The District of Maine cites to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Burlington Northern in an Arranger Liability Case

| February 1, 2010

The District Court for the District of Maine relied 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”), in denying a motion to

The Southern District of New York cites to Burlington Northern in an Apportionment Case.

| January 13, 2010

In a recent decision in In Re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (“MTBE”) Products Liability Litigation (“In re MTBE”), No. 00 MDL 1898, and related case City of New York v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, No. 04 Civ. 3417 (S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2009), the District Court for the Southern District of New York relied

The Supreme Court Clarifies the Requirements for “Arranger” Liability and Allocation of Liability in CERCLA Cases – Part III.

| November 13, 2009

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

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.

| August 31, 2009

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 [...]

The Supreme Court Clarifies the Requirements for “Arranger” Liability and Allocation of Liability in CERCLA Cases – Part I.

| July 9, 2009

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 cases in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. [...]

The Western District of Washington Leaves a PRP without a Remedy, but Upholds the Broader Policy Objectives of CERCLA.

| May 26, 2009

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

The Second Circuit Follows the Supreme Court’s Holdings in Atlantic Research and Cooper Industries.

| May 19, 2009

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 [...]

Term Definition: Environmental Requirements

| March 10, 2008

Environmental Requirements:  Traditionally the term used is “Environmental Law,” but “Requirements” is more accurate as the definition goes beyond statutes and regulations.

Term Definition: Hazardous Material

| March 5, 2008

A major problem with definitions of environmental terms in commercial and real estate transaction documents is that they become overly inclusive, confusing, and unworkable.  A definition of “hazardous materials” which includes virtually every substance known to man in any amount at any concentration, will be impossible to satisfy

Cost Cap Insurance Policy

| November 14, 2007

Cost-Cap insurance policies pay for costs that exceed the estimated cost of a remedial plan.  These policies typically have large “co-insurance” and deductible provisions, so that the insured must still pay a significant portion of the cost overruns.  Policies are also available to cover contractors and consultants for environmental liabilities.