In Barclay Lofts LLC v. PPG Industries, Inc., Case No. 20-CV-1694, 2024 WL 4224731 (E.D. Wis. Sept. 18, 2024), a United States District Court in Wisconsin, after deciding several threshold issues under CERCLA, allocated liability for past and future response costs to clean up a contaminated site based upon a detailed analysis of the operational and material handling practices of the potentially responsible parties.  The decision offers insights about the facts that a court may find compelling and the factors that a court may apply to reach an equitable CERCLA allocation among responsible parties. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Allocation, CERCLA, Cleanup, Contamination, Contribution, Cost Recovery, Operator Liability, Owner Liability, PCBs, Potentially Responsible Parties, Remediation, Solvents, Superfund

On September 27, 2024, in Short Creek Development, LLC v. MFA Incorporated, No. 22-05021-CV-SW-WBG, 2024 WL 4326815 (W.D. Mo. Sept. 27, 2024), Magistrate Judge W. Brian Gaddy determined Plaintiffs’ claim under Section 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) was barred by the applicable statute of limitations as “physical on-site construction of the remedial action” occurred more than six years prior to when Plaintiffs brought their lawsuit.  Specifically, the Magistrate Judge found that costs related to a leachate collection system constructed approximately a year before the adoption of a Record of Decision (“ROD”) amendment outlining a permanent remedy for the Orongo-Duenweg Mining Belt Superfund Site (the “Site”) was the beginning of the six-year limitations period.   In doing so, the Court rejected adoption of a “bright-line” rule that remedial actions begun before adoption of a final remedial plan do not trigger the limitations period.  Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: CERCLA, Cleanup, Contamination, Cost Recovery, Groundwater, Landfill, Mining, Missouri, Remediation, Removal, Statute of Limitations, Superfund, Waste

This month, in Markmik, LLC v. Packer (unreported decision, No. 23-P-736), the Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed a trial court’s finding that a less expensive cleanup option requiring buyers to accept an activity and use limitation (“AUL”), with no diminution in value damages, was appropriate given a guaranty by sellers that was silent about the level of cleanup committed to. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Breach of Contract, Cleanup, Contamination, Cost Recovery, Damages, Groundwater, Massachusetts, Property Value, Real Estate, Remediation, Vapor Intrusion

On April 26, 2023, the United States Court of Federal Claims ordered the federal government to reimburse Shell U.S.A. and several other oil companies for all cleanup costs, including interest, associated with the cleanup of aviation gas (“avgas”) at a site polluted during World War II efforts. Shell U.S.A., Inc. et al. v. United States, 2023 WL 3090659 at *10 (Fed. Cl. 2023). This was the third such case in which the oil companies were seeking contractual indemnification for costs pursuant to the Contract Settlement Act and the only issue of significance addressed by the Court was whether the Plaintiffs were entitled to recover statutory interest that they previously paid under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”). Ultimately, the Court held that the plain reading of CERCLA includes interest as a “charge,” and the government was not immune from paying those costs.  Id. at *8. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: California, CERCLA, Cleanup, Contamination, Court of Federal Claims, Damages, Indemnification, Sovereign Immunity, Superfund

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9601, et seq., is best known for setting forth a comprehensive mechanism to cleanup hazardous waste sites under a restoration-based approach and for imposing liability on potentially responsible parties. What is less well known, and what is at issue in the latest decision to come out of litigation surrounding the 2015 Gold King Mine release, is CERCLA’s provisions that allow certain governmental entities who act as environmental trustees to recover money damages known as Natural Resource Damages (“NRDs”) from responsible parties for injuries to natural resources caused, directly or indirectly, from the release of hazardous substances, above and beyond the costs to clean up the contamination.  In In re Gold King Mine Release in San Juan Cnty., Colorado, on Aug. 5, 2015, No. 16-CV-931-WJ-LF, 2023 WL 2914718 (D. N.M. Apr. 12, 2023) (“In Re Gold Mine”), the Court held that CERCLA limited the Navajo Nation’s use of NRDs but also that CERCLA did not preempt state tort claims seeking restorative damages.  Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: CERCLA, Contamination, Damages, Drinking Water, Gold King Mine, Mining, Natural Resource Damages, New Mexico, Property Damage, Public Lands, Superfund

