Do Statutes of Repose Under CERCLA Really Require Supreme Court Review

by Foley Hoag LLP - Environmental Law
Contact

Do Statutes of Repose Under CERCLA Really Require Supreme Court Review

Even Superfund lawyers are likely to find the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday in CTS Corporation v. Waldburger to be of limited interest.  Unable to reach an agreement about a federal “toxic tort” cause of action, Congress in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA settled on a limited provision that federalized the equitable tolling of statutes of limitation applicable to state toxic tort claims so that toxic tort claims would not accrue until a plaintiff either knew or should have known of his claim.  The issue before the Supreme Court in CTS was whether that equitable tolling doctrine applied to state statutes of repose as well as to statutes of limitation.

A majority of the Court held that the language of Section 9658 of CERCLA was intended to preempt only statutes of limitation, not statutes of repose. According to the majority, a statute of repose focuses on the last act of a defendant which gives rise to the toxic tort claim, whereas a statute of limitation turns on when a plaintiff knew or should have known of the potential claim. Because Section 9658 speaks only of statutes of limitation and is structured to defer the accrual of a toxic tort claim based on the timing of the plaintiff’s knowledge of a claim, the majority declined to extend CERCLA’s equitable tolling rule to statutes of repose. Although the dissenting opinion by Justices Ginsberg and Breyer argue that CERCLA’s remedial purpose requires that the tolling rule must also be applied to statutes of repose, the majority rationale is more persuasive.

My partner in both law and blogging, Seth Jaffe, sees CTS as the continuation of the Supreme Court’s plain reading of CERCLA’s language which began in Best Foods and continued with Aviall; in those cases the Supreme Court refused to accept the mantra of CERCLA’s remedial purpose as a license to impose special rules for environmental cases which fly in the face of common law precedents and the language of the statute. Alternatively, CTS could be seen as further evidence of the polarization of the Roberts Court along ideological lines, with the majority once again favoring the rights of corporate defendants over the rights of individual plaintiffs. In the end, though, the real question is Congress’s failure to actually address the “compensation” part of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act.  It is the question posed  by the oven bird in a poem of that name by Robert Frost:

The question that he frames in all but words

Is what to make of a diminished thing.

- See more at: http://www.lawandenvironment.com/2014/06/do-statutes-of-repose-under-cercla-really-require-supreme-court-review/#sthash.vUPL7dr7.dpuf

Do Statutes of Repose Under CERCLA Really Require Supreme Court Review

Even Superfund lawyers are likely to find the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday in CTS Corporation v. Waldburger to be of limited interest.  Unable to reach an agreement about a federal “toxic tort” cause of action, Congress in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA settled on a limited provision that federalized the equitable tolling of statutes of limitation applicable to state toxic tort claims so that toxic tort claims would not accrue until a plaintiff either knew or should have known of his claim.  The issue before the Supreme Court in CTS was whether that equitable tolling doctrine applied to state statutes of repose as well as to statutes of limitation.

A majority of the Court held that the language of Section 9658 of CERCLA was intended to preempt only statutes of limitation, not statutes of repose. According to the majority, a statute of repose focuses on the last act of a defendant which gives rise to the toxic tort claim, whereas a statute of limitation turns on when a plaintiff knew or should have known of the potential claim. Because Section 9658 speaks only of statutes of limitation and is structured to defer the accrual of a toxic tort claim based on the timing of the plaintiff’s knowledge of a claim, the majority declined to extend CERCLA’s equitable tolling rule to statutes of repose. Although the dissenting opinion by Justices Ginsberg and Breyer argue that CERCLA’s remedial purpose requires that the tolling rule must also be applied to statutes of repose, the majority rationale is more persuasive.

My partner in both law and blogging, Seth Jaffe, sees CTS as the continuation of the Supreme Court’s plain reading of CERCLA’s language which began in Best Foods and continued with Aviall; in those cases the Supreme Court refused to accept the mantra of CERCLA’s remedial purpose as a license to impose special rules for environmental cases which fly in the face of common law precedents and the language of the statute. Alternatively, CTS could be seen as further evidence of the polarization of the Roberts Court along ideological lines, with the majority once again favoring the rights of corporate defendants over the rights of individual plaintiffs. In the end, though, the real question is Congress’s failure to actually address the “compensation” part of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act.  It is the question posed  by the oven bird in a poem of that name by Robert Frost:

The question that he frames in all but words

Is what to make of a diminished thing.

- See more at: http://www.lawandenvironment.com/2014/06/do-statutes-of-repose-under-cercla-really-require-supreme-court-review/#sthash.vUPL7dr7.dpuf

Even Superfund lawyers are likely to find the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday in CTS Corporation v. Waldburger to be of limited interest.  Unable to reach an agreement about a federal “toxic tort” cause of action, Congress in the 1986 amendments to CERCLA settled on a limited provision that federalized the equitable tolling of statutes of limitation applicable to state toxic tort claims so that toxic tort claims would not accrue until a plaintiff either knew or should have known of his claim.  The issue before the Supreme Court in CTS was whether that equitable tolling doctrine applied to state statutes of repose as well as to statutes of limitation.

A majority of the Court held that the language of Section 9658 of CERCLA was intended to preempt only statutes of limitation, not statutes of repose. According to the majority, a statute of repose focuses on the last act of a defendant which gives rise to the toxic tort claim, whereas a statute of limitation turns on when a plaintiff knew or should have known of the potential claim. Because Section 9658 speaks only of statutes of limitation and is structured to defer the accrual of a toxic tort claim based on the timing of the plaintiff’s knowledge of a claim, the majority declined to extend CERCLA’s equitable tolling rule to statutes of repose. Although the dissenting opinion by Justices Ginsberg and Breyer argue that CERCLA’s remedial purpose requires that the tolling rule must also be applied to statutes of repose, the majority rationale is more persuasive.

My partner in both law and blogging, Seth Jaffe, sees CTS as the continuation of the Supreme Court’s plain reading of CERCLA’s language which began in Best Foods and continued with Aviall; in those cases the Supreme Court refused to accept the mantra of CERCLA’s remedial purpose as a license to impose special rules for environmental cases which fly in the face of common law precedents and the language of the statute. Alternatively, CTS could be seen as further evidence of the polarization of the Roberts Court along ideological lines, with the majority once again favoring the rights of corporate defendants over the rights of individual plaintiffs. In the end, though, the real question is Congress’s failure to actually address the “compensation” part of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act.  It is the question posed  by the oven bird in a poem of that name by Robert Frost:

The question that he frames in all but words

Is what to make of a diminished thing.

 

 

Written by:

Foley Hoag LLP - Environmental Law
Contact
more
less

Foley Hoag LLP - Environmental Law on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.