In July, 2001, the New Jersey Superior Court decided the case of White Oak Funding, Inc. v. Winning, 341 N.J. Super. 294 (App.Div.), cert. denied. 170 N.J. 209 (2001), holding that an owner of contaminated property purchased before September 14, 1993, was not liable for historic contamination that the owner did not contribute to.  Only a week later, amendments to New Jersey’s Industrial Site Recovery Act (“ISRA”) became effective.  Among other things, those amendments provided that owners who acquired property prior to September 14, 1993 would not be liable for clean-up costs if “at the time of acquisition, [the purchaser undertook] all appropriate inquiry on the previous ownership and uses of the property based upon generally accepted good and customary standards.”  N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11g(d)(5).  So, did this amendment abrogate the holding in White Oak?   A decade later, on October 29, 2012, the New Jersey Superior Court has said that it did. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Cleanup, Condemnation, Contamination, Cost Recovery, Eminent Domain, ISRA, New Jersey, Real Estate, Spill Act, Takings

A few months ago, we reported on an interesting Seventh Circuit opinion on CERCLA §107 claims issued in the Fox River clean-up litigation in Wisconsin.  The Fox River clean-up, and the ensuing private party litigation, represents one of a number cases that have arisen from EPA’s efforts to remediate water bodies throughout the country that have been declared to be Superfund sites—including the Lower Passaic River and Newark Bay in northern New Jersey, the Hudson River in upstate New York, and the Gowanus Canal in Brooklyn.  Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Case Update, Cases to Watch, CERCLA, Cleanup, Contamination, Cost Recovery, Decisions of Note, Remediation, Superfund

The Fox River clean-up – or rather, litigation concerning the clean-up – has resulted in some meaty written opinions for CERCLA lawyers to chew over, particularly on the issue of apportionment in a post BNSF world.  Friday’s decision by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. NCR Corp., No. 10-C-910 (7^th Cir. Aug. 3, 2012) is no exception, with the Court not only tackling divisibility, but also hinting that NCR might have 107(a) claim against other PRPs, an issue that the United States Supreme Court left unresolved in the Atlantic Research decision. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Cases to Watch, CERCLA, Cleanup, Cost Recovery, Decisions of Note, Remediation, Superfund

Yesterday, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, handed down a decision that should provide some solace to property owners of condemned property who often find themselves in the position of paying for remediation of a property which they no longer own and for which they’ve never received payment. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Cleanup, Contamination, Eminent Domain, Landfill, New Jersey, Public Lands, Real Estate, Remediation

New Jersey’s Industrial Site Recovery Action of 1993 (“ISRA”) requires owners and operators of industrial facilities to perform site assessment and remediation activities whenever a triggering event, such as a cessation of operations or sale of property, occurs. ISRA exempts, however, owners or operators who generate or use minimal amounts of hazardous substances from compliance with its requirements, known as a “De Minimis Quantity Exemption” or “DQE.” Pursuant to recently promulgated regulations, in addition to demonstrating the total quantity of hazardous substances handled at the facility are below specified regulatory thresholds, NJDEP requires all applicants for a DQE to certify that the applicant has no knowledge of contamination on the property above any remediation standard, regardless of the source, as a pre-condition to approval of a DQE. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Cleanup, Contamination, ISRA, New Jersey, Real Estate, Remediation

Although CERCLA has been around for many years, courts are still interpreting both its parts and its whole.  In recent years, the Supreme Court has tried to direct traffic between Section 107(a), which permits PRPs to bring cost recovery actions against other PRPs for “any necessary costs of response incurred” by the PRP bringing suit, and Section 113(f), which permits PRPs who have been sued under section 106 or 107(a) or have entered into a judicially-approved settlement with a federal or state government resolving CERCLA liability to bring actions for contribution against other PRPs to recover amounts paid in excess of their equitable share of liability.   Because these two provisions have differing limitations periods, burdens of proof, and allow for different forms of recovery against multiple defendants, the distinction is often significant. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: CERCLA, Cleanup, Cost Recovery, Decisions of Note, Eleventh Circuit, Enforcement Action, Statute of Limitations, Superfund, Waste

We don’t just write, we speak too!  I’m going to be leading a breakfast roundtable discussion on March 6 as part of ICSC’s University of Shopping Centers.  More details are here and please stop by! Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: CERCLA, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Cleanup, Leases, RCRA, Real Estate, Speaking Engagements, Superfund, Waste, Wetlands

This week, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana took a look at statute of limitations issues in the context of state law claims for trespass and nuisance in contamination cases in the case of Burley v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co., 2012 MT 28 (Feb. 7, 2012).  The issue, which was certified to the Court from the United States District Court for the District of Montana was the following: Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Cleanup, Montana, Nuisance, Real Estate, Statute of Limitations, Toxic Torts, Trespass

A little creativity goes a long way and cash-strapped municipal entities need all the creativity they can get. But it doesn’t always put money in your pocket. And such was the result in Emergency Services Billing Corporation, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance Co., No. 11-2381 (7^th Cir. Feb. 2, 2011) which upheld a trial court’s determination that automobiles owned and used for personal purposes are not “facilities” under CERCLA and hence drivers (and their insurance carriers) are not liable for “response costs” incurred in responding to motor vehicle accidents. And thus the Volunteer Fire Department of Westville, Indiana, cannot recoup the amounts it spent in responding to the four separate, unrelated auto accidents that were the subject of the collection efforts. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: CERCLA, Cleanup, Cost Recovery, Indiana, Seventh Circuit

Yes, it sounds like something your 12 year old daughter would call her friend, but here we’re talking about the Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser defense to CERCLA joint and several liability.  MGKF Partner Jonathan Spergel recently wrote about this defense for the Association of Corporate Counsel.  You can find his article, along with others written by MGKF attorneys, at ACC’s Green House Counsel webpage.

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser, CERCLA, Cleanup, Cost Recovery, Green House Counsel, Real Estate, Superfund