A recent decision from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania offers insight into cost recovery claims under both the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) and Pennsylvania's Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act (“HSCA”).  On March 6, 2026, in Blettner Avenue, LLC v. Central Uniform Services, Inc., the Middle District denied Defendants Rental Uniform Services, Inc. (“Rental Uniform Services”) and Cintas Corporation (“Cintas”)’s motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff Blettner Avenue, LLC (“Blettner”)’s HSCA claim, shedding light on HSCA’s time limitation provision and the scope of “response costs” under the statute.  On the other hand, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Blettner’s CERCLA claim, finding Blettner failed to comply with National Contingency Plan (“NCP”) requirements.  The decision provides useful insight for practitioners to consider regarding statute of limitation under HSCA, the scope of “response costs” under HSCA and CERCLA, and NCP compliance under CERCLA. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: CERCLA, Cleanup, Contamination, Damages, Groundwater, HSCA, National Contingency Plan, Pennsylvania, Remediation, Statute of Limitations, Third Circuit, Water

In a reversal of a decision by the New Jersey District Court, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in In re Congoleum Corporation held 2-1 that the bankruptcy court did not have jurisdiction to reopen an earlier proceeding to interpret findings within a confirmation order, holding interpretation of such orders constitutes a bankruptcy core proceeding.  Chief Judge Chagares also reversed the district court as to the effect of that confirmation order in CERCLA proceedings currently pending before the district court. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Bankruptcy, CERCLA, Cleanup, Contamination, Contribution, Cost Recovery, New Jersey, Potentially Responsible Parties, Superfund, Third Circuit

A recent decision sheds light on the U.S. government’s cleanup obligations in land sales involving former military sites.  In Hamilton Square, LLC v. United States, No. 20-1285 (Fed. Cl. July 15, 2025), the U.S. Court of Federal Claims allowed a key environmental remediation claim to proceed while dismissing others in a suit alleging the Navy breached its obligation to remediate newly discovered petroleum and chloroform contamination at a property in Novato, California. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Breach of Contract, CERCLA, Cleanup, Contamination, Court of Federal Claims, Oil and Gas, Pollutants, Remediation, Vapor Intrusion

On May 1, 2025, the United Stated District Court for the Northern District of California evaluated a settlement agreement between a long-time generator of hazardous substances, an innocent plaintiff, and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”), and found that it met the requirements as a good faith agreement under both the California Code of Civil Procedure and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”).  See Maxim L Properties v. Moyer Products, Ind., 2025 WL 1261419.  The court ruled that a settlement agreement that, among other things, accounts for the “rough approximation” of liability is generally satisfactory in both California and under CERCLA. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Allocation, California, Certification, Cleanup, Consent Decree, Contamination, Contribution, Cost Recovery, Good Faith Settlement, Potentially Responsible Parties, Remediation, Superfund

On April 25, 2025, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division (the “Appellate Division”) in New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection et al. v. Desai et al., ruled on the statute of limitations for state claims brought under the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act (the “Spill Act”), finding that claims concerning remediation do not begin to accrue until the remediation is complete. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Agency Action, Cleanup, Cost Recovery, ISRA, New Jersey, Spill Act, Statute of Limitations

In Barclay Lofts LLC v. PPG Industries, Inc., Case No. 20-CV-1694, 2024 WL 4224731 (E.D. Wis. Sept. 18, 2024), a United States District Court in Wisconsin, after deciding several threshold issues under CERCLA, allocated liability for past and future response costs to clean up a contaminated site based upon a detailed analysis of the operational and material handling practices of the potentially responsible parties.  The decision offers insights about the facts that a court may find compelling and the factors that a court may apply to reach an equitable CERCLA allocation among responsible parties. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Allocation, CERCLA, Cleanup, Contamination, Contribution, Cost Recovery, Operator Liability, Owner Liability, PCBs, Potentially Responsible Parties, Remediation, Solvents, Superfund

On September 27, 2024, in Short Creek Development, LLC v. MFA Incorporated, No. 22-05021-CV-SW-WBG, 2024 WL 4326815 (W.D. Mo. Sept. 27, 2024), Magistrate Judge W. Brian Gaddy determined Plaintiffs’ claim under Section 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) was barred by the applicable statute of limitations as “physical on-site construction of the remedial action” occurred more than six years prior to when Plaintiffs brought their lawsuit.  Specifically, the Magistrate Judge found that costs related to a leachate collection system constructed approximately a year before the adoption of a Record of Decision (“ROD”) amendment outlining a permanent remedy for the Orongo-Duenweg Mining Belt Superfund Site (the “Site”) was the beginning of the six-year limitations period.   In doing so, the Court rejected adoption of a “bright-line” rule that remedial actions begun before adoption of a final remedial plan do not trigger the limitations period.  Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: CERCLA, Cleanup, Contamination, Cost Recovery, Groundwater, Landfill, Mining, Missouri, Remediation, Removal, Statute of Limitations, Superfund, Waste

This month, in Markmik, LLC v. Packer (unreported decision, No. 23-P-736), the Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed a trial court’s finding that a less expensive cleanup option requiring buyers to accept an activity and use limitation (“AUL”), with no diminution in value damages, was appropriate given a guaranty by sellers that was silent about the level of cleanup committed to. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Breach of Contract, Cleanup, Contamination, Cost Recovery, Damages, Groundwater, Massachusetts, Property Value, Real Estate, Remediation, Vapor Intrusion

On April 26, 2023, the United States Court of Federal Claims ordered the federal government to reimburse Shell U.S.A. and several other oil companies for all cleanup costs, including interest, associated with the cleanup of aviation gas (“avgas”) at a site polluted during World War II efforts. Shell U.S.A., Inc. et al. v. United States, 2023 WL 3090659 at *10 (Fed. Cl. 2023). This was the third such case in which the oil companies were seeking contractual indemnification for costs pursuant to the Contract Settlement Act and the only issue of significance addressed by the Court was whether the Plaintiffs were entitled to recover statutory interest that they previously paid under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”). Ultimately, the Court held that the plain reading of CERCLA includes interest as a “charge,” and the government was not immune from paying those costs.  Id. at *8. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: California, CERCLA, Cleanup, Contamination, Court of Federal Claims, Damages, Indemnification, Sovereign Immunity, Superfund

In September 2020, I wrote a Litigation Blog post about the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Nanouk v. United States, 974 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2020), which considered whether the so-called discretionary function exception barred tort claims against the government in connection with its lengthy, haphazard cleanup of a PCB hotspot near a Cold War-era military installation in Alaska. As I explained in that article, the exception bars tort claims that are based on discretionary government conduct—often following a policy-based analysis—but not claims that are based on simple negligence by government officials.  Because cleanup protocols for such bases were generally grounded in economic and national security policy, the Ninth Circuit held the exception barred all claims asserted by the plaintiff, whose adjacent land was impacted by the PCBs, except one claim: that after deciding to undertake the cleanup in 1990, the government simply failed to do it for 13 years. The Court remanded that issue, instructing the government to proffer evidence showing that the delay in effectuating the cleanup was likewise policy based.  On remand, the trial court addressed this issue in denying without prejudice the United States' Motion to Dismiss.  Nanouk v. United States, Case No. 3:15-cv-00221-RRB (Mar. 15, 2023).    Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Alaska, Case Update, Cleanup, Contamination, Federal Tort Claims Act, Negligence, Nuisance, Odors, PCBs, Property Damage, Remediation, Removal, Sovereign Immunity, Toxic Torts, Trespass