Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- Wisconsin District Court Allocates CERCLA Liability for Past and Future Response Costs
- Missouri Court Rejects "Bright-Line" Test for Determining Statute of Limitations Under CERCLA Section 107
- Louisiana Trial Court Enjoins EPA From Enforcement of Disparate Impact Regulations Under Title VI
- D.C. Circuit Continues to Afford Deference to Technical Agency Decisions
- SCOTUS to Resolve Scope of Agency NEPA Environmental Analysis
Topics
- Disparate Impact
- Environmental Justice
- Title VI
- Massachusetts
- Evidence
- Internal Investigation
- Citizens Suit
- Georgia
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
- FIFRA
- 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
- National Contingency Plan
- Divisibility
- Apportionment
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Strict Liability
- Utilities
- Public Utilities Commission
- Historic Resources
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- Ohio
- PFAS
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Commonwealth Court
- Fees
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Asbestos
- Martime
- Utah
- Tribal Lands
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- Gold King Mine
- New Mexico
- Delaware
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- FERC
- National Forest Management Act
- Endangered Species Act
- Chevron Deference
- United States Supreme Court
- HSCA
- Alter Ego
- Corporate Veil
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- PCBs
- Property Damage
- Building Materials
- First Circuit
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Innocent Party
- Brownfields
- Brownfield
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- PHMSA
- FOIA
- Effluents
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Pipelines
- Texas
- Missouri
- Injunction
- Coal Ash
- Spoliation
- Stormwater
- TMDL
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Michigan
- Drinking Water
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Penalties
- Clean Streams Law
- Hearing Board
- Arranger Liability
- Retroactive
- Sovereign Immunity
- Damages
- Stigma
- Property Value
- Tax assessment
- Fair Market Value
- Storage Tank
- Electric
- Fifth Circuit
- Indemnification
- Energy
- Ninth Circuit
- Arizona
- OPRA
- Attorney-Client
- Iowa
- Fourth Circuit
- Discovery Rule
- Eighth Circuit
- Administrative Appeals
- Taxes
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- Inspection
- Residential
- New York
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Natural Gas Act
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- D.C. Circuit
- HAPs
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Mercury
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Natural Gas
- Storage
- Fifth Amendment
- Flooding
- Takings Clause
- Spill Act
- Causation
- NEPA
- Interior
- Tenth Circuit
- Mineral Leasing Act
- California
- Zoning
- Act 13
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Eminent Domain
- Landfill
- Sixth Circuit
- Private Right of Action
- Illinois
- Water
- Citizen Suit
- Diligent Prosecution
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Montana
- Navigability
- Riverbed
- Indiana
- Seventh Circuit
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Green House Counsel
- Boiler MACT
- Consent Decree
- Rulemaking
- CISWI
- Enforcement
- Equity
- Laches
- Delay Notice
- EPA
- Second Circuit
- Contribution
- Declaratory Relief
- NPDES
- Procedure
- Standing
- Dimock
- Medical Monitoring
- Case Update
- Legislation
- Dukes
- Louisiana
- Certification
- Contamination
- CLE
- Decisions of Note
- Cases to Watch
- Discovery
- Expert Witness
- Privilege
- Work Product
- CERCLA
- Cost Recovery
- Defense Costs
- Insurance
- Real Estate
- Remediation
- Response Action Contractors
- Consultant Liability
- Negligence
- Rapanos
- Army Corps
- Donovan
- Hog Barn
- Kentucky
- Nuisance
- Class Actions
- Odors
- Trespass
- Farming
- New Jersey
- Informal Agency Action
- Administrative Hearing
- ISRA
- Air
- Cancer
- Combustion
- Emissions
- Railroad
- RCRA
- Waste
- Speaking Engagements
- Toxic Torts
- Federal Procedure
- Removal
- Third Circuit
- Clean Air Act
- Permits
- Statute of Limitations
- Title V
- Cleanup
- Superfund
- Supreme Court
- Multi-District Litigation
- Statute of Repose
- Tolling
- Camp Lejeune
- Enforcement Action
- Wetlands
- Deeds
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Marcellus Shale
- Clean Water Act
- Mineral Rights
- Due Process
- Leases
- Oil and Gas
- Royalties
- Drilling
- Exploration
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
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.
Polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”) are a group of synthetic chemicals developed in the late 1800’s for use in industrial applications. PCB mixtures are thick, oily fluids that are highly stable, non-flammable, and non-reactive. The widespread use of PCBs contributed to the great leaps in industrial technology and modernization. However, studies began to show that PCBs can be harmful to the environment and human health, and almost all production of PCBs ceased in the United States by 1978.
Delaware has identified impairment caused by PCBs in portions of the Delaware River and the Delaware Bay, as well as several freshwater streams throughout the state. This impairment includes the presence of PCBs in fish, requiring the State to issue fish consumption advisories. Delaware asserts that the PCBs causing this contamination originated largely from their use, storage, and disposal by third parties. The State filed a complaint against Monsanto, alleging that Monsanto’s manufacturing and sale of PCBs constituted public nuisance, trespass, and unjust enrichment. Monsanto filed a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss these claims.
Delaware relied primarily on two cases involving environmental contamination of property to support its public nuisance claim. Artesian Water Company v. Government of New Castle County, 1983 WL 17986 (Del. Ch. Ct.) (finding that groundwater use is a common or public right); Crystal Alexander v. Evraz Claymont Steel Holdings Inc., 2013 WL 8169799 (Del. Super. Ct.) (toxic emissions affecting adjacent property may constitute a nuisance). However, the Superior Court found these cases distinguishable on the basis that the defendants in each were involved in the direct pollution of an adjacent property, whereas Monsanto merely manufactured and sold its product to third parties. The Court agreed with Monsanto’s conclusion that product claims are not encompassed within the public nuisance doctrine and granted Monsanto’s motion to dismiss the claim, citing extensive support in Delaware case law.
The Court found that Delaware also failed to state a claim for trespass. First, while Delaware has regulatory control over the contaminated water bodies, which are held in public trust, the Court noted that the public trust doctrine is “intended to ensure that others have use of the same land,” and does not grant exclusive possession. New Jersey Dep’t of Environmental Protection v. Hess Corp., 2020 WL 1683180 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.). The Court noted that since the tort of trespass is an intrusion on a possessor’s interest in the exclusive possession of land, such exclusive possession essential to have standing to bring a trespass claim. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 158. Therefore, the Court found that Delaware does not have standing to sue for trespass to its water bodies held in public trust.
Second, Delaware failed to allege any intentional act by Monsanto to intrude on the water bodies in question. Instead, Delaware asserted that Monsanto was “substantially certain” that such an intrusion would result from their manufacture and sale of PCBs. However, the Court noted that to state a claim for trespass, a plaintiff must allege a direct causal relationship between the defendant’s conduct and the intrusion and that, generally, a defendant must have “ownership or control of the intruding instrumentality” in order to be liable for trespass. Parks Hiway Enterprises, LLC v. CEM Leasing, Inc., 995 P.2d 657 (Ala. 2000). Absent an allegation of control over the PCBs at the time the contamination of the water bodies occurred, the Court found that Delaware failed to state a claim for cause of action for trespass.
On the dismissal of Delaware’s public nuisance and trespass claims, the Superior Court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the unjust enrichment claim. Delaware maintains a separation between the superior court, its court of general jurisdiction, and the chancery court, which has exclusive jurisdiction over claims in equity. Although Delaware correctly pointed out that an unjust enrichment claim can be brought in the Superior Court as a measure of damages where liability is found, Crosse v. BCBSD, Inc., 836 A.2d 492 (Del. 2003), the Court found that absent a cause of action at law, unjust enrichment cannot be a stand-alone claim.