Peniel Group, Inc. v. Bannon
973 N.E.2d 575
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Site at Churchman Hill Plaza in Beech Grove, Indiana; dry cleaning business operated there from 1969–1996 under various owners; 1989 Four Corners Group purchased Speed Queen assets including dry cleaning machines using PCE; spills and leaks from machines occurred, with PCE sometimes entering concrete basins; PCE storage and waste handling occurred on-site; ATC conducted site assessments in 1997 and 2000 detecting PCE and TCE in soil and groundwater with the on-site dry cleaner as likely source; Beech Grove Holdings/Peniel acquired the Site in 2005; AEC assessed contamination in 2005 showing PCE and TCE above IDEM closure levels; Beech Grove Holdings filed IC 13-30-9-2 environmental action in 2008 seeking cost recovery for remediation; a trial court granted summary judgment for Appellees in 2011; the appellate court affirmed that the ELA statute of limitations is six years and accrues on discovery/earlier date of knowledge by predecessors in interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which statute of limitations applies to the ELA claim? | Beech Grove Holdings argues ten years under 34-11-1-2. | Appellees contend six-year limitation under 34-11-2-7. | ELA claim subject to six-year limit. |
| When does the ELA claim accrue? | Accrual begins when the action is filed or when conduct occurs? (Beech Grove asserts accrual later.) | Accrual occurs at discovery or when a reasonable person would discover the injury. | Accrual occurred before 2002 due to predecessors' knowledge; action in 2008 barred. |
| Can Beech Grove Holdings’ predecessors’ knowledge be imputed to Beech Grove Holdings? | Predecessors’ knowledge should be imputed to Beech Grove Holdings. | Imputation not disputed; Beech Grove Holdings had knowledge since at least 1997. | Predecessor knowledge imputable; bar to timely filing. |
| Is the ELA a contribution action thereby governed by a 10-year statute or a general six-year statute for real property injury? | ELA is/(or) can be a contribution action. | ELA not a pure contribution scheme; applies six-year limit for property injury. | ELA not a pure contribution scheme; six-year statute applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Landmark Health Care Assocs., L.P. v. Bradbury, 671 N.E.2d 113 (Ind. 1996) (summary judgment standard guidance)
- Scott v. Bodor, Inc., 571 N.E.2d 313 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (genuine issue of material fact analysis)
- Gagan v. Yast, 966 N.E.2d 177 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (use of trial court findings in review; standard of review on summary judgment)
- Cooper Indus., LLC v. City of South Bend, 899 N.E.2d 1279 (Ind. 2009) (ELA not strictly contribution; six-year limitation applied)
- Taylor Farm Ltd. Liab. Co. v. Viacom, Inc., 234 F. Supp. 2d 950 (S.D. Ind. 2002) (ELA not on its face a contribution scheme; comparison to CERCLA context)