The Wait Is Over: Liable Parties Can Now Seek Early Contribution Claims Without New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Approval

by Wilson Elser

The recent Supreme Court of New Jersey ruling in Magic Petroleum v. Exxon Mobil  demonstrates a trial court’s ability to allocate liability to “dischargers” while maintaining the role of the state’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in determining the remediation and clean-up costs.

When the plaintiff, the property owner of a site servicing a gasoline station, was issued a Field Directive from the DEP for the need to investigate and remediate the hazards “discharged” under the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act (Spill Act), the plaintiff sought contribution from its neighbor, Exxon Mobil. The plaintiff sought allocation of responsibility for costs expended and damages relating to the cleanup of the hazardous substances on the property. The trial court dismissed plaintiff’s claim in favor of Exxon, reasoning that allocation of liability would be more accurate if adjudged after the DEP had detailed information about the extent of contamination and necessary remediation, as it would affect the dollar amount of clean-up costs to be paid by the responsible parties.

The Appellate Division upheld this ruling, holding that the DEP has sole jurisdiction over identifying contaminants on the land and assessing the extent of the discharge to formulate the proper remediation. The Appellate Division stated: “Prior to adjudicating the possible liability of the parties, the scope and nature of that liability must be determined … and only the DEP can define the contaminants, determine the extent of the discharge, identify the authorized forms of investigative testing, and the permissive methodology of cleanup.” The Appellate Court also held that prior to seeking reimbursement under the Spill Act, a party must obtain written approval from the investigation plan, severely limiting a plaintiff’s ability to seek contribution from any other responsible party.

NJ Supreme Court Review
Upon review, Justice Fernandez-Vina focused on the legislative intent of the New Jersey Spill Act. First, pursuant to NJSA 58:10-23.11a, the Spill Act prohibits the “discharge” of hazardous substances into the environment and provides for cleanup of that discharge. Therefore, under the Act of 1976, the Legislature established strict liability for environmental contamination and mandated that dischargers are jointly and severally liable. This allowed the DEP to collect the entire amount of clean-up costs from one discharger, even when that party was only partially responsible for the spill. However, the 1992 Amendment to the Act clarified that dischargers ordered by the DEP to pay for the entirety of the clean-up costs were entitled to seek contribution from other responsible parties. Importantly, the Legislature directed that contribution plaintiffs seek relief before a court and that the courts have liberal discretion to “Allocate the costs of clean up and removal among liable parties using such equitable factors as the court determines are appropriate.”

By reasoning that the purpose of this contribution amendment was to “encourage prompt and effective remediation by those parties responsible for contamination who might otherwise be reluctant to cooperate in the remediation efforts for fear of bearing the entire cost,” the Supreme Court ultimately broadened the scope of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction to give more leeway to the plaintiff and allow him to seek contribution at the outset of his claim.

Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction
Primary jurisdiction is applicable when a case is properly filed in the Superior Court but the court declines original jurisdiction, referring specific issues to the appropriate administrative body. The court gives deference to the administrative body’s interpretation of its own regulations and findings of fact on particular issues that are within the special competence of the agency pursuant to applicable statutes.

The Supreme Court set forth a four-part test to determine whether (1) primary jurisdiction applies, (2) the matter is within the conventional experience of judges, (3) the matter is peculiarly within the agency’s discretion or requires expertise, (4) inconsistent rulings might disrupt the statutory scheme, and (5) prior application has been made to the agency.

The Court essentially held that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction did not apply in this instance because:

  • Dischargers statutorily are afforded the same right as the DEP to sue other potentially responsible parties to recover contribution costs. Since the DEP may join a party at the onset of a claim, so can a private entity.
  • The New Jersey Spill Act gives the Court, not the DEP, jurisdiction over contribution claims and the trial court is the best platform to determine the percentage of liability or it can be up to the parties.
  • Contribution claims do not necessitate the expertise of the DEP, rather contribution claims allocate liability and this is within the conventional experience of judges.
  • Contribution cases require expert testimony, which is integral to proving liability and within the court’s jurisdiction to determine.

After this thorough analysis, the Supreme Court ultimately held that the courts and the DEP shared concurrent jurisdiction over the recovery of cleanups: The courts could determine the percentage of liability among multiple responsible parties and the DEP could determine the costs of the liability dictated by the remediation project. This ultimately allows the plaintiff to be free to seek contribution from other responsible parties before the DEP’s determination of remediation costs. By again emphasizing the legislative intent, the Supreme Court highlighted that the goal of the New Jersey Spill Act is to promote prompt remediation, and to force a discharger to bear the entire burden of clean-up costs would be contrary to that goal.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court went as far as to overturn the Appellate Division’s ruling that the DEP’s written approval of the investigation and remediation plan is required before filing a claim for contribution. By again separating the roles of the courts and the DEP, Justice Fernandez-Vina held that while dischargers are required to have written approval for the actual expenses that they incur for the purpose of remediation in order to seek contribution for those expenses, that is not a prerequisite to allocation of responsibility for the costs associated with the approved remediation.

This ultimate ruling stands for the proposition that the trial court assigns liability to responsible parties based on evidence presented at trial, but it is up to the DEP to issue a final damages award. By establishing the concurrent jurisdiction shared among the courts and administrative agency, Justice Fernandez-Vina seamlessly broadened the scope of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction without undercutting the scope of the DEP’s authority.

Practice Points
With this recent ruling, the goal behind the amendment to the New Jersey Spill Act might now actually be met. Giving plaintiffs the ability to seek contribution from other responsible parties before the DEP makes a final determination may encourage not only settlement but also more effective and efficient cleanup of properties affected by hazardous materials from all parties. This reduction in uncertainty will allow for quicker resolutions between parties as well as motivate the initial plaintiffs to be less reluctant to engage in clean-up efforts, as they now have the comfort of knowing they are only partially liable and will not have to shoulder the entire burden of recovery.


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Wilson Elser | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Wilson Elser

Wilson Elser 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.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

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.


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 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:

- 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.