Morristown Associates v. Grant Oil Company (073248), 106 A.3d 1176

Morristown Associates purchased Morristown Plaza (strip-mall) in 1979; Plaza Cleaners had an underground storage tank (UST) whose fill/vent pipes later were found severely corroded and leaking fuel oil beginning as early as 1988. Oil deliveries by several heating-oil companies occurred from 1988–2003.
Contamination was discovered in 2003; Morristown remediated and filed a Spill Act contribution claim in 2006 against multiple oil suppliers and former owners/operators seeking recovery of cleanup costs under N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11f(a)(2)(a).
The trial court granted summary judgment for several defendants based on New Jersey’s six‑year statute of limitations for injury to real property, N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1, applying the Lopez discovery rule; the Appellate Division affirmed.
The New Jersey Supreme Court granted certification to decide whether the general six‑year limitations period applies to private Spill Act contribution actions.
The Spill Act contribution provision (added 1991) grants a right of contribution and states that a contribution defendant “shall have only the defenses to liability available to parties pursuant to [N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11g(d)],” which lists only defenses of war, sabotage, or God and does not mention a statute of limitations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1 (six‑year limitations) applies to private Spill Act contribution claims	Morristown: No; Spill Act’s contribution provision limits available defenses to those in § 58:10-23.11g(d), which does not include a statute of limitations; Legislature omitted a limit deliberately and elsewhere included time bars when intended	Defendants: Yes; when a statute is silent, courts apply the general limitations period for comparable harms (here injury to real property), consistent with Montells and prior district court decisions	Held: Reversed App. Div.; six‑year statute of limitations does not apply to Spill Act contribution claims because the contribution provision limits available defenses and omits any statute‑of‑limitations defense.

Montells v. Haynes, 133 N.J. 282 (1993) (general‑limitations application where a statute is silent; discussed and distinguished)
Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Baker Indus., Inc., 277 N.J. Super. 484 (App. Div. 1994) (held statute‑of‑repose inapplicable to Spill Act contribution claims; relied on in parties’ briefing)
Magic Petroleum Corp. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 218 N.J. 390 (2014) (describing Spill Act’s joint and several strict liability)
Ventron Corp. v. DEP, 94 N.J. 473 (1983) (remedial purpose of environmental statutes; “Those who poison the land must pay for its cure.”)
DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477 (2005) (statutory‑interpretation principles referenced for discerning legislative intent)