data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c999e/c999e27315b21aa6e851e6b0b4a742f8041e917d" alt="{ Banner Image }"
Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- Ninth Circuit Upholds Vacatur of Some Oil and Gas Leases
- Court Dismisses Microplastics Consumer Protection Suit Citing Federal Preemption
- Montana Supreme Court Finds Constitutional Right to Stable Climate
- D.C. Circuit Issues Surprise Holding in NEPA Dispute: CEQ Regulations are Non-Binding
- New Mexico District Court Applies Pro-Rata Method to Settlement under CERCLA
Topics
- Federal Land Policy and Management Act
- Loper Bright
- Council on Environmental Quality
- Agency Action
- Public Trust Doctrine
- New Jersey Civil Rights Act
- Environmental Justice
- Disparate Impact
- Title VI
- Massachusetts
- Internal Investigation
- Evidence
- Citizens Suit
- Georgia
- FIFRA
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
- Major Questions Doctrine
- Lead Paint
- Greenwashing
- Good Faith Settlement
- Federal Facilities
- Statutory Notice
- Oil Pollution Act
- Federal Jurisdiction
- Owner Liability
- Court of Federal Claims
- Ripeness
- Renewable Fuel Standard
- Fish and Wildlife Service
- Greenhouse Gas
- Refinery
- Alaska
- Florida
- National Priorities List
- Vapor Intrusion
- Solvents
- Price-Anderson Act
- Solid Waste Management Act
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Successor Liability
- Operator Liability
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Environmental Covenants
- Federal Circuit
- Divisibility
- National Contingency Plan
- Apportionment
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Strict Liability
- Historic Resources
- Utilities
- Public Utilities Commission
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- PFAS
- Ohio
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Fees
- Commonwealth Court
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Asbestos
- Martime
- Tribal Lands
- Gold King Mine
- Utah
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- New Mexico
- Delaware
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- FERC
- National Forest Management Act
- United States Supreme Court
- Chevron Deference
- Endangered Species Act
- HSCA
- Corporate Veil
- Alter Ego
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- Building Materials
- First Circuit
- Property Damage
- PCBs
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Brownfield
- Innocent Party
- Brownfields
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- PHMSA
- FOIA
- Effluents
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Texas
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Injunction
- Coal Ash
- Spoliation
- Stormwater
- TMDL
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Drinking Water
- Michigan
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Clean Streams Law
- Civil Penalties
- Hearing Board
- Arranger Liability
- Retroactive
- Sovereign Immunity
- Stigma
- Fair Market Value
- Tax assessment
- Damages
- Property Value
- Storage Tank
- Energy
- Fifth Circuit
- Electric
- Indemnification
- Arizona
- Ninth Circuit
- OPRA
- Attorney-Client
- Iowa
- Discovery Rule
- Fourth Circuit
- Eighth Circuit
- Administrative Appeals
- Taxes
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- Residential
- Inspection
- New York
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- Natural Gas Act
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- HAPs
- D.C. Circuit
- Mercury
- Takings
- Condemnation
- Natural Gas
- Storage
- Flooding
- Fifth Amendment
- Takings Clause
- Causation
- Spill Act
- NEPA
- Interior
- Mineral Leasing Act
- Tenth Circuit
- California
- Act 13
- Zoning
- Insurance Coverage
- Duty to Defend
- Landfill
- Eminent Domain
- Private Right of Action
- Sixth Circuit
- Illinois
- Water
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Citizen Suit
- Diligent Prosecution
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Navigability
- Montana
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Riverbed
- Indiana
- Seventh Circuit
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Green House Counsel
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Consent Decree
- Enforcement
- EPA
- Laches
- Boiler MACT
- Delay Notice
- Rulemaking
- Equity
- CISWI
- Contribution
- Declaratory Relief
- Second Circuit
- Procedure
- Standing
- NPDES
- Medical Monitoring
- Dimock
- Legislation
- Case Update
- Louisiana
- Dukes
- Certification
- Contamination
- CLE
- Discovery
- Work Product
- Cases to Watch
- Privilege
- Decisions of Note
