
Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- Colorado District Court Puts Brakes on Denver Dam Work Pending Environmental Review
- Tenth Circuit Applies Statute of Limitations That Is “Closest Fit” in CERCLA Action, Overrules Earlier Precedent
- New Jersey Weighs in on State Climate Tort Claims
- First Circuit Holds that Smelling Vehicle Exhaust Constitutes Injury-in-Fact under Clean Air Act
- Ninth Circuit Upholds Vacatur of Some Oil and Gas Leases
Topics
- NJDEP
- Connecticut
- Pollutants
- Federal Land Policy and Management Act
- Agency Action
- Loper Bright
- Council on Environmental Quality
- Public Trust Doctrine
- New Jersey Civil Rights Act
- Disparate Impact
- Title VI
- Environmental Justice
- Massachusetts
- Internal Investigation
- Evidence
- Citizens Suit
- FIFRA
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
- Georgia
- 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
- Solvents
- National Priorities List
- Vapor Intrusion
- 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
- Martime
- Asbestos
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- New Mexico
- Tribal Lands
- Gold King Mine
- Utah
- Delaware
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- FERC
- National Forest Management Act
- Chevron Deference
- Endangered Species Act
- United States Supreme Court
- 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
- Coal Ash
- Injunction
- Spoliation
- Stormwater
- TMDL
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Michigan
- Drinking Water
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Clean Streams Law
- Civil Penalties
- Hearing Board
- Arranger Liability
- Sovereign Immunity
- Retroactive
- Tax assessment
- Damages
- Property Value
- Stigma
- Fair Market Value
- Storage Tank
- Indemnification
- Energy
- Fifth Circuit
- Electric
- Arizona
- Ninth Circuit
- OPRA
- Attorney-Client
- Iowa
- Discovery Rule
- Fourth Circuit
- Eighth Circuit
- Taxes
- Administrative Appeals
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- Residential
- Inspection
- New York
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- Natural Gas Act
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- D.C. Circuit
- Mercury
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- HAPs
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Storage
- Natural Gas
- Takings Clause
- Flooding
- Fifth Amendment
- Spill Act
- Causation
- NEPA
- Interior
- Mineral Leasing Act
- Tenth Circuit
- California
- Zoning
- Act 13
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Eminent Domain
- Landfill
- Private Right of Action
- Sixth Circuit
- Water
- Illinois
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Citizen Suit
- Diligent Prosecution
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Montana
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Riverbed
- Navigability
- Seventh Circuit
- Indiana
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Green House Counsel
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- EPA
- Laches
- Boiler MACT
- Delay Notice
- Rulemaking
- Equity
- CISWI
- Consent Decree
- Enforcement
- Contribution
- Declaratory Relief
- Second Circuit
- Procedure
- Standing
- NPDES
- Medical Monitoring
- Dimock
- Legislation
- Case Update
- Dukes
- Certification
- Contamination
- Louisiana
- CLE
- Discovery
- Work Product
- Cases to Watch
- Privilege
- Decisions of Note
- Expert Witness
- Cost Recovery
- CERCLA
- Insurance
- Defense Costs
- Real Estate
- Response Action Contractors
- Consultant Liability
- Negligence
- Remediation
- Donovan
- Rapanos
- Army Corps
- Nuisance
- Class Actions
- Hog Barn
- Kentucky
- Trespass
- Farming
- Odors
- New Jersey
- ISRA
- Informal Agency Action
- Administrative Hearing
- Railroad
- Cancer
- Emissions
- Waste
- Air
- Combustion
- RCRA
- Speaking Engagements
- Third Circuit
- Toxic Torts
- Removal
- Federal Procedure
- Permits
- Title V
- Clean Air Act
- Statute of Limitations
- Cleanup
- Supreme Court
- Superfund
- Tolling
- Camp Lejeune
- Statute of Repose
- Multi-District Litigation
- Due Process
- Deeds
- Clean Water Act
- Wetlands
- Mineral Rights
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Enforcement Action
- Marcellus Shale
- Leases
- Exploration
- Royalties
- Drilling
- Oil and Gas
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
Earlier this month, in the case of New Jersey Dep’t of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) v. Navillus Group, Docket No. A-4726-13T3 (N.J. App. Div. Jan. 14, 2016), the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey determined that there was insufficient evidence on summary judgment to hold the principal of a company personally liable for part of a $2 million judgment in an action brought pursuant to the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act, N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11, et seq. (the “Spill Act”) to recover costs expended by the State to clean up a contaminated property in Franklin Township owned by Jim Sullivan, Inc. The court also reversed the trial court’s finding of liability against the defendants under a theory of unjust enrichment.
The case involves two family-owned companies. In 1999, the Navillus Group, a general partnership composed of the children of James Sullivan, Jr. purchased tax sale certificates for the former Accutherm Inc. site in Franklin Township for the purpose of taking ownership of the property through foreclosure, although the company apparently did so with a check written from an account in the name of Jim Sullivan, Inc., a corporation in which the same Sullivan siblings were shareholders or employees. Approximately one year after the foreclosure, Navillus conveyed the property to Jim Sullivan, Inc. for $1.00.
On summary judgment, the trial court found Navillus, Jim Sullivan, Inc. and the Sullivan siblings, as general partners of Navillus, all liable under the Spill Act for the costs of remediation and for unjust enrichment. The trial court also pierced the corporate veil of Jim Sullivan, Inc. and additionally held patriarch James Sullivan, Jr. personally liable, finding that there had been a comingling of assets based solely on the assumption that funds from Jim Sullivan, Inc. were used to purchase the tax certificates. The Sullivan defendants appealed on several grounds, and the appellate court upheld the judgment under the Spill Act as to all of the defendants except James Sullivan, Jr., but reversed the finding of liability under the claim of unjust enrichment.
In its analysis of the veil-piercing issue, the Appellate Court invoked the New Jersey Supreme Court’s 1983 ruling in State, Dep’t of Envtl. Prot. v. Ventron Corp., 468 A.2d 150 (N.J. 1983), which held that the doctrine of piercing the veil is used to prevent a corporation from being used to “perpetrate fraud, to accomplish a crime, or otherwise to evade the law,” or when an individual uses the corporation as an alter ego and abuses the corporate form in order to advance his own personal interests. In the case before it, the Court found that there was insufficient undisputed evidence on the record to support the trial court’s summary judgment decision to pierce the corporate veil under these principles. First, there was no positive evidence that a check from James Sullivan, Inc. was used to purchase the tax certificates, as this was merely an assumption made by James Sullivan III while testifying at trial. Moreover, even if James Sullivan, Inc. had purchase the certifications, the court held that “[w]riting a check for another entity on one occasion, during the more than twenty-year existence of Jim Sullivan, Inc., hardly demonstrates a pattern of comingling assets that might serve as a foundation for piercing the veil.” Finally, the court found no evidence that the transfer of the property from Navillus to Jim Sullivan, Inc., or the later distribution of other assets from the corporation, were done with an intent to evade liability.
On the issue of the unjust enrichment claim, the court also found that there was insufficient evidence on the record to support the trial court’s decision. The doctrine of unjust enrichment is an equitable principle that a person shall not be allowed to unjustly enrich himself at the expense of another. But the court found that the NJDEP did not present any proof that the property’s cleanup increased the property’s value or made it any more marketable. In assuming the theory of unjust enrichment liability was even applicable to Spill Act cases, the court said it “fail[ed] to discern how the individual Sullivan defendants, who never individually owned the site, were enriched by its cleanup.” Further, the court found, “neither the parties nor the trial court addressed how James Sullivan Inc. was enriched.”