United States v. Cb & I Constructors, Inc.
685 F.3d 827
9th Cir.2012Background
- CB&I negligently caused the Copper Fire in June 2002, burning about 18,000 acres of Angeles National Forest after a welding operation ignited dry brush.
- The fire spread from private and county land into the National Forest, triggering roughly $6.6 million in fire suppression costs and related efforts; the government sought additional intangible environmental damages.
- Merco settled with the government for $2.1 million; the district court held CB&I jointly and severally liable for economic damages but severally liable for the intangible environmental damages.
- Jury awarded about $7.6 million for hard costs and an additional $28.8 million for intangible environmental damages, calculated at $1,600 per burned acre.
- CB&I appealed arguing (a) intangible environmental damages are not recoverable for property harm, (b) insufficient evidence to quantify such damages, and (c) the award was grossly excessive.
- The district court and Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that California law permits intangible environmental damages for negligently set fires on public land and that the evidence supported the award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are intangible environmental damages recoverable in tort for fires on public land? | CB&I argues noneconomic damages are not recoverable for property harm. | CB&I contends environmental damages are not compensable in this context under California law. | Yes; intangible environmental damages are recoverable. |
| Is there sufficient evidence to quantify intangible environmental damages? | Government presented extensive evidence on environmental harm and its public-value impact. | Government failed to quantify damages with monetary figures for the intangible damages. | Sufficient evidence supported a rational award; no exact monetary precision required. |
| Was the $28.8 million award for intangible damages grossly excessive? | Award reflects comprehensive environmental harm and public value. | Close connection to a potential multiplier approach may render the amount excessive. | Not grossly excessive; per-acre framing at $1,600 was reasonable given the harm. |
| What method supports valuing intangible environmental damages when there is no market value? | Use nature and character of environmental harm to inform the award; price-per-acre is acceptable. | Multipliers or other methods may be preferred to avoid speculative valuations. | Price-per-acre method (and underlying evidence) acceptable; not required to use a single fixed method. |
| Does California law limit the government to economic damages for fires on federal forest land? | California cases recognize broader recovery for environmental harms beyond market values. | Limitations exist on noneconomic damages for property-related torts. | No limitation preventing intangible environmental damages; full compensation permitted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santa Barbara Pistachio Ranch v. Chowchilla Water Dist., 88 Cal.App.4th 439 (Cal. App. 2001) (flexible damages approach in torts for property harm)
- Willard v. Valley Gas & Fuel Co., 151 P. 286 (Cal. 1915) (non-market damages assessed beyond precise market value)
- Zvolanek v. Bodger Seeds, Ltd., 5 Cal. App. 2d 106 (Cal. App. 2d 1935) (elements for rational damages in non-marketable loss)
- Union Pacific R.R. Co., 565 F. Supp. 2d 1136 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (not one fixed method for ascertaining damages)
- Feather River Lumber Co. v. United States, 30 F.2d 642 (9th Cir. 1929) (damages include habitat and land restoration where market value is absent)
- McKay v. California, 8 Cal.App.4th 937 (Cal. App. 1992) (no restrictions on type of property damage recoverable)
- Robinson v. United States, 175 F. Supp. 2d 1215 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (recovery requires a rational basis for damages; sentimental value not allowed)