884 F.3d 118
2d Cir.2018Background
- Bethpage Water District supplies drinking water from the Long Island Aquifer; two wells at Plant 4 (Wells 4-1 and 4-2) are at issue.
- VOC contamination (primarily TCE) originating from former Grumman operations and an OU3 plume was detected in soil/groundwater borings beginning in 2007 and showed very high concentrations near Plant 4.
- From 2008–2010 the District's consultants warned the plume would imminently impact Plant 4, and the District planned and undertook major remediation and wellhead-protection measures (second air-stripping tower, emergency granular activated carbon (GAC) system, bond financing, emergency declaration, and taking wells offline).
- The District sued Northrop Grumman in November 2013 for negligence, trespass, and nuisance seeking remediation costs. Northrop Grumman moved for partial summary judgment asserting CPLR § 214-c(2) barred the claims.
- The district court adopted a magistrate judge R&R and dismissed Plant 4 claims as time-barred; the Second Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does a groundwater-pollution damages claim accrue under CPLR § 214-c(2)? | Accrual requires actual contamination detected in the intake wells (actual injury). | Accrual occurs once the water provider learns contamination threatens water quality so that remedial action must be promptly taken. | Accrual may occur before contamination reaches a well when the threat is significant enough to justify immediate or specific remediation; District's claims accrued before Nov. 18, 2010. |
| Is mere detection or anticipation of future remediation sufficient to trigger the limitations period? | Mere detection or anticipation is not sufficient; need concrete injury in wells. | Knowledge of an imminent, significant threat and commencement of immediate remediation triggers accrual. | Mere detection at low levels or mere anticipation is insufficient, but specific, immediate remediation efforts by a reasonable water provider do start the limitations clock. |
| Did the District take actions sufficient to constitute "immediate or specific remediation efforts" before the limitations cut-off? | The District contends actions were precautionary and did not show an accrued damages injury until later. | Northrop Grumman points to the District's extensive planning, bond requests, emergency declaration, contracts, and taking wells offline as evidence accrual occurred earlier. | The record as a matter of law showed the District took substantial, specific remedial steps (CIP, bond financing, emergency GAC/AST, emergency declaration, wells taken offline) before Nov. 2010, so claims are time-barred. |
| Are radium-related claims timely where the District discovered radium earlier but alleges later discovery of source? | Even if source unknown until later, CPLR § 214-c(4) extends only if cause discovered within five years of injury discovery; District says source found in 2013. | Grumman argues District knew of radium in 2006 and did not discover source within five years, so claims are untimely. | Radium was detected in 2006 and the source was not discovered within five years; the seven-year gap means radium claims are barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bano v. Union Carbide Corp., 361 F.3d 696 (2d Cir.) (toxic seepage/property damage governed by CPLR § 214-c limitations)
- Jensen v. General Electric Co., 82 N.Y.2d 77 (N.Y.) (CPLR § 214-c accrual rules; latent property injury accrues when injury is discovered)
- In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Products Liability Litigation, 725 F.3d 65 (2d Cir.) (limitations begins when a reasonable water provider would have treated contaminated groundwater; mere detection/anticipation insufficient)
- MRI Broadway Rental, Inc. v. U.S. Mineral Products Co., 92 N.Y.2d 421 (N.Y.) (for CPLR § 214-c, discovery occurs when plaintiff discovers primary condition on which claim is based)
- Benjamin v. Keyspan Corp., 104 A.D.3d 891 (N.Y. App. Div.) (knowledge of possible infiltration near property can trigger limitations because it notifies need for further investigation)
- Oliver Chevrolet v. Mobile Oil Corp., 249 A.D.2d 793 (N.Y. App. Div.) (statute began to run on knowledge of leakage before detection in well water)