New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection & Acting Administrator v. Dimant
212 N.J. 153
N.J.2012Background
- DEP sought Spill Act contribution for investigation/remediation of groundwater contamination in Bound Brook; only Sue’s remained as direct defendant at trial.
- Trial court found DEP failed to prove a nexus between Sue’s discharge and the groundwater contamination; dismissed claims for damages, costs, and remediation.
- Appellate Division affirmed, expanding on the nexus issue and holding no liability under the Spill Act without a link between discharge and the specific contamination.
- This Court granted certification and affirmed the Appellate Division’s nexus approach, clarifying the Spill Act does not require common-law proximate causation but does require a real nexus between discharge and the environmental damage.
- The Court held there is no de minimis exception to Spill Act liability for discharges, and that the nexus standard must connect the discharge to the specific damaged natural resource (groundwater).
- The liability framework under the Spill Act is strict, joint and several, but damages require a real connection between the discharge and the targeted environmental harm; injunctive relief remains possible without tying to damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What nexus is required for Spill Act relief? | DEP argues any discharge with appearance in environment suffices; lack of common-law proximate causation. | Sue’s argues DEP must show a real nexus between discharge and the specific damage. | Some real nexus required between discharge and the specific damage; not full proximate causation. |
| Does the Spill Act permit a de minimis discharge to trigger liability? | DEP contends no de minimis exception should apply. | Sue’s argues no liability for de minimis discharges. | There is no de minimis exception to Spill Act liability. |
| Should CERCLA-like causation standards apply to the Spill Act? | DEP seeks CERCLA-like broad causation. | Sue’s argues Spill Act differs from CERCLA; CERCLA standard should not be imported. | CERCLA proximate-cause standard not adopted; Spill Act requires a real nexus tailored to its relief types. |
| Did Sue’s discharge constitute a Spill Act discharge? | DEP contends the outside pipe drip constituted a discharge causing damage. | Sue’s argues discharge not sufficiently linked to groundwater damage. | There was a discharge, but DEP failed to connect it to the groundwater contamination with preponderance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marsh v. N.J. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 152 N.J. 137 (N.J. 1997) (no de minimis exception to Spill Act liability; broad purposes of the Act)
- Ventron Corp., 94 N.J. 473 (N.J. 1983) (reiterates strict liability and in‑any‑way-responsible concept)
- Kimber Petroleum Corp., 110 N.J. 69 (N.J. 1988) (expands liability to those ‘in any way responsible’ for discharge)
- N.J. Tp. Auth. v. PPG Indus., 197 F.3d 96 (3d Cir. 1999) (recognizes connection requirement between discharge and damages in a Spill Act context)
- Kalamazoo River Study Grp. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 171 F.3d 1065 (6th Cir. 1999) (two-site contamination scenarios; need causal link to response costs)
- Innis Arden Golf Club v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., 629 F. Supp. 2d 175 (D. Conn. 2009) (discusses necessity of causal pathway for CERCLA-like claims)
- Castaic Lake Water Agency v. Whittaker Corp., 272 F. Supp. 2d 1053 (C.D. Cal. 2003) (test for linking releases to off-site contamination under CERCLA framework)
- United States v. Alcan Aluminum Corp., 964 F.2d 252 (3d Cir. 1992) (commentary on causation standards in toxic releases)