In joint tortfeasor settlements in private party actions under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), courts can choose from two competing federal contribution protection methods: the Uniform Comparative Fault Act (“UCFA”), known as pro rata, and the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act (“UCATA”), known as pro tanto.  Last month, in City of Las Cruces and Dona Ana County v The Lofts of Alameda, LLC, Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-00809-JCH-GBW, 2024 WL 4512434, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico considered the merits of both contribution protection methods and concluded that the pro rata approach was the most equitable under the circumstances.  Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Allocation, CERCLA, Contribution, Cost Recovery, Good Faith Settlement, New Mexico, Potentially Responsible Parties, Solvents, Superfund

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

Cost-recovery and contribution lawsuits under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) can sometimes drag on for several years, or longer, because of the multitude of potentially responsible parties (PRPs), the often-separate liability and allocation phases, and appeals of rulings decided at each phase, among other complications.  The recent decision in Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP et al. v. NCR Corp., 1:11-cv-483 (W.D. Mich.), highlights the winding and prolonged paths that some of these cases can take.  Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: CERCLA, Contribution, Cost Recovery, Potentially Responsible Parties, Superfund

On June 23, 2023, in MRP Properties Company LLC v. United States, No. 22-1789, 2023 WL 4141227 (6^th Cir. June 15, 2023), the Sixth Circuit decided that despite having directed production at refineries during World War II, the United States government did not qualify as an “operator” of those facilities under CERCLA, providing additional guidance for courts evaluating what kinds of activities subject a party to operator liability.  Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: CERCLA, Contribution, Cost Recovery, Michigan, Operator Liability, Potentially Responsible Parties, Refinery, Sixth Circuit, Superfund

In Emhart Industries, Inc. v. New England Container Company, Inc., et al., No. 06-218 WES, 2022 WL 15437874 (D.R.I. Oct. 27, 2022), a federal court addressed the parameters for arranger liability under CERCLA where Defendants sent drums with residual hazardous substances for reconditioning.  The Court denied summary judgment for Defendants, finding liability depends on Defendant’s intent to dispose, which is a fact intensive analysis dependent “foremost on intentional steps Defendants took toward the goal of disposal, but also asks whether the product was useful, if Defendants knew of the hazardousness, and the state of the hazardous substances at the time of the transaction.” Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Arranger Liability, CERCLA, Contamination, Contribution, Cost Recovery, Potentially Responsible Parties, Superfund

In Citizens Development Corporation, Inc. v. County of San Diego, et al., No. 12-CV-334-GPC-KSC, 2022 WL 4374957 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2022), the Honorable Gonzalo P. Curiel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted three Motions for Good Faith Settlement Determination in an action under Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) related to alleged contamination of surface water and groundwater in and around Lake San Marcos and San Marcos Creek located in San Marcos, California.  One day later, in Maxim I Properties v. A.M. Bud Krohn, et al., No. 12-cv-00449-DMR, 2022 WL 4390433 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2022), the Honorable Donna M. Ryu of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order denying a Motion for Good Faith Settlement filed by Maxim I Properties (“Maxim”) and defendant Moyer Products (“Moyer”) in a matter concerning contamination at a property in San Jose, California.  As such settlements can provide contribution protection to parties potentially liable for clean up, these two cases provide good insight into the factors courts will consider in determining whether to approve them.      Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: California, CERCLA, Cleanup, Contribution, Cost Recovery, Good Faith Settlement, Potentially Responsible Parties, Superfund

On August 19, 2022, a magistrate judge of the Colorado District Court held that contribution-defendants cannot assert their own contribution claims under section 113(f) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) because they are only liable for their fair share of response costs.  Atlantic Richfield Co. v. NL Indus., Inc., No. 20-cv-00234-NYW-KLM, 2022 WL 3577261, at *6 (D. Colo. Aug. 19, 2022). The magistrate judge’s analysis resolved questions for potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”) seeking to assert contribution claims against other PRPs based on a claim of inequitable distribution of common liability in a 113(f) action. Id. at *4. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: CERCLA, Colorado, Contribution, Cost Recovery, Potentially Responsible Parties, Superfund

In Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP v. NCR Corporation, the Sixth Circuit confronted a novel question concerning CERCLA’s statutes of limitations: whether a bare declaratory judgment on liability triggers the Section 113(g)(3) three-year limitations period for a contribution claim brought under Section 113(f)(1). The first circuit court to address this issue, the Court answered in the affirmative. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Allocation, CERCLA, Contribution, Cost Recovery, Declaratory Relief, Michigan, PCBs, Potentially Responsible Parties, Sediment Sites, Sixth Circuit, Statute of Limitations, Superfund

There are surprisingly few cases addressing whether, for an entity to be liable as an arranger under CERCLA, it must have known that the disposed substance was dangerous or hazardous. On March 10, 2022, in City of Las Cruces and Dona Ana County v. The Lofts at Alameda, LLC, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico became the third federal district court to answer this question directly.

Two local government entities sued American Linen for cost recovery and contribution, alleging its decades-long operation of dry cleaning facilities caused them to incur costs to remediate a plume of contaminated groundwater. Specifically, the plaintiffs asserted that American Linen instructed its employees to dispose of PCE-laden wastes off site and that it contracted with a truck hauler to transport these wastes to a dump site three miles away. American Linen moved to dismiss, arguing principally that at the time of disposal, it did not know the wastes were hazardous substances. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Arranger Liability, CERCLA, Contamination, Cost Recovery, Groundwater, New Mexico, Potentially Responsible Parties, Remediation, Superfund

In Borough of Edgewater v. Waterside Construction, LLC, et al., 2022 WL 557903 (D.N.J. Feb. 24, 2004), Plaintiff Borough of Edgewater (“Edgewater”) brought Spill Act claims relating to PCB contaminated material which was used as fill in a public park project.  At issue was whether Arconic, as a prior owner of the property from which the fill was obtained, was “in any way” responsible for contamination resulting from use of the fill at another property.  The Court held that, because Arconic had no control over the property, and hence the fill, at the time of its subsequent use, it was not liable to the Borough under the Spill Act. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Causation, Contamination, New Jersey, Owner Liability, PCBs, Potentially Responsible Parties, Real Estate, Spill Act