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
- FIFRA
- Georgia
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
- 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
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Successor Liability
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Operator Liability
- Federal Circuit
- Environmental Covenants
- Divisibility
- Apportionment
- National Contingency Plan
- 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
- Gold King Mine
- New Mexico
- Utah
- Tribal Lands
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- Delaware
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- National Forest Management Act
- FERC
- 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
- Property Damage
- Building Materials
- First Circuit
- PCBs
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Brownfields
- Brownfield
- Innocent Party
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- PHMSA
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- FOIA
- Effluents
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Texas
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Injunction
- Coal Ash
- Spoliation
- TMDL
- Stormwater
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Drinking Water
- Michigan
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Clean Streams Law
- Hearing Board
- Civil Penalties
- Arranger Liability
- Sovereign Immunity
- Retroactive
- Fair Market Value
- Damages
- Stigma
- Property Value
- Tax assessment
- Storage Tank
- Fifth Circuit
- Indemnification
- Electric
- Energy
- 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
- Causation
- Spill Act
- NEPA
- Interior
- Tenth Circuit
- Mineral Leasing Act
- California
- Act 13
- Zoning
- Insurance Coverage
- Duty to Defend
- Eminent Domain
- Landfill
- Sixth Circuit
- Private Right of Action
- Illinois
- Water
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Citizen Suit
- Diligent Prosecution
- 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
- Rulemaking
- CISWI
- Consent Decree
- Enforcement
- Equity
- Laches
- Delay Notice
- EPA
- Boiler MACT
- Second Circuit
- Contribution
- Declaratory Relief
- Standing
- NPDES
- Procedure
- Medical Monitoring
- Dimock
- Case Update
- Legislation
- Dukes
- Louisiana
- Certification
- Contamination
- CLE
- Discovery
- Expert Witness
- Privilege
- Work Product
- Decisions of Note
- Cases to Watch
- CERCLA
- Cost Recovery
- Defense Costs
- Insurance
- Real Estate
- Response Action Contractors
- Consultant Liability
- Negligence
- Remediation
- Army Corps
- Donovan
- Rapanos
- Kentucky
- Nuisance
- Class Actions
- Odors
- Trespass
- Farming
- Hog Barn
- Administrative Hearing
- ISRA
- New Jersey
- Informal Agency Action
- Combustion
- Emissions
- Railroad
- RCRA
- Waste
- Air
- Cancer
- Speaking Engagements
- Federal Procedure
- Removal
- Third Circuit
- Toxic Torts
- Statute of Limitations
- Title V
- Clean Air Act
- Permits
- Cleanup
- Superfund
- Supreme Court
- Camp Lejeune
- Multi-District Litigation
- Statute of Repose
- Tolling
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Deeds
- Clean Water Act
- Marcellus Shale
- Due Process
- Mineral Rights
- Enforcement Action
- Wetlands
- Royalties
- Drilling
- Exploration
- Leases
- Oil and Gas
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
This week, in the case of Smith v. ConocoPhillips Pipe Line Co., No. 14-2191 (8th Cir. Sept. 15, 2015), the Eighth Circuit overturned a district court’s grant of a certification to a class comprised of property owners who alleged that the contamination of a neighboring property, and their fear of its spread, was a nuisance. The Eighth Circuit held that the plaintiffs did not provide evidence that their own properties were contaminated and thus denied class certification based on the plaintiffs’ failure to demonstrate a common injury.
The case arose out of the leakage of approximately 100 gallons of leaded gasoline from an underground pipeline in the 1960s. A predecessor to the defendant Phillips 66 Pipeline, LLC was the owner of the pipeline at the time of the leak. In 2002, Phillips discovered that a small number of residential properties on and nearby the property where the leak occurred were contaminated. Phillips purchased the contaminated properties from the homeowners, demolished the homes, excavated impacted soils, and installed a network of on- and off-site wells to monitor the potential spread of the contamination. Still, in 2011, the plaintiffs, a group of neighboring property owners, brought a putative class action alleging negligence and nuisance claims against Phillips and sought monetary damages for diminution of property values and injunctive relief compelling the full remediation of the contaminated property. A second proposed class sought recovery for medical monitoring.
Groundwater analysis demonstrated that, while the levels of the relevant contaminants, BTEX and lead, in on-site wells were high, the levels of the same substances in off-site wells were all below protection standards. Testing of drinking water in 2011 on 11 properties, including those of the named plaintiffs, showed either no detectable levels of contamination or contamination in concentrations below laboratory reporting limits. Nevertheless, the plaintiffs’ expert, a geologist, opined that the off-site plume of contamination could have been considerably larger in the past, although he did not opine on which properties may have been affected by the once-larger plume or which property owners were presently in specific danger of exposure to the subject contaminants.
The district court granted certification to a class of property owners within .25 miles of the site on the negligence claim for damages and injunctive relief, on the theory that "pockets of contamination" might exist within that geographic radius. Certification of the medical monitoring class was denied on the basis that there was no evidence of actual exposure to the spill contaminants.
However, drawing on consistent decisions from the Fourth Circuit, Fifth Circuit, and the appellate courts of Michigan, Kansas, Utah, and Ohio, the Eighth Circuit overturned the district court's certification order, concluding that a nuisance claim involving a sub-surface spill must be supported by some evidence of “physical invasion” or actual contamination and that it could not rest solely on the plaintiffs’ alleged fear of contamination or alleged property devaluation. In so holding, the court stated that “the putative class fear of contamination spreading from the … leak site to harm their property is not a sufficient injury to support a claim for common law nuisance in the absence of proof.”
The Eighth Circuit’s decision stands as an important analysis of common law nuisance doctrine and sets a reasonable bar for future putative classes by requiring evidence of actual injury or actual contamination.