Hanna v. Motiva Enterprises, LLC
839 F. Supp. 2d 654
S.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Plaintiffs Hanna own residential property at 86 Livingston Rd, Scarsdale, NY; nearby service station at 1455 Weaver St is linked to Motiva/Shell over time.
- It is alleged the service station is the source of petroleum contamination and odors affecting plaintiffs’ property and nuisance claims.
- Remediation has occurred via ongoing access agreements (1991–2010) for testing, wells, and vapor extraction; work largely occurred on the defendants’ side of the river, not on plaintiffs’ property.
- A tolling agreement (March 1995) sought to toll statutes of limitations for contamination-related claims; its binding status is disputed.
- Plaintiffs filed suit on February 9, 2009; Texaco was later replaced by Motiva; Star and Texaco allegedly participated in remediation and access.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment on statute of limitations, liability for N.Y. NAV Law §181 damages, nuisance theories, and other claims; plaintiffs opposed and sought relief on NAV §181 damages and liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether tolling agreement preserves timely filing | March 30 tolling agreement bound parties to tolling. | No binding signature; no consummated contract. | Binding tolling agreement found; action timely. |
| Whether the statute of limitations bars post-1994 claims | Tolling covers claims arising from contamination that continues thereafter. | Tolling only covers claims accruing by Nov 30, 1994; post-1994 claims barred. | Tolling covers claims accruing up to Nov 30, 1994; post-1994 claims barred. |
| Nuisance and emotional distress claims viability | Odor/noise constitutes private nuisance; damages for emotional distress recoverable. | Emotional distress lacks basis; nuisance must be rooted in intentional action or negligence. | Emotional distress claim survives; private nuisance discussed; damages for nuisance viable. |
| Trespass claim against remediation activities | Remediation activities constituted trespass onto property. | Plaintiffs consented to access; no trespass via testing/remediation. | Trespass claim dismissed; access agreements foreclose trespass theory. |
| New York Navigation Law § 181 damages and diminution in value | Defendants strictly liable; seek damages for costs, diminution in value, and attorneys’ fees. | No damage for diminution in value; costs limited and expert proof required. | Liability established; damages issue for remediation costs allowed; diminution in value damages rejected; expert limitations upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Scribner v. Summers, 84 F.3d 554 (2d Cir. 1996) (trespass requires intentional invasion and may be based on foreseeability of invasion)
- Boswell v. Leemilt’s Petroleum Inc., 252 A.D.2d 889 (3d Dept. 1998) (accrual for nuisance/trespass tied to discovery of contamination)
- Winston v. Mediafare Entm’t Corp., 777 F.2d 78 (2d Cir. 1985) (contract formation without full execution; four-factor test for binding tolling)
- In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Prods. Liab. Litig., 379 F. Supp. 2d 348 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (emotional distress damages in nuisance context; expert evidence considerations)
- Layton v. Yankee Caithness Joint Venture, L.P., 774 F. Supp. 576 (D. Nev. 1991) (odors and nuisance; admissibility of expert/empirical evidence in causation)
- AMCO International, Inc. v. Long Island R.R. Co., 302 A.D.2d 338 (2d Dept. 2003) (damages and valuation considerations for contaminated property)
- Sunrise Harbor Realty, LLC v. 35th Sunrise Corp., 86 A.D.3d 562 (2d Dept. 2011) (measure of damages under NAVL §181: cleanup costs and diminution in value)
- Kaplan v. Incorporated Village of Lynbrook, 12 A.D.3d 410 (2d Dep’t 2004) (trespass and access-based disputes; consent issues)