Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- Federal District Court Rejects Motion to Enjoin Biden Administration’s Section 401 Clean Water Act Rule
- Federal District Court Holds that CERCLA Procedure for Natural Resource Damage Assessments Not Required as a Matter of Law
- Local Law Prohibiting Natural Gas Piping is Preempted, Ninth Circuit Holds
- District Court Failed to Consider Maui Factors as to Mining Company's Groundwater Discharges, Tenth Circuit Holds
- Federal District Court Excludes Expert Testimony in Flint Water Cases as Unreliable
Topics
- 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
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Operator Liability
- Federal Circuit
- Environmental Covenants
- Apportionment
- National Contingency Plan
- Divisibility
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Strict Liability
- Utilities
- Public Utilities Commission
- Historic Resources
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- Ohio
- PFAS
- Arbitration
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Commonwealth Court
- Fees
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Asbestos
- Martime
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- Gold King Mine
- Utah
- New Mexico
- Tribal Lands
- Delaware
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- FERC
- National Forest Management Act
- Endangered Species Act
- Chevron Deference
- United States Supreme Court
- HSCA
- Corporate Veil
- Alter Ego
- 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
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Texas
- Injunction
- Coal Ash
- Spoliation
- Stormwater
- TMDL
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Drinking Water
- Michigan
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Hearing Board
- Civil Penalties
- Clean Streams Law
- Arranger Liability
- Retroactive
- Sovereign Immunity
- Tax assessment
- Fair Market Value
- Damages
- Stigma
- Property Value
- Storage Tank
- Energy
- Electric
- Fifth Circuit
- Indemnification
- Ninth Circuit
- Arizona
- OPRA
- Attorney-Client
- Iowa
- Fourth Circuit
- Discovery Rule
- Eighth Circuit
- Taxes
- Administrative Appeals
- 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
- Diligent Prosecution
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Citizen Suit
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Montana
- Navigability
- Riverbed
- Seventh Circuit
- Indiana
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Green House Counsel
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Delay Notice
- EPA
- Boiler MACT
- Rulemaking
- CISWI
- Enforcement
- Consent Decree
- Equity
- Laches
- Contribution
- Declaratory Relief
- Second Circuit
- NPDES
- Procedure
- Standing
- Dimock
- Medical Monitoring
- Case Update
- Legislation
- Certification
- Contamination
- Dukes
- Louisiana
- CLE
- Decisions of Note
- Cases to Watch
- Discovery
- Expert Witness
- Privilege
- Work Product
- CERCLA
- Cost Recovery
- Defense Costs
- Insurance
- Real Estate
- Negligence
- Remediation
- Response Action Contractors
- Consultant Liability
- Donovan
- Rapanos
- Army Corps
- Class Actions
- Odors
- Trespass
- Farming
- Hog Barn
- Kentucky
- Nuisance
- Informal Agency Action
- New Jersey
- Administrative Hearing
- ISRA
- Waste
- Air
- Cancer
- Combustion
- Emissions
- Railroad
- RCRA
- Speaking Engagements
- Removal
- Third Circuit
- Toxic Torts
- Federal Procedure
- Clean Air Act
- Permits
- Statute of Limitations
- Title V
- Cleanup
- Superfund
- Supreme Court
- Multi-District Litigation
- Statute of Repose
- Tolling
- Camp Lejeune
- Due Process
- Mineral Rights
- Enforcement Action
- Wetlands
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Deeds
- Clean Water Act
- Marcellus Shale
- Exploration
- Leases
- Oil and Gas
- Royalties
- Drilling
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
- Danielle N. Bagwell
- Brielle A. Brown
- Kate Campbell
- Stephen D. Daly
- Thomas M. Duncan
- Kelly A. Hanna
- Jessica D. Hunt
- Todd D. Kantorczyk
- Dylan G. LaMorte
- Brandon P. Matsnev
- Giselle F. Mazmanian
- Nicole R. Moshang
- Shoshana (Suzanne Ilene) Schiller
- Diana A. Silva
- Alice Douglas Solomon
- Natalia P. Teekah
- Garrett D. Trego
In New Jersey, a property owner affected by a release from an underground storage tank cannot succeed on a private nuisance or trespass action absent demonstration of the tank owner’s intentional, negligent or reckless conduct. Moreover, neither the tank owner’s insurer’s agreement to remediate the affected property nor the migration of the leaked substance onto the affected property conveys the affected property owner third party beneficiary status such that the property owner can maintain a bad faith action against the insurance provider. In Ross v. Lowitz, No. A-101-13 (N.J. Aug. 6, 2015), the New Jersey Supreme Court recently issued a decision narrowing the avenues to recovery of property owners affected by a release from a neighboring underground storage tank by clarifying these two rules.
In Ross, plaintiffs, who owned a home affected by the release of fuel oil from a neighbor’s underground storage tank, brought suit against the current and former owners of the neighboring property and their insurance providers. Plaintiffs discovered the contamination only after having entering into a contract to sell their property. Upon discovery, the prospective buyer rescinded the sale. Seeking damages related to remediation, loss of use of their home, and the diminution of its value, the plaintiffs alleged private nuisance, trespass, negligence, strict liability, and Spill Act liability against all defendants and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing against the insurance providers, despite not being named insureds on the insurance contracts.
After plaintiffs brought suit, the defendant insurance providers arranged for remediation of the plaintiffs’ property and compensated plaintiffs for their associated out-of-pocket losses, and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection later inspected the site and issued a No Further Action Letter. With remediation having been satisfactorily completed, the plaintiffs dropped their strict liability and Spill Act claims that sought only remediation costs. The lower courts entered summary judgment in favor of defendants on plaintiffs’ remaining claims, despite their seemingly sympathetic situation.
Reviewing the dismissal of plaintiffs’ private nuisance and trespass claims, the New Jersey Supreme Court determined that the maintenance of an underground fuel oil storage tank was not an “unreasonably dangerous” activity that would warrant strict liability and that imposing liability for passive migration of contaminants from an underground tank or under Section 839 of the Restatement 2d of Torts would be improper absent some demonstration of the storage tank owners’ negligent, reckless, or intentional misconduct. With no evidence of such misconduct on the record, the Court upheld the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ nuisance and trespass claims.
The Court also upheld the lower courts’ dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims against the insurers. The Court held that the plaintiffs were not third-party beneficiaries of the neighbors’ insurance policy or the insurance companies’ agreement to remediate their property because they were not named insureds nor did the insurance companies intend that they be beneficiaries to the contracts. Finally, the Court ruled that the mere migration of fuel oil from the neighbors’ storage tank did not convey third-party beneficiary status on the plaintiffs.
In the end, though plaintiffs were not responsible for remediation costs of their property, their further recovery under private nuisance, trespass, or third-party beneficiary claims was barred.