CERCLA

Failure To Timely Report Release Raises Triable Issue Sufficient to Preclude Summary Judgment

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 […]

Failure To Timely Report Release Raises Triable Issue Sufficient to Preclude Summary Judgment Read More »

Court Finds No Successor or Parent Liability For “Indirect” (Grandparent) Corporation

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 »

No Arranger Liability For Migration of Contaminated Groundwater

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 »

Acquisitions Bring CERCLA Liability to Banking Conglomerate

From a purely legal standpoint, the recent ruling In Tennessee v. Roane Holdings Ltd., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143703 (E.D.TN 12/14/11) was not unusual. The court ruled on a motion to dismiss that a party who had entered into an administrative order on consent could not bring a cost recovery action under CERCLA section 107

Acquisitions Bring CERCLA Liability to Banking Conglomerate Read More »

11th Circuit Rules Parties To Consent Decree Limited to Contribution Claim

The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit joined the 2nd,3rd and 8th Circuits in holding that a PRP that incurs response costs pursuant to a consent decree may only recover its costs through a section 113(f) contribution action and may not bring a 107 cost recovery action. In Solutia v McWane, 2012 U.S.App. LEXIS

11th Circuit Rules Parties To Consent Decree Limited to Contribution Claim Read More »

Owner Incurs $1MM On Cleanup But Ct Says No “Due Care”-Owner Waited Too Long to Act

The second our series of recent cases involving the due care element of the CERCLA third party defense is State of New York v Adamowicz, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102988 (E.D.N.Y. 9/13/11) where a property owner was unable to establish that it exercised due care despite spending over $1MM addressing environmental concerns at its site.

Owner Incurs $1MM On Cleanup But Ct Says No “Due Care”-Owner Waited Too Long to Act Read More »

Reports of the Demise of CERCLA “Arranger” Liability Proving to Be Premature

In Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States, 129 S.Ct. 1870 (2009), the United States Supreme Court held that to establish that a defendant is a CERCLA “arranger” or generator under § 9607(a)(3), a plaintiff must  establish that the defendant intended to dispose hazardous substance. The court said that while an entity’s knowledge that a product

Reports of the Demise of CERCLA “Arranger” Liability Proving to Be Premature Read More »

Assignment of Benefits Does Not Violate Anti-Assignment Clause

An Illinois appeals court ruled that an insurer had a duty to defend a successor  of an insured where the insured made an assignment of benefits pursuant to a asset sales agreement. The assignment of benefits had been made without consent of the insured and the insurance policy had contained an anti-assignment clause.. In Illinois

Assignment of Benefits Does Not Violate Anti-Assignment Clause Read More »

CERCLA Contribution Action Not Available for BCP/VCP Cleanup

In Queens W. Dev. Corp. v. Honeywell Int’l, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91795 (D.N.J. 2011), the plaintiff developers commenced remedial activities at two parcels that were accepted into the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Brownfield Cleanup Program (BCP) and Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP). Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the defendants as successors

CERCLA Contribution Action Not Available for BCP/VCP Cleanup Read More »

Scroll to Top