Following our posts on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States, No. 07-1601, –U.S.– (U.S. May 4, 2009) (“BNSF”), this post will discuss implications of this decision on apportionment in Superfund cases as various commentators (including this one) see it. (more…)

Following our recent posts on the Supreme Court’s decision in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States, No. 07-1601, –U.S.– (U.S. May 4, 2009) (”BNSF“), this post will discuss the implications of (more…)

On October 27, 2009 the New York State Court of Appeals made the most important decision regarding standing in SEQRA cases in perhaps the last 18 years.  The court ruled in Pine Bush Inc. v. Common Council of City of Albany, that standing to challenge the environmental impact of a (more…)

Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States: The Supreme Court Clarifies the Requirements for “Arranger” Liability and Allocation of Liability in CERCLA Cases – Part II.

As discussed in our prior posting, the Supreme Court recently clarified the requirements for “arranger” liability and allocation of liability in CERCLA cases in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States, No. 07-1601, –U.S.– (U.S. May 4, 2009).  That post set forth the facts and procedural history of the case; this post discusses the Supreme Court’s holding. (more…)

Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States: The Supreme Court Clarifies the Requirements for “Arranger” Liability and Allocation of Liability in CERCLA Cases – Part I.

The Supreme Court recently clarified the requirements for “arranger” liability and allocation of liability in CERCLA (more…)

The Western District of Washington also recently followed the holding from the Aviall case.  See Port of Tacoma v. Todd Shipyards Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5884 (W.D.Wa., January 14, 2009). The Port of Tacoma sued Todd Shipyards in a contribution action under CERCLA § 113(f) for (more…)

In a recent Second Circuit decision, W.R. Grace & Co. v. Zotos International, No.: 05-cv-2798 (March 4, 2009), the Court followed two recent Supreme Court decisions on the oft-contested issue of when and under what sections of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) (the “Superfund” statute) a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) can recover (more…)

On February 10, 2009, the Appellate Division, Third Department, upheld a jury award of $6,325,000 in penalties against three defendants – property owner, gas supplier and station operator (more…)

In a recent oil spill case under the Navigation Law, an intermediate state appeals court, the Appellate Division of the State Supreme Court, Second Department overturned a $225,000 jury award of “stigma” damages (plus $61,600 fees award) to a private homeowner for devaluation of his property values – not for clean-up costs – due to (more…)

We continue with our recent discussion of the Aiken v. General Electric Co. case, No. 505023, __N.Y.S.2d__ (3d Dep’t Dec. 4, 2008), discussed in a recent post.   There is not much precedent for the Aiken case, as SVI issues are relatively new to the environmental law landscape and have not been litigated much yet. (more…)