WHO'S ON FIRST: CERCLA COST RECOVERY, CONTRIBUTION, AND PROTECTION

I told him it was law logic - an artificial system of reasoning, exclusively used in courts of justice, but good for nothing anywhere else. ¹     

Identifying Successor Corporations Liable under CERCLA and Pursuing Insurance Coverage for That Liability

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) imposes liability well beyond general corporate successor rules. A company can allocate liability to other Potentially Responsible Parties as more culpable, taking advantage of CERCLA's joint and several liability. Often a source of recovery must be teased from a complex corporate history somehow connected to the site. This article examines the basis for attributing environmental liability to entities within a corporate history, before addressing how even a bankrupt or dissolved target may still have insurance that can be tapped. Similarly, CERCLA's strict liability enables recovery from insurance with some connection to either the target's or the company's corporate history, notwithstanding insurers' non-assignment arguments.     

Legal Title to Property May Not Always Result in Liability as an Owner under CERCLA

The meaning of “ownership” under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) is not as straightforward as most people believe. Although liability under section 107(a)(1) is imposed upon a current “owner” or operator of a facility, CERCLA provides little guidance because it defines “owner” as “any person owning” a facility. In most cases, the issue of who owns the property or a facility is readily apparent and not controversial; however, this article discusses cases in which courts have been compelled to critically examine the specific facts of the case and state law to determine whether a particular party is an “owner” for purposes of establishing liability under CERCLA.     

Pro Rata or Pro Tanto? Why Equity Dictates the Choice Is Not a “Toss Up” in Private Party CERCLA Settlements

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) is extremely complicated. Adding to this complexity is the near impossible task of predicting how settlements will be credited. In most tort cases, courts use the pro tanto approach and give the remaining defendants a dollar-for-dollar credit for settlement amounts received by the plaintiff. However, the trend in CERCLA cases is to forego the pro tanto approach and give the remaining defendants credit for the settling defendants’ proportional, or pro rata, share of the liability. This article examines the two approaches and posits which one is more aligned with the spirit of CERCLA.     

Natural Resource Damages for Climate Change—An Idea Whose Time Is Not Yet Come,Part I: NRD Claims Are Not Currently Viable under CERCLA

As the effects of climate change are felt, affected parties will seek redress in the legal system. Numerous suits have already been filed and this may only be the beginning of a trend. One type of suit that has not yet been filed is the natural resource damage (NRD) claim under CERCLA. While it is unlikely that climate change-based NRD claims could succeed under current law, it may only be a matter of time before they are brought. With the present legal landscape in mind, this article examines statutory requirements under CERCLA to bring a climate change related NRD claim.     

U.S. v. Glatfelter and NCR Co. v. George A. Whiting Paper Co.: Seventh Circuit's Latest Interpretation of CERCLA Liabilities

Although a crucial part of the federal government's legal arsenal against polluters in environmental enforcement actions, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) is nevertheless an ambiguously and confusingly drafted statute requiring constant judicial interpretations of its application in litigation. Last year, several decisions delivered by the Court of Appeals of the Seventh Circuit have provided the latest interpretations, particularly further distinguishing between sections 107 and 113 claims, as well as clarifying apportionment and allocation of liabilities. This article discusses these decisions and tries to analyze their impact on future CERCLA litigations.