« PSLRA Mandates Sanctions for Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b) Violation, Holds Fourth Circuit | Main | Investigations »

May27
CERCLA Liability Not Joint and Several, Holds Fifth Circuit

In Elementis Chromium L.P. v. Coastal States Petroleum Co., the Fifth Circuit addressed the apportionment of liability among defendants in a cleanup case under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). The case arose after a manufacturing plant owned by Elementis Chromium L.P. became contaminated due to operations at a property owned by El Paso Merchant Energy-Petroleum and another owned by Amerada Hess Corp. that it sold Magellan Terminals Holdings L.P.

Elementis sued El Paso, which settled. El Paso then sued Hess and Magellan, seeking contribution for response costs at the Elementis plant. The case was tried in a bench trial in federal district court.

The court found El Paso 89.95% responsible, Hess and Magellan 10.05% responsible. It concluded that Magellan and Hess should be treated as a collective entity for the purposes of allocating responsibility, and imposed joint and several liability on them. Everyone appealed.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the lower court's findings regarding El Paso, but reversed as to Hess and Magellan. It held:

  • that El Paso bore the burden of proof to establish that Hess and Magellan each is a responsible party under § 107(a) of CERCLA;

  • that § 113(f)(1) of CERCLA provides that “any person may seek contribution from any other person who is liable or potentially liable under § 107(a). . . . In resolving contribution claims, the court may allocate response costs among liable parties using such equitable factors as the court determines are appropriate.”;

  • that § 113(f) is intended to provide a liable party with a cause of action to “mitigate the harsh effects of joint and several liability” imposed under § 107(a);

  • that the "overwhelming majority" of federal circuits have concluded that liability under § 113(f) is several, not joint and several;

  • that the Fifth Circuit will follow the majority and hold that liability under § 113(f) should be several; and

  • that the district court must determine the proper division of liability between Magellan and Hess.

related entries


0 Comments/Trackbacks




submit a trackback

TrackBack URL for this entry:

post a comment

Name, Email Address, and URL are not required fields.

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)





Comment Preview

« PSLRA Mandates Sanctions for Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b) Violation, Holds Fourth Circuit | Main | Investigations »

Advertise

sponsored ads



subscribe


Prefer Email?
Subscribe below-

Enter your Email:


Powered by FeedBlitz What's this?

Current News

Support This Blog

My site was nominated for Best Business Blog!

business social media

Use these fast growing business social media sites to promote your business, feature your products, spotlight your business leaders, create links, and drive traffic back to your company site, all for free!

BIZZlogos - Add your logo - free link to your site
BIZZphotos - Add photos of your products and people
BIZZprofiles - Submit your profile and build your online visibility
BIZZspotlight - Spotlight your business with free links
BIZZvideos - Videos about businesses, products and business people.
BIZZbites - "Digg" for Business - Submit your articles and posts

know more media network

View Network Map

Network Feed List (OPML)

Know More Media Network
Feed


we support unitus

PRWeb

Influencer



CompanyCounselor is a member of the Know More Media network of business related blogs.

Here are some current headlines from some of our business publications:

ProductivityGoal

CallCenterScript

AdHurl

TheBizofKnowledge

LandingTheDeal

CustomersAreAlways

HealthCareVox

BrainBasedBusiness

TheInsurancePolicy

MarketingBlurb