DEP v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
22 A.3d 1
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2011Background
- DEP filed two 2004 complaints against Exxon Mobil asserting Spill Act claims and common law nuisance and trespass, seeking natural resource damages for Bayonne and Linden sites.
- Trial court granted summary judgment that the statute of limitations barred the common law claims and that the extension statute did not apply, dismissing the fourth count (strict liability).
- Exxon argued DEP’s common law claims were time-barred and not within the extension statute’s scope; DEP appealed.
- The extension statute, N.J.S.A. 58:10B-17.1, was amended to provide five years and six months for environmental damages actions; its definition of State’s environmental laws includes nine statutes plus “or any other law or regulation.”
- The trial court treated common law claims as not within the extension; the appellate panel later held the extension applies to the strict liability common law claim, reversing and remanding.
- The court discussed legislative history and public policy to determine whether common law claims fall within the extension’s breadth and rejected a narrow ejusdem generis reading.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the extension statute applies to DEP's common law strict liability claim | DEP: extension covers any other law, including common law. | Exxon: extension covers only statutory environmental laws; common law not included. | Yes; extension includes common law strict liability claim. |
| Whether the term 'State's environmental laws' and 'any other law or regulation' must be read narrowly under ejusdem generis | DEP: broad interpretation to preserve remedial authority; common law included. | Exxon: narrow reading; limits to statutes/regulations, not common law. | Court rejects narrow reading; finds legislative history supports breadth to include common law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine, 537 U.S. 51 (Sup. Ct. 2002) (preemption language lacks article 'a' before law or regulation; common law not encompassed)
- Richardson v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 192 N.J. 189 (2007) (statutory interpretation foregrounds plain meaning and legislative intent)
- DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477 (2005) (extrinsic evidence used to resolve ambiguity when plain language fails)
- State v. Culver, 23 N.J. 495 (1957) (all law language considerations and breadth of constitutional phrases)