Search Site
Menu
The Exxon Settlement Paves the Way for future reviews of NRD claims

Judge Hogan has tried and overseen many environmental cases and that fact was evident in the over 80 page decision that he wrote last week upholding the frequently maligned $225 million settlement between the state DEP and the oil giant. While many people argued the state should have gotten more, largely because the state itself proclaimed the value of the case to be around 9 billion dollars, the Judge sought to provide a more realistic context in which the deal was made and proclaimed that it was a deal worthy of court approval.  In fact he gave the deal just that.

 Noteworthy from the decision is that the court employed the federal guidance in evaluating the settlement since New Jersey law lacks similar guidance.  It appears that just about everyone thinks that was a good idea and we can envision that this will now become the modality in which this kind of review will take place from that opinion forward.

 The Court also pointed to numerous litigation risks that warranted a lower settlement amount, retroactivity being the most significant.  While a trial judge had found earlier in the case that natural resource damages could be assessed going back to the 1800s, when the damages first started, and that duration of harm factored largely in creating the 9 billion dollar penalty exposure, the Court observed that if that issue as to retroactivity had been reversed on appeal, the maximum exposure would be only a tenth of that amount.  In that case $225 million did not seem half bad.

 While the opinion was fantastic and thorough, and while it really will provide guidance for future similar reviews,  to some it may resemble that last episode of the Sopranos that left so many wishing there had been a little more.  Some may suggest, for example, that the decision seemed to place too much of the litigation risk on the State, and not enough on Exxon. 

Some might even criticize the heavy reliance on the Commissioner’s certification with attachments, implying that the Commissioner is a partisan doing what was expected of him by the Governor.  In general some may find fault with the overall deference given to the settlement, with an abnormal amount of public criticism having been expressed from some people who understand these issues and had what they perceived to be important objections.

No opinion and no settlement are ever without critics.  The opinion seems beyond successful appeal and rightfully warrants merit and respect.   No matter what, at the end of the day there will be some who still do not understand how a claim supposedly worth so much was settled for what to some seems to be a lot lot less.

Leave a Reply

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

Our Attorneys

Recent Twitter Posts

  • New Jersey Legislature Passes National Precedent Setting Environmental Justice Bill. https://t.co/P8ybU2UrtD
    1 month ago
  • New Jersey files 12 new environmental justice lawsuits. https://t.co/jYo1yCwTOa
    1 month ago
  • Plans Underway for Building Offshore Wind Farms Along the New Jersey Coast. https://t.co/S4CDX5DMS0
    2 months ago
  • Energy companies cancel construction of Atlantic Coast Pipeline. https://t.co/aDYHr4nhal
    3 months ago

Recent Blog Posts

Lead Exposure and Frivolous Litigation

Owners of older residential properties are likely familiar with the legal requirement to provide warnings concerning the existence of lead. Lead exposure, particularly amongst children, can result in severe, even
Read More
Lead Exposure and Frivolous Litigation

New Jersey Supreme Court rules the PLA does not preempt CFA claims by consumers

Now more than ever, consumer protection is important. As a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, we see new products on our shelves, promising safe disinfection for hands and surfaces as
Read More
New Jersey Supreme Court rules the PLA does not preempt CFA claims by consumers

Notices and Appellate Review of a CAFRA Permit

In JSTAR, LLC v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, et al., Docket No. A-1745-18T1, the Appellate Division in an unpublished decision revisited the issues of notice and a review
Read More
Notices and Appellate Review of a CAFRA Permit

Preemption Isn’t Always the Answer: The Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden County Law Division highlights the necessary harmony between State legislation and municipal land use ordinances

On November 20, 2019, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden County Law Division, issued an opinion in the matter captioned Lakeview Memorial Park Association v. Burlington County Construction Board
Read More
Preemption Isn’t Always the Answer: The Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden County Law Division highlights the necessary harmony between State legislation and municipal land use ordinances

In the media

  • 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

    NJ.com 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