Christian v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
2015 MT 255
| Mont. | 2015Background
- Residents of Opportunity, MT sued ARCO (successor to Anaconda) for damages to properties allegedly contaminated by arsenic and other smelter emissions from historical smelting (1884–1980); site designated a Superfund site.
- Plaintiffs filed in 2008 seeking restoration costs and alleged causes of action including negligence, nuisance (public/private), trespass, strict liability, constructive fraud, unjust enrichment, and wrongful occupation. ARCO moved for summary judgment based on statutes of limitations and other defenses.
- District Court granted summary judgment for ARCO, finding claims time-barred and concluding continuing-tort tolling required evidence of continuing migration and that plaintiffs failed to show reasonable abatability; plaintiffs appealed.
- The Montana Supreme Court analyzed continuing-tort doctrine, the discovery rule, and reasonable abatability as the key tests for whether nuisance/trespass claims are time-barred.
- Court held migration is an important but not required factor; reasonable abatability (a jury question) is the dispositive test for whether nuisance/trespass remain continuing and thus toll the limitations period. It reversed summary judgment in part and affirmed in part, remanding for factfinding on abatability and migration issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Does continuing tort doctrine require evidence of continued migration of contaminants? | Migration not required; continuing presence and abatability suffice to toll limitations. | Continuing migration is necessary to show recurring invasions and thus toll the limitations period. | Migration is an important factor but not required; focus is on whether the injury is reasonably abatable. |
| 2. Are there genuine issues of material fact about reasonableness of abatement? | Plaintiffs offered remediation plan (excavation + PRB) showing abatement is feasible and gave cost/time estimates. | ARCO says plaintiffs’ plan is excessive, unnecessary, and EPA oversight may prevent plaintiff-driven remediation; ARCO offered lesser remediation for limited areas. | Genuine factual disputes exist about abatability and migration; these questions are for the trier of fact. Summary judgment improper on this ground. |
| 3. Does the continuing tort doctrine apply to causes beyond nuisance/trespass (negligence, strict liability, unjust enrichment, wrongful occupation)? | Theories of liability tied to an underlying continuing injury should also be tolled (negligence, strict liability, wrongful occupation, unjust enrichment). | Some claims (e.g., unjust enrichment) seek monetary restitution rather than abatement and therefore should not be treated as continuing torts. | Negligence and strict liability are theories that can follow a continuing underlying injury; unjust enrichment is not subject to continuing-tort tolling here. Wrongful occupation may be treated as continuing; district court used wrong limitations period for it. |
| 4. Does the discovery rule (concealment/fraud) toll limitations here? | ARCO’s public statements that areas were "clean" and testing practices concealed material facts; plaintiffs relied and lacked notice. | Widespread public knowledge, Superfund status, extensive outreach, and soil-sampling programs meant plaintiffs had notice sufficient to prompt inquiry; no fraudulent concealment established. | No genuine factual dispute that would toll limitations under the discovery rule for most claims; plaintiffs had sufficient notice and due diligence was lacking. The district court erred only where it required migration evidence or precluded jury consideration of abatability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burley v. BNSF Ry. Co., 364 Mont. 77 (Mont. 2012) (establishes focus on reasonable abatability—stabilization and migration are factors but abatability is dispositive for continuing tort analysis)
- Graveley Ranch v. Scherping, 240 Mont. 20 (Mont. 1989) (toxic leaching held a continuing nuisance until abated; new actions may arise with recurring injuries)
- Blasdel v. Mont. Power Co., 196 Mont. 417 (Mont. 1980) (stabilization of injury determines when permanent take accrued; analyzed stabilization in inverse condemnation context)
- Hoery v. United States, 64 P.3d 214 (Colo. 2003) (presence or migration of contaminants can constitute continuing trespass/nuisance; defendant’s failure to stop invasion is actionable)
- Arcade Water Dist. v. United States, 940 F.2d 1265 (9th Cir. 1991) (migration considered in continuing-tort context but abatability remains central)
- Taygeta Corp. v. Varian Assocs., 763 N.E.2d 1053 (Mass. 2002) (held migrating contamination supports continuing nuisance; distinguished continuing presence alone)
- Mangini v. Aerojet–General Corp., 912 P.2d 1220 (Cal. 1996) (plaintiff failed to show abatability where site condition and remedy feasibility were unknown)