756 F. Supp. 2d 1001
S.D. Ill.2010Background
- Water utilities are plaintiffs under the Safe Drinking Water Act to test finished water for contaminants like atrazine, with MCL of 3 ppb and GAC filtration as best removal technology.
- Plaintiffs allege Syngenta manufactured atrazine, causing contamination of raw water sources and incurring testing/remediation costs.
- Plaintiffs seek past costs for filtration, future costs to install/operate filtration systems, and punitive damages, framed as trespass, public nuisance, strict liability, and negligence claims, on a proposed class basis.
- Syngenta moves to dismiss for lack of standing, and for failure to state claims, including challenges to Indiana strict liability, economic loss rule, future damages, and statute of limitations.
- Court analyzes standing first, then Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal under applicable state law for each plaintiff; ruling partially grants and partially denies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue under Article III | Plaintiffs allege injury-in-fact from atrazine in raw water requiring monitoring/remediation | Plaintiffs lack injury since finished water may not exceed MCL | Plaintiffs have standing at pleading stage under MTBE/Iberville analysis |
| Strict liability under Indiana law | Indiana plaintiffs may seek strict liability for design defects | Indiana limits strict liability to manufacturing defect cases | Dismissed for Indiana plaintiffs (City of Jasper and Indiana-American Water) |
| Economic loss rule applicability | Damages to raw water rights are recoverable as property damage | Only purely economic losses are recoverable; no property damage | Economic loss rule does not bar where there is damage to property rights in raw water sources |
| Future damages and nuisance permanence | Damages for future costs are pled as certain/likely | Future damages may be speculative and nuisance may be temporary | Not dispositive on Rule 12(b)(6); some damages pled survive; amount to be resolved later |
| Statute of limitations | Claims within five years and continuing violations tolls apply | Some injuries outside five-year window; continuing violation theory may apply | Claims within limitations period survive; limitations issue reserved for later stage |
Key Cases Cited
- In re MTBE, 457 F. Supp. 2d 455 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (contaminant harms exceed and/or impact public water use; injury beyond pure economic loss)
- In re MTBE, 458 F. Supp. 2d 149 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (distinguishes MTBE on standing and remediations costs)
- Iberville Parish Waterworks Dist. No. 3 v. Novartis Crop Protection, Inc., 45 F. Supp. 2d 934 (S.D. Ala. 1999) (standing where atrazine contamination affects water processing costs)
- Queen City Terminals, Inc. v. General American Transportation Corp., 73 Ohio St. 3d 609, 653 N.E.2d 664 (Ohio 1995) (tangible property damage to possessory rights supports recovery of indirect economic damages)
- Emerald Coast Utils. v. 3M Co., 746 F. Supp. 2d 1216 (N.D. Fla. 2010) (standing/standing-related considerations under MTBE-like claims)
- Ashtabula River Corp. Group II v. Conrail, Inc., 549 F. Supp. 2d 981 (N.D. Ohio 2008) (economic loss doctrine discussion; distinguish lack of damaged property interest)