Janet Leichling v. Honeywell International, Inc
842 F.3d 848
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- From 1854–1985 Honeywell (successor to several predecessors) operated chromium processing at Harbor Point, producing large quantities of chromium ore processing residues (COPR) containing carcinogenic hexavalent chromium.
- Beginning in the 1950s–1970s Honeywell used COPR and other material as fill to create an 85‑acre landmass that the Maryland Port Authority purchased in 1967 and used to expand the Dundalk Marine Terminal.
- The sale contract required Honeywell to deposit COPR fill at the Marine Terminal (or pay otherwise), and the Port Authority used COPR fill through 1976.
- John R. Leichling worked at the Dundalk Marine Terminal (1973–2001) and died of lung cancer in 2012; his survivors sued Honeywell claiming exposure to COPR caused his death.
- Honeywell removed the case, moved to dismiss under Maryland’s 20‑year statute of repose for injuries arising from a “defective and unsafe condition of an improvement to real property,” and the district court dismissed with prejudice; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Honeywell’s use of COPR to create the landmass is an “improvement to real property” under Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5‑108(a) | The COPR was toxic and made the area unsuitable for human use; thus the statute of repose should not apply | The COPR fill was used to create a permanent landmass integral to development of the Marine Terminal and therefore qualifies as an improvement | The court held the COPR fill was at least an integral component of the improvement and thus falls within the statute of repose |
| Whether a hazardous or illegal nature of the underlying conduct removes the activity from the statute’s scope | Known hazardous dumping means the activity was not a legitimate improvement and should be excluded | The statute’s text and legislative history do not carve out known hazardous conditions (except asbestos by explicit amendment) | The court rejected a general hazardous/illegality exception and declined to create one for chromium |
| Whether plaintiffs’ challenge to the “improvement” prong requires parsing the COPR in isolation | Plaintiffs urged focusing on the hazardous fill itself | Defendant urged the court to view the expansion project as a whole under the "integral component" doctrine | The court applied the common‑sense test and integral‑component approach, viewing the land expansion as a whole and finding the fill integral |
| Whether dismissal on statute of repose grounds was proper at Rule 12(b)(6) stage | Plaintiffs contended facts should be resolved and statute inapplicable | Defendant argued the complaint and attached agreement showed the fill was part of an improvement and time bar applied | The court concluded the complaint and attachments supported dismissal under § 5‑108(a) |
Key Cases Cited
- Rose v. Fox Pool Corp., 643 A.2d 906 (Md. 1994) (defines "improvement to real property" and discusses legislature's asbestos exception)
- Hickman v. Carven, 784 A.2d 31 (Md. 2001) (integral‑component doctrine; consider project as whole)
- Pippin v. Reilly Indus., Inc., [citation="64 F. App'x 382"] (4th Cir. 2003) (applying Maryland statute of repose to bar claims where component was integral to an improvement)
- King v. Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206 (4th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) de novo review)
- Goodman v. Praxair, Inc., 494 F.3d 458 (4th Cir. 2007) (affirmative defenses may justify dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) if apparent on complaint)
- Philips v. Pitt Cty. Mem'l Hosp., 572 F.3d 176 (4th Cir. 2009) (permitting consideration of documents integral to the complaint on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion)