Determining the appropriate Statute of Limitations for claims brought pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 9601, et seq. (“CERCLA”), is often a tricky matter.  Usually, the issue arises in the context of determining whether a claim is properly brought under Section 107(a), 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a), for costs voluntarily incurred, or § 113(f), 42 U.S.C. § 9613(f), for costs incurred pursuant to a court order or approved settlement, as Section 107(a) claims may be subject to a six-year statute of limitations, while claims under Section 113(f) have a three-year limitations period.  However, in State of New York v. Next Millenium Realty, LLC, No. 12-2894-cv (2^nd Cir. Oct. 15, 2013), the Second Circuit turned its attention to a different distinction, the one between removal actions and remedial actions, as Section 107(a) claims “must be commenced … for a removal action, within 3 years after completion of the removal action [and] for a remedial action, within 6 years after initiation of physical on-site construction of the remedial action. . . .”  42 U.S.C. Section 9613(g)(2)(B).  In order to find the claims of the State of New York timely, the Court held that a water purification system in use for over 15 years was nevertheless a removal action and not a remedial action because, among other things, the measures were intended to “minimize and mitigate” damage from contamination and not to “permanently eliminate” it.  Id. at 24. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: CERCLA, Cleanup, Contamination, Cost Recovery, New Jersey, Procedure, Remediation, Removal, Second Circuit, Statute of Limitations, Superfund

For decades, it has been the unanswered question – what is the statute of limitations for a claim under New Jersey’s Spill Compensation and Control Act, N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11, et. seq. (the “Spill Act”)?  Unlike CERCLA, the Spill Act contains no express statute of limitations for private contribution actions.  Thus, trial courts have been left to fend for themselves and, as a result, have failed to achieve consensus.  Federal district courts have unanimously applied New Jersey’s six year limitations period for actions for damages to real property, while, until Friday, the only state decision was an unpublished trial court opinion holding that there is no limitations period for such claims.  But on August 23, 2013, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey, in the case of Morristown Assoc. v. Grant Oil Co., No. A-0313-11T3 (App. Div. Aug. 23, 2013), finally spoke and, in agreement with the federal courts, held that the six-year limitations period applies. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Cleanup, Contamination, Contribution, Cost Recovery, Decisions of Note, New Jersey, Private Right of Action, Remediation, Spill Act, Statute of Limitations, Statute of Repose, Tolling

One of the very first things I was told by the senior partner when I started practicing law was that there isn’t an honest mistake that can’t be fixed, except blowing the statute of limitations. As a result, my calendar has limitations periods blocked out weeks, months and in some cases years in advance, and if there’s ever a question of when it runs, I use the earliest date. The Tenth Circuit’s decision in Impact Energy Resources, LLC v. Salazar, Nos. 11-4043 & 11-4057 (Sept. 5, 2012 10^th Cir.), is a cautionary tale to those who may not be as conservative. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Administrative Procedures Act, Cases to Watch, Exploration, Federal Procedure, Interior, Leases, Mineral Leasing Act, Oil and Gas, Procedure, Public Lands, Statute of Limitations, Tenth Circuit, Tolling

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania issued a short but important decision this week concerning the applicable statute of limitations under Pennsylvania law for an insurance carrier’s allegedly improper refusal to accept the defense of its insured.  Wiseman Oil Co., Inc. v. TIG Insurance Co., Civ. Action No. 011-1011 (W.D. Pa.), is an environmental insurance case brought against an insurer for breach of contract and bad faith for failure to defend a CERCLA action.  After answering the complaint, the defendant insurer filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the action – filed in 2011 after the insured entered into a Consent Decree to resolve the underlying litigation – was time-barred because the insured’s claims accrued in 2004, when the insurer initially refused to provide the insured with a defense. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: CERCLA, Decisions of Note, Duty to Defend, Insurance Coverage, Statute of Limitations, Superfund, Uncategorized

Although CERCLA has been around for many years, courts are still interpreting both its parts and its whole.  In recent years, the Supreme Court has tried to direct traffic between Section 107(a), which permits PRPs to bring cost recovery actions against other PRPs for “any necessary costs of response incurred” by the PRP bringing suit, and Section 113(f), which permits PRPs who have been sued under section 106 or 107(a) or have entered into a judicially-approved settlement with a federal or state government resolving CERCLA liability to bring actions for contribution against other PRPs to recover amounts paid in excess of their equitable share of liability.   Because these two provisions have differing limitations periods, burdens of proof, and allow for different forms of recovery against multiple defendants, the distinction is often significant. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: CERCLA, Cleanup, Cost Recovery, Decisions of Note, Eleventh Circuit, Enforcement Action, Statute of Limitations, Superfund, Waste

This week, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana took a look at statute of limitations issues in the context of state law claims for trespass and nuisance in contamination cases in the case of Burley v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co., 2012 MT 28 (Feb. 7, 2012).  The issue, which was certified to the Court from the United States District Court for the District of Montana was the following: Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Cleanup, Montana, Nuisance, Real Estate, Statute of Limitations, Toxic Torts, Trespass

Much attention has been paid recently to the terms of oil and gas leases in light of the increasing exploration and production activity in the Marcellus Shale region.  But in other parts of the country, particularly Texas and Oklahoma, oil and gas royalties are old hat.  Which may be why, in a December 16, 2011 decision, the Supreme Court of Texas held that a lessor of gas rights was barred by the statute of limitations from recovering underpayments made by Shell Oil Company – which had unabashedly admitted at trial that it had underpaid the plaintiff’s predecessor-in-interest for at least 3 years, and possibly ten years, and that in doing so it had breached its contract. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Breach of Contract, Leases, Marcellus Shale, Oil and Gas, Statute of Limitations, Tolling

Ten years after purchasing land in Detroit from the Michigan State Transportation Commission, Dietrich Bergmann sued that Commission and the Michigan Department of Transportation (collectively the “Department”) under CERCLA, seeking costs for investigation and remediation of his property.  The parties settled their dispute resulting in the district court’s entering a consent decree in 1991.  The decree obligated the Department to remediate Bergmann’s property in approximately 4 years .  If the Department didn’t in good faith attempt to meet the remediation deadline, then it was required to make liquidated damage payments to Bergmann of $2,000 at the beginning of each month that the remediation was incomplete. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: CERCLA, Consent Decree, Cost Recovery, Enforcement, Equity, Laches, Statute of Limitations

On October 12, 2011, in a lengthy opinion that concludes with recognizing plaintiffs’ frustration, Judge Terrence McVerry, of the Western District of Pennsylvania, granted defendants’ motions to dismiss all claims brought by governmental plaintiffs against current and former owners of a coal-fired power plant. In United States v. EME Homer City Generation L.P., et al., the U.S. and state intervenors (Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York) alleged that defendants violated the federal Clean Air Act (“CAA”)’s PSD (prevention of significant deterioration) and Title V requirements. The crux of plaintiffs’ arguments was that defendants failed to obtain necessary permits, and that more stringent CAA emissions standards applied to projects at the power plant’s modified units to reduce SO2 emissions. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Air, Clean Air Act, Decisions of Note, Permits, Statute of Limitations, Title V