Search Site

No Time Limit to Sue for Environmental Cleanup Costs in New Jersey

No Statute of Limitations Applies to Private Spill Act Claims

The regulated community breathed a collective sigh of relief when New Jersey’s highest court released its decision today in Morristown Associates v. Grant Oil Co., — NJ — (2015), where it held that the state’s general six-year statute of limitations is not applicable to private “contribution” lawsuits brought under the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act (known as the “Spill Act”). Owners and operators of contaminated property in New Jersey have been awaiting this decision since the Appellate Division ruled, in 2013, that the limitations period did apply, upsetting a decades-long understanding to the contrary.

Contribution Under the Spill Act

The Spill Act contains a provision allowing a private right of action, commonly called a “contribution” claim. It provides that a court may allocate the cost of cleaning up a contaminated site among multiple responsible parties using equitable considerations. There are many equitable considerations that are typically available as part of this analysis, including the amount of hazardous substances discharged, the length of ownership and/or operation, and the contaminants that are driving the cost of remediation. Private contribution cases under the Spill Act are a dominant means by which responsible parties can defray the cost of environmental clean ups. The traditional model (employed for decades in New Jersey) is one in which a party funding an environmental cleanup files a Spill Act contribution lawsuit against others who should also contribute because they are in some way responsible for the discharge of hazardous substances at the site.

Statutes of Limitation & the Spill Act

The Spill Act statute itself has no express statute of limitations for bringing a contribution claim. For decades, property owners and others in the regulated community, as well as their lawyers, have labored under the impression that no such statute of limitations applied. The Appellate Division’s 2013 decision to the contrary came as a surprise to the regulated community. In 2013, the intermediate appellate court found that parties had only six years to bring these claims, and its holding presented a problem for many in the regulated community because environmental cleanups often take much longer than six years to complete. This problem was eliminated today when the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division finding.

In reaching its decision, the high court relied on the plain language and legislative history of the statute, finding no basis to impose a statute of limitations where none had existed before. The Court also noted that the Spill Act is “remedial” legislation, the impact if which would be diminished if an arbitrary limitations period were imposed. In concluding that no statute of limitations applies, the Court explained, “we do not unsettle a decades-long understanding in this State that no limitations period restricts contribution claims against responsible parties.”

Environmental Cost Recovery Claims Remain Viable

Today’s decision clears the way for future environmental cost recovery actions that parties may have believed were time-barred following the Appellate Division’s 2013 ruling. It is no longer a defense to an allegation of Spill Act responsibility to state that the contribution plaintiff is barred by New Jersey’s catch-all statute of limitations. This allows property owners and others completing environmental investigation and remediation activities to proceed knowing that their potential claims against others who may have contributed to the contamination will not be barred. The decision removes one of the hurdles when a remediating party seeks to recoup the costs associated with an environmental cleanup in New Jersey.

* * *

Lieberman Blecher & Sinkevich proudly represented the Passaic River Coalition in this case as a “friend of the court.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Our Attorneys

In The Media

  • On the Run: Runner/lawyer DeBord out to protect the environment she loves

    Bucks County Herald, January 4, 2024

    When Brittany DeBord runs along the Delaware River canal towpath or on the trails of Tyler State Park, she doesn’t just appreciate the natural beauty of the...

    Read More
  • Gulf Coast Town Center facing foreclosure

    Naples Daily News, September 16, 2015

    Wells Fargo filed a lawsuit Sept. 8 against an affiliate of CBL & Associates, the owners of the decadeold, 1.2 million-square-foot mall in south Fort Myers for a $190.9 million unpaid loan. The center has 94 stores on 204 acres, with such anchors as Super Target, Belk, Best Buy, Dick’s Sporting Goods, Marshalls and Costco...

    Read More
  • Town liable for private company's leaking underground tanks, court rules Jul 26, 2017

    CRANFORD -- A couple that owned a businesses in town and became sick from leaking underground tanks owned by an adjacent business can sue the township for damages because the tanks were partially ...

    Read More
  • Dark Waters: How a Class Action Catapulted NJ to Forefront of 'Forever Chemicals' Battle

    NJ Law Journal Jan 09, 2020

    As property owners become increasingly aware of PFAS contamination, and as individuals exposed to PFAS learn of the health risks associated with exposure, liability will likely affect entire supply chains.

    Read More
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
Contact Our Firm

Quick Contact Form