Reed v. Reid
2012 Ind. LEXIS 992
| Ind. | 2012Background
- Forge disposed solid waste on Reed's auction barn property during a dump for fill; IDEM issued notices of violation to Forge and Reed; multiple testing revealed hazardous metals including chromium on Forge and Reed property; Forge entered an Agreed Order with IDEM acknowledging disposal that created a threat but penalty waived; Reed hired HydroTech to remediate per IDEM; Reed filed a fourteen-count complaint including ELA, illegal dumping, nuisance, fraud, trespass, etc.; trial court granted summary judgment to Defendants on most claims, denying some, with this appeal arising from those rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ELA viability against Forge-based waste | David prevailed on Forge's liability under ELA | Defendants showed no source of waste from Forge | ELA claim viability disputed; trial court erred in granting summary judgment for Defendants on ELA |
| Illegal dumping recovery hinges on consent | David did not consent to dumping | David consented to placement of materials | Summary judgment reversed; material facts about consent contested |
| Fraud elements satisfied by representations | Forge misrepresented waste as clean fill with no environmental problems | Statements were opinion or legal conclusions | Fraud claim viable; remand for facts on causation and reliance |
| Nuisance based on Forge waste on Reed property | Deposit of waste caused a nuisance | Nuisance requires ownership-adjacent analysis; lack of clear basis | Nuisance claim should go to jury; reversed summary judgment on this count |
| Trespass by entry onto Reed property and by Midwest/Dibble | Entries were unauthorized; Midwest and Dibble as agents trespassed | Consent or authority may have existed; contested | Summary judgment on trespass reversed; factual issues remain for trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Cooper Indus., L.L.C. v. City of South Bend, 899 N.E.2d 1274 (Ind. 2009) (ELA-like cost recovery considerations; source of contamination focus)
- Gray v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 624 N.E.2d 49 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (nuisance and liability for contamination independent of adjoining land ownership)
- City of Gary v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 801 N.E.2d 1222 (Ind. 2003) (protecting property rights from nuisance; broad application of nuisance concepts)
- Aronson v. Price, 644 N.E.2d 864 (Ind. 1994) (piercing corporate veil factors and corporate formalities)
- RLG, Inc. v. Comm’r, Ind. Dept. of Envtl. Mgmt., 755 N.E.2d 556 (Ind. 2001) (responsible corporate officer doctrine in environmental violations)