In September 2020, I wrote a Litigation Blog post about the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Nanouk v. United States, 974 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2020), which considered whether the so-called discretionary function exception barred tort claims against the government in connection with its lengthy, haphazard cleanup of a PCB hotspot near a Cold War-era military installation in Alaska. As I explained in that article, the exception bars tort claims that are based on discretionary government conduct—often following a policy-based analysis—but not claims that are based on simple negligence by government officials.  Because cleanup protocols for such bases were generally grounded in economic and national security policy, the Ninth Circuit held the exception barred all claims asserted by the plaintiff, whose adjacent land was impacted by the PCBs, except one claim: that after deciding to undertake the cleanup in 1990, the government simply failed to do it for 13 years. The Court remanded that issue, instructing the government to proffer evidence showing that the delay in effectuating the cleanup was likewise policy based.  On remand, the trial court addressed this issue in denying without prejudice the United States' Motion to Dismiss.  Nanouk v. United States, Case No. 3:15-cv-00221-RRB (Mar. 15, 2023).    Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Alaska, Case Update, Cleanup, Contamination, Federal Tort Claims Act, Negligence, Nuisance, Odors, PCBs, Property Damage, Remediation, Removal, Sovereign Immunity, Toxic Torts, Trespass

In Emhart Industries, Inc. v. New England Container Company, Inc., et al., No. 06-218 WES, 2022 WL 15437874 (D.R.I. Oct. 27, 2022), a federal court addressed the parameters for arranger liability under CERCLA where Defendants sent drums with residual hazardous substances for reconditioning.  The Court denied summary judgment for Defendants, finding liability depends on Defendant’s intent to dispose, which is a fact intensive analysis dependent “foremost on intentional steps Defendants took toward the goal of disposal, but also asks whether the product was useful, if Defendants knew of the hazardousness, and the state of the hazardous substances at the time of the transaction.” Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Arranger Liability, CERCLA, Contamination, Contribution, Cost Recovery, Potentially Responsible Parties, Superfund

Stanford University can proceed with its lawsuit against HP Inc. and Agilent Technologies, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled on September 19, 2022, holding that because certain soil contamination was a “continuous” or abatable nuisance or trespass, Stanford’s nuisance and trespass claims were not time barred and could continue.  Accordingly, the court denied HP and Agilent’s motion for summary judgment on Stanford’s nuisance and trespass claims. Bd. of Trs. of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Agilent Techs., Inc., No. 18-cv-01199 (N.D. Ca. Sept. 19, 2022). Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: California, CERCLA, Contamination, Discovery Rule, Nuisance, PCBs, Solvents, Statute of Limitations, Superfund, Trespass

The post was authored by summer associate Nik Hansen.

The State of Delaware brought claims against former PCB manufacturer Monsanto Company for the environmental contamination caused by PCB products in Delaware waterways. On July 11, 2022, in State of Delaware v. Monsanto Co., C.A. No. N21C-09-179, the Delaware Superior Court found that the State failed to state valid claims for public nuisance, trespass, and unjust enrichment against Monsanto. In its three-part holding, the Court held that product-related public nuisance claims are not cognizable in the state of Delaware, that the State does not have standing to bring trespass claims against resources it holds in public trust, and that unjust enrichment cannot be brought as a stand-alone claim in the superior court. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Contamination, Delaware, Nuisance, PCBs, Standing, Trespass

On May 18, 2022 in York et al. v. Northrop Grumman Corp. Guidance and Electronics Co. Inc. et al., No. 21-cv-03251 (W.D. Mo.), a Missouri federal court dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint alleging negligence, nuisance and trespass from alleged groundwater contamination, finding the claims were preempted by an existing consent decree. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: CERCLA, Cleanup, Consent Decree, Contamination, Injunction, Missouri, Negligence, Nuisance, Preemption, Property Value, Superfund, Trespass, Water