. Kanter, Brent R. Austin, Attorneys at Law, Chicago, IL, for Defendants/Appellants Arch Wood Protection, Inc., Osmose, Inc. and Arch Chemicals, Inc.
    John Stanton Bradford, William Boyce Monk, Stockwell, Sievert, Viccellio, Clements & Shaddock, LLP, Lake Charles, Defendants/Appellants Lowe’s Home Center, Inc. and Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
    Richard Charles Stanley, Bryan Charles Reuter, Jennifer Thornton, W. Raley Alford, III, Stanley, Flanagan & Reuter, New Orleans, Robb W. Patryk, Nicholas Swerdloff, Renee C. Redman, Hughes Hubbard & Reed, New York, NY, for Defendant/Appellant, Chemical Specialties, Inc.
    John P. MacNaughton, Robert P. Alpert, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant/Appellant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
    Raymond A. Haas, Andrew J. Lewis, David W. Longley, Attorneys at Law, Tampa, FL, Defendant/Appellant Lowe’s Home Center, Inc.
    Court composed of JOHN D. SAUNDERS, MICHAEL G. SULLIVAN, and ELIZABETH A. PICKETT, Judges.
   PICKETT, Judge.

For the reason assigned by this court in Eula Guidry Ardoin, et al. v. Stine Lumber Company, Inc., et al., a published opinion bearing docket number 03-1547, 885 So.2d 43, the judgment of the trial court is reversed in part and affirmed in part.

REVERSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART.  