
Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- New Jersey Appellate Division Gives Clarity to Spill Act Statute of Limitations for State Claims
- 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
Topics
- NJDEP
- Connecticut
- Pollutants
- Federal Land Policy and Management Act
- Council on Environmental Quality
- Agency Action
- Loper Bright
- New Jersey Civil Rights Act
- Public Trust Doctrine
- 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
- Successor Liability
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Operator Liability
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Federal Circuit
- Environmental Covenants
- National Contingency Plan
- Apportionment
- Divisibility
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Strict Liability
- Historic Resources
- Utilities
- Public Utilities Commission
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- Ohio
- PFAS
- Arbitration
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Fees
- Commonwealth Court
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Martime
- Asbestos
- Utah
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- New Mexico
- Tribal Lands
- Gold King Mine
- 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
- PCBs
- Building Materials
- First Circuit
- Property Damage
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Brownfield
- Innocent Party
- Brownfields
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- PHMSA
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- FOIA
- Effluents
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Texas
- Coal Ash
- Injunction
- Spoliation
- Stormwater
- TMDL
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Drinking Water
- Michigan
- 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
- Attorney-Client
- OPRA
- Iowa
- Discovery Rule
- Fourth Circuit
- Eighth Circuit
- Taxes
- Administrative Appeals
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Residential
- Inspection
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- New York
- Natural Gas Act
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- HAPs
- D.C. Circuit
- Mercury
- Takings
- Condemnation
- Storage
- Natural Gas
- Flooding
- Fifth Amendment
- Takings Clause
- Spill Act
- Causation
- NEPA
- Interior
- Mineral Leasing Act
- Tenth Circuit
- California
- Zoning
- Act 13
- 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
- Montana
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Riverbed
- Navigability
- Seventh Circuit
- Indiana
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Green House Counsel
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Delay Notice
- Rulemaking
- Equity
- CISWI
- Consent Decree
- Enforcement
- EPA
- Laches
- Boiler MACT
- Declaratory Relief
- Second Circuit
- Contribution
- 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
- Consultant Liability
- Negligence
- Remediation
- Response Action Contractors
- Donovan
- Army Corps
- Rapanos
- Nuisance
- Class Actions
- Hog Barn
- Kentucky
- Trespass
- Farming
- Odors
- 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
- 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
In Frazer/Exton Development, L.P. v. United States, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a takings claim against the federal government relating to environmental contamination because the appellants, current and former landowners of the site at issue, filed their lawsuit more than 6 years after environmental remediation was complete. Frazer/Exton Development, L.P. v. United States, No. 2019-2143 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 7, 2020).
The case related to the Foot Mineral Superfund Site located in Chester County, Pennsylvania (the “Site”). During WWII and for some time after, the federal government used the Site for various industrial processes which contaminated on-site soils and groundwater. In 1998, appellant Frazer/Exton acquired the Site with full knowledge of the contamination and assumed responsibility for a consent order that required it to complete a remedial investigation and feasibility study. EPA eventually selected a permanent remedy for the Site, and in 2011, the remediation of the Site was completed. Another appellant, Whiteland, acquired the Site in 2016. A year later, in 2017, Whiteland executed an environmental covenant which effectuated land restrictions that were previously approved by EPA.
Frazer/Exton and Whiteland filed suit in the Claims Court in 2018, alleging that the federal government’s operations and disposal methods at the Site resulted in environmental contamination, which effected a physical taking without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment in the United States Constitution. The Claims Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, holding that Frazer/Exton and Whiteland’s takings claims accrued in 2011 and the six-year statute of limitations had expired before the suit was filed. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed.
The Federal Circuit explained that when a taking is caused by a gradual physical process (such as environmental contamination), the takings claim does not accrue until the situation has “stabilized,” meaning “when the environmental damage has made such substantial inroads into the property that the permanent nature of the taking is evident and the extent of the damage is foreseeable.” In other words, damages need not be complete nor fully calculable for the limitations period to run. The Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision that the taking “stabilized” no later than 2011 when remediation activities at the Site were complete.
Appellants argued that the claim accrued in 2017 when EPA imposed land use restrictions because, in Appellants’ view, there was no predictability or permanence as to how Appellants’ property rights would be affected until the restriction were in place. But the Court rejected this argument because the land use restrictions were regulatory, rather than physical takings, and therefore were irrelevant as to the physical takings claims that Appellants had pled. The decision is a valuable reminder of the importance of conservatively calculating any limitations period for a cost recovery lawsuit.