Ameripride Services. v. Valley Indus. Services, 2011U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55634 (E.D.Ca. 5/12/11) discussed how delays or failure to comply with CERCLA reporting requirements may impact a claim for contribution or cost recovery. In this case, Texas Eastern Overseas, Inc (TEO) conducted industrial dry cleaning at a facility until 1983 when it sold the property to […]
It is hard to tell if Malcolm Carter Enterprises v. Microsemi Real Estate, Inc., 2011Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 3583 (Ct. App.-4th Div 5/12/11) is a case of buyer’s remorse, sloppy drafting or simply the lack of a meeting of the minds. It is surprising that what should have been a fairly straight-forward transaction resulted in
Was It Buyer’s Remorse, Sloppy Drafting or Simply No Meeting of the Minds? Read More »
In Precision Brand Products. v. Downers Grove Sanitary District, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88009 (N.D. 8/811), the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“IEPA”) detected TCE in private wells serving a residential community adjacent to the Ellsworth Industrial Park (EIP) in Downers Grove, Ill in 2001. The federal EPA conducted an investigation and issued PRP notices. A
Court Finds No Successor or Parent Liability For “Indirect” (Grandparent) Corporation Read More »
In the usual veil piercing case, a plaintiff asks a court to disregard a corporate entity so the assets of the owner can be used to satisfy the liability of the entity. However, sometimes the plaintiff seeks to use corporate assets to satisfy the debts of a shareholder under a theory known as “reverse veil-piercing”.
Can a person faced with environmental conditions posing potential health risks implement remedial measures without running the risk of being sanctioned for destroying evidence? This problem can arise when a consultant destroys soil or groundwater samples but what about a mold case where the home itself is the evidence? This was the issue addressed in Miller
Minnesota Supreme Court Clarifies Spoliation Rule In Mold Case Read More »
In Stalvey v. NVR, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2506 (N.D. Ohio 1/09/12), the plaintiffs entered into an Ohio Purchase Agreement with defendant for the construction and purchase of a house. As part of the Agreement, defendant provided plaintiff with a Topographic Survey & Improvement Plan that did not depict the presence of wetlands on
Court allows Claim To Proceed Against Home Builder For Failing To Disclose Wetlands Read More »
In Ferris v. Location 3 Corp., 804 N.W.2d 822 (Wisc. Ct. App. 2011), the plaintiff Ferris purchased real property located from defendant Location 3 Corporation.3 Sometime after closing, Ferris discovered that the landfill adjacent to his property was also a Superfund4 site. Ferris then filed a complaint against Location 3 and certain employees of firm
Hager’s of Cohasset, Inc. v. Nelson, 2011Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 156 (Minn.Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2011) is yet another lesson from a long line of cases that illustrate the risks of not using counsel for commercial property transactions especially those have problematic environmental issues. In this case, the plaintiff operated a fuel-oil business. In October 2007,
Hobart Corp v Waste Management of Ohio, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148224 (S.D.Ohio 2/10/11) is an obscure decision from 2011 but has some complaint drafting lessons. This case started off as a classic CERCLA contribution action for a landfill cleanup. The plaintiff entered into a settlement with EPA to perform an RI/FS and then decides
No Arranger Liability For Migration of Contaminated Groundwater Read More »
Approximately 2.5 million miles of pipelines transverse the United States carrying hazardous liquids and natural gas from producing wells to end users (residences and businesses). Many of these pipeline networks are aging while others such as natural gas gathering pipelines remain largerly unregulated. Moreover, development has encroached on many of pipelines that were formerly located
GAO Report Discusses Concerns About Pipelines Used For Fracking Operations Read More »