Emergency Services Billing Corp. v. Allstate Insurance, 668 F.3d 459

ESBC files a CERCLA cost-recovery action as billing agent for the Volunteer Fire Department of Westville for four motor-vehicle accident responses.
Defendants are individuals involved in the crashes and their liability insurers; ESBC invoiced them for department response costs.
CERCLA imposes liability on the owner/operator of a facility; ESBC contends personal motor vehicles are facilities.
The district court held personal motor vehicles fall within the CERCLA consumer product in consumer use exemption.
ESBC appeals challenging the interpretation; the issue is whether personal motor vehicles are excluded from CERCLA facilities as consumer products.
Court affirms the district court’s dismissal, holding personal motor vehicles are consumer products in consumer use under CERCLA.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether motor vehicles used for personal use are consumer products in consumer use under CERCLA.	ESBC argues term ambiguous; EPA interpretation should apply.	Defendants contend term unambiguous and includes personal vehicles.	Motor vehicles are consumer products in consumer use; exemption applies.

Amcast Industrial Corp. v. Detrex Corp., 2 F.3d 746 (7th Cir. 1993) (CERCLA liability framework for facility and release)
Envtl. Transp. Sys., Inc. v. Ensco, Inc., 969 F.2d 503 (7th Cir. 1992) (elements for recovery of response costs under CERCLA)
Chevron U.S. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (two-step framework for agency deference when ambiguity exists)
Bankers Life and Cas. Co. v. United States, 142 F.3d 973 (7th Cir. 1998) (step-two deference to agency interpretations when statute is silent or ambiguous)
Uniroyal Chem. Co. v. Deltech Corp., 160 F.3d 238 (5th Cir. 1998) (outside-source corroboration of consumer product usages across statutes)