- Expert Witness
- CERCLA
- Insurance
- Defense Costs
- Cost Recovery
- Real Estate
- Consultant Liability
- Negligence
- Remediation
- Response Action Contractors
- Donovan
- Army Corps
- Rapanos
- Odors
- Nuisance
- Class Actions
- Hog Barn
- Kentucky
- Trespass
- Farming
- ISRA
- Informal Agency Action
- Administrative Hearing
- New Jersey
- Railroad
- Cancer
- Emissions
- Waste
- Air
- Combustion
- RCRA
- Speaking Engagements
- Third Circuit
- Toxic Torts
- Removal
- Federal Procedure
- Title V
- Clean Air Act
- Statute of Limitations
- Permits
- Supreme Court
- Superfund
- Cleanup
- Statute of Repose
- Multi-District Litigation
- Tolling
- Camp Lejeune
- Deeds
- Clean Water Act
- Wetlands
- Mineral Rights
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Enforcement Action
- Marcellus Shale
- Due Process
- Leases
- Exploration
- Royalties
- Drilling
- Oil and Gas
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
Last week the Third Circuit held that Combustion Equipment Associates, Inc. n/k/a Carter Day Industries, Inc. (“Carter Day”) was not protected from a contribution claim brought by Compaction Systems Corporation of Connecticut, Inc. and Compaction Systems Corporation (collectively, “Compaction”) for amounts Compaction was obligated to pay to the United States despite Carter Day having resolving its liability to the State of New Jersey for the same site. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection v. American Thermoplastics Corporation, et al., Nos. 18-2865 & 19-2243 (3d. Cir. Sept. 8, 2020). At issue was whether the settlement agreement between Carter Day and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”) addressed the same “matter” as the contribution claim brought by Compaction for response costs at the Combe Fill South Landfill Superfund Site (the “Combe Fill Site” or “Site”).
Shortly after the Combe Fill Site was added to the National Priorities List in 1983, NJDEP and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) entered into a cooperative agreement to allocate the remedial investigation and remedial action costs between the sovereigns for the Site. Further, the agreement specified that neither sovereign had the authority to “negotiate on behalf of the other.”
Based on proceedings in its Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, in 1990, Carter Day, a potentially responsible party (“PRP”), entered into a settlement agreement with NJDEP which, among other things, resolved Carter Day’s liability to New Jersey for the “entire Site.” Several years later, both EPA and NJDEP sued a number of PRPs, including Compaction, to recover their past costs incurred at the Site. In 2009, Compaction, along with a number of PRPs, settled its claims for past and future costs with both EPA and NJDEP and thereafter sought contribution from Carter Day for the amounts it became obligated to pay to the federal government under the settlement agreement. Carter Day, however, argued that its 1990 settlement with NJDEP shielded it from contribution claims under Section 113(f)(2) of CERCLA, which provides that “[a] person who has resolved its liability to the United States or a State in an administrative or judicially approved settlement shall not be liable for claims for contribution regarding matters addressed in the settlement.”
Overturning the decision of the District Court, the Third Circuit rejected Carter Day’s argument, reasoning that while there is a presumption that a settlement for response costs addresses a PRP’s responsibility for an entire site, there is no similar presumption that it covers liabilities to both the state and the United States. Carter Day’s settlement with NJDEP did not expressly define the “matters addressed” but upon analysis, the Court found that it was limited to remedial action costs incurred by the State of New Jersey. Among other things, the Court found that narrowly interpreting contribution protection "vindicates CERCLA’s goal of equitably distributing liability without extinguishing incentives to settle" and, further, that a comprehensive settlement would have been barred by the cooperative agreement between NJDEP and EPA.
This opinion serves as reminder to PRPs negotiating CERCLA settlements that while resolution of remediation claims with a State can bar future contribution claims based upon federal liability, such agreements need to be clear as to the scope of the matters addressed in the settlement. Failure to be mindful of this fact could leave a PRP open to an unexpected contribution claim under Section 113.