943 F.3d 701
3rd Cir.2019Background
- The Cranbury site was a former weapons factory contaminated during mid-20th century operations; NJDEP investigated and identified responsible parties.
- In 2005 NJDEP entered a Consent Order with Cranbury Development and Maxxam to remediate the site; the Order was amended in 2006 to substitute Cranbury Brick Yard as respondent, explicitly calling the amendment an "administrative settlement" under CERCLA and recognizing contribution-immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 9613(f)(2).
- Cranbury Brick Yard began physical remediation in 2013 (after acquiring the site in 2006), allegedly spending over $50 million; remediation included on-site reburial of contaminated soil after a spill.
- In April 2015 Cranbury sued the United States for both cost recovery under § 107(a) and contribution under § 113(f)(1), alleging federal responsibility for contamination; the government counterclaimed for contribution.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the government: (1) the amended Consent Order was an administrative settlement that conferred contribution-immunity and therefore barred Cranbury’s cost-recovery claim under Agere Systems; (2) Cranbury’s remaining contribution claim was time-barred because it accrued when Cranbury joined the settlement in 2006 and was filed nine years later.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether joining a state administrative settlement that confers § 9613(f)(2) immunity permits a cost-recovery action | Cranbury: settlement and voluntary cleanup should not bar a cost-recovery claim | U.S.: settlement granted contribution-immunity; under Agere Systems that immunity precludes cost-recovery suits by the settlor | Court: Agere Systems controls — contribution-immunity under § 9613(f)(2) bars cost-recovery claims by the settlor |
| Whether the amended Consent Order was a § 9613(f)(2) settlement | Cranbury: it was not a settlement of liability or was merely an oversight document; thus no immunity | U.S.: amendment explicitly substituted Cranbury, incorporated the original order, resolved liability, and labeled itself an administrative settlement granting immunity | Court: amendment is an administrative settlement; it conferred contribution-immunity |
| When a contribution claim accrues for SOL purposes | Cranbury: accrual should be when cleanup begins (cost-recovery trigger) | U.S.: accrual occurs when liability is formally recognized (e.g., settlement or judgment); here the 2006 settlement triggered accrual | Court: accrual occurred on execution of the administrative settlement in 2006; § 9613(g)(3) governs accrual |
| Whether Cranbury’s contribution claim was timely and whether BFP status matters | Cranbury: claim timely under alternative triggers/FTCA six-year period; also claims BFP status should shield it | U.S.: claim is untimely — Cranbury sued nine years after 2006; BFP issue is moot because cost-recovery claim barred | Court: contribution claim untimely under three-year rule and untimely even under six-year FTCA backstop; BFP status not reached/moot |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Atlantic Research Corp., 551 U.S. 128 (U.S. 2007) (distinguishes cost-recovery and contribution remedies and explains their interaction)
- Agere Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Envtl. Tech. Corp., 602 F.3d 204 (3d Cir. 2010) (settling polluter immune under § 9613(f)(2) cannot bring a cost-recovery claim)
- Cooper Indus., Inc. v. Aviall Servs., Inc., 543 U.S. 157 (U.S. 2004) (clarifies distinct causes of action under CERCLA)
- Pa. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot. v. Trainer Custom Chem., LLC, 906 F.3d 85 (3d Cir. 2018) (discusses joint-and-several liability and remediation costs)
- Hobart Corp. v. Waste Mgmt. of Ohio, Inc., 758 F.3d 757 (6th Cir. 2014) (addressed accrual/triggers for contribution claims and alternative interpretations of § 9613(g)(3))