BOROUGH OF EDGEWATER v. WATERSIDE CONSTRUCTION, LLC
2:14-cv-05060
D.N.J.Sep 29, 2021Background:
- This case arises from allegations that PCB-contaminated fill was used at Veterans Field, a public park owned by the Borough of Edgewater; some contaminated material allegedly originated from property formerly owned by Alcoa (now Arconic).
- Edgewater sued multiple parties; many summary-judgment motions were filed. This opinion addresses only Hudson Spa, LLC’s motion (D.E. 342).
- Hudson Spa was the tenant under a 2012 ground lease that contained a warranty that, to its knowledge, the premises did not contain hazardous or toxic materials.
- Hudson Spa argued it had no role in selecting the developer, performing demolition, removing debris, or otherwise causing or controlling the discharge; it relied on lease language and lack of involvement.
- Edgewater did not oppose Hudson Spa’s motion; Arconic opposed but its contribution claim under the Spill Act was moot due to a prior ruling in Arconic’s favor.
- The Court granted Hudson Spa summary judgment on both the negligence and Spill Act claims against it, finding no genuine dispute that Hudson Spa was responsible for the discharge or that a sufficient nexus existed between Hudson Spa and the contamination.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Negligence — Did Hudson Spa owe and breach a duty causing contamination and damages? | Edgewater asserted negligence claims against Hudson Spa for contamination at Veterans Field. | Hudson Spa had no control over developer, no involvement in demolition/removal, and the lease warranted no hazardous materials. | Granted for Hudson Spa; negligence claims dismissed (no opposition; Hudson Spa met burden). |
| Spill Act liability — Is Hudson Spa “in any way responsible” for discharge such that strict liability applies? | Edgewater (and Arconic as contributor) sought Spill Act liability against Hudson Spa for cleanup costs. | Hudson Spa denied responsibility, pointed to lack of involvement, lease assurances, and that developer agreements do not show Hudson Spa controlled the discharge. | Granted for Hudson Spa; Court found insufficient evidence of responsibility or nexus under Dimant; developer agreement insufficient to create genuine issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary-judgment standard and when a jury could find for nonmoving party)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (burden-shifting framework for summary judgment)
- New Jersey Dep't of Env't Prot. v. Dimant, 51 A.3d 816 (N.J. 2012) (Spill Act requires a reasonable nexus between discharge, putative discharger, and contaminated site)
- Litgo New Jersey Inc. v. Comm'r, N.J. Dep't of Env't Prot., 725 F.3d 369 (3d Cir. 2013) (Spill Act allows equitable allocation of cleanup costs)
- Jerkins ex rel. Jerkins v. Anderson, 922 A.2d 1279 (N.J. 2007) (duty of care is a question of law requiring foreseeability and policy analysis)
- Shields v. Ramslee Motors, 223 A.3d 172 (N.J. 2020) (elements of negligence under New Jersey law)
- Marino v. Indus. Crating Co., 358 F.3d 241 (3d Cir. 2004) (on drawing inferences for nonmoving party at summary judgment)
- Messa v. Omaha Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 122 F. Supp. 2d 523 (D.N.J. 2000) (standards for assessing colorable or probative evidence at summary judgment)
- NJDEP v. Gloucester Env't Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 821 F. Supp. 999 (D.N.J. 1993) (Spill Act imposes strict joint and several liability on dischargers)
- Robinson v. Vivirito, 86 A.3d 119 (N.J. 2014) (cited for negligence elements)