Search Site
Menu
A draft settlement is not an executable agreement for parties seeking to settle Natural Resource Damage liability under the Spill Act

The Appellate Division recently handed down its decision in Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, et al., holding that no enforceable settlement existed between the two parties with respect to Natural Resource Damage (“NRD”) claims associated with fifty-four sites.

Under the Spill Act, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) may seek damages against a responsible party for the loss of use of natural resources adversely affected by the party’s discharge of hazardous substances. In September 2003, the DEP published Policy Directive 2003-07, which encouraged responsible parties to voluntarily settle their potential NRD liability. On December 31, 2003, Cumberland Farms, Inc. (“CFI”) indicated its intention to pursue settlement.

The process of reaching a settlement is an iterative one, involving extensive negotiation between the DEP and the responsible party. The Office of Natural Resources Restoration (“ONNR”) is responsible for establishing the key terms of the agreement. Once established, ONNR staff must obtain authority from their respective management team to finalize the settlement.

In addition, N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11e2, effective April 12, 2006, required public notice of a possible settlement at least 30 days prior to its agreement.  On December 2, 2015, the Legislature increased the thirty-day requirement to sixty days. Even prior to this law, however, the DEP included provisions requiring public notice and comment in its settlement agreements. These provisions allowed DEP to withdraw from the settlement if public comments indicated that the settlement was “inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.”

Fifty-four sites were the subject of this appeal. On June 14, 2007, CFI emailed ONNR, stating that CFI authorized property to go towards a conservation trust in order to reach a settlement. On June 20, 2007, ONRR replied that it was satisfied with the proposal and sent a draft settlement for CFI’s review. The draft settlement included blank spaces, strikeouts, and “redlines.”

CFI did not provide a response to the June 20, 2007 email. Moreover, CFI remained largely silent for several years. Sometime in 2012, the DEP added CFI as a defendant to a Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (“MTBE”) law suit, wherein the fifty-four sites at issue in this appeal were included.

On June 20, 2013, six years after ONRR sent CFI the draft settlement agreement for the fifty-four sites, CFI filed a complaint seeking to enforce the alleged final settlement. CFI asserted that the DEP breached the parties’ agreement by including the sites in the MTBE litigation and sought specific performance of the settlement. CFI also argued that the DEP was estopped from denying the existence of an enforceable contract because CFI partially performed its obligations by purchasing property for a conservation trust. Finally, CFI also claimed that the DEP breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to consummate the settlement and perform its obligations thereunder.

The trial judge rejected CFI’s claim, finding no valid settlement agreement between CFI and DEP and dismissing CFI’s breach of contract, specific performance, and declaratory judgment claims. The trial judge also rejected CFI’s promissory estoppel argument, finding that CFI had not completed its stated plan of buying all of the acreage necessary to move forward. However, the trial judge entered judgment in CFI’s favor on its breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim, finding that the DEP needed to resume negotiations.

On appeal, CFI argued that the trial judge erred in concluding there was no enforceable settlement agreement. CFI asserted that it made an offer to settle in its June 14, 2007 letter and ONRR’s June 20, 2007 letter constituted an acceptance of that offer.

The Appellate Division affirmed the trial judge’s finding that there was no enforceable settlement agreement. A settlement is a contract and that acceptance must be “absolute” and “unequivocally shown.” Applying these principles in this case, the court found that the DEP made no such indication. The record established that the DEP was negotiating via the iterative process. Both parties knew that the ONRR did not have authority to enter into a binding settlement. In addition, the agreement was clearly in draft form.

The Appellate Division pointed to two more factors supporting the trial court’s decision: (1) the language in the draft agreement expressly stating that the settlement would not be effective until executed by both parties; and (2) the public notice requirements of N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11e2 had not been met. It is clear that DEP may withdraw from a settlement agreement, rendering it unenforceable, upon receiving negative public comments.

The Appellate Division affirmed the trial judge’s rejection of CFI’s promissory estoppel argument. The necessary element of promissory estoppel, a “clear and definite promise” by DEP to enter the settlement, did not exist for the foregoing reasons.

Finally, the Appellate Division reversed the portion of the trial judge’s order finding that the DEP breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. In the absence of a contract, there can be no breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

The attorneys at Lieberman Blecher & Sinkevich are experienced at handling all facets of Spill Act litigation, and we welcome the opportunity to discuss how we may help you or your business navigate these issues.

Leave a Reply

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

Our Attorneys

Recent Twitter Posts

  • Contaminant May Have Leaked into Aquifer at Site of Planned LNG Terminal in Gibbstown. https://t.co/Q1yObrGP5J
    1 week ago
  • Lawmakers move to extend permits for projects derailed by COVID-19. https://t.co/9xw8O2tB1W
    3 weeks ago
  • Governor Murphy signs executive order relaxing deadlines for issuing environmental permits during the COVID-19 pand… https://t.co/d1GD05v82Y
    3 weeks ago
  • New Jersey and coalition of states file lawsuit to block EPA's "Navigable Waters Protection Rule." https://t.co/VOS7HkKCeu
    3 weeks ago

Recent Blog Posts

Frequently Asked Questions About New Jersey Natural Resource Damages Cases

For many years, natural resource damages claims represented a fairly insignificant part of the environmental law landscape nationally as well as here in New Jersey. When seeking damages for a
Read More
Frequently Asked Questions About New Jersey Natural Resource Damages Cases

EPA ROLES BACK FEDERAL WETLANDS PROTECTIONS – AND GETS SUED FOR DOING SO

This past January, the federal government rolled back its protections of wetlands authorized under the United States Clean Water Act. The “Navigable Waters Protection Rule,” effective on June 22, 2020,
Read More
EPA ROLES BACK FEDERAL WETLANDS PROTECTIONS – AND GETS SUED FOR DOING SO

Our Drinking Water and Water Bodies Prevailed in The Maui decision

When most of us think of Maui, we envision great weather, lush vegetation, tiki bars and beaches. The very last thing that comes to mind are sewer plants and the
Read More
Our Drinking Water and Water Bodies Prevailed in The Maui decision

Published Reports Claims EPA is Hiding True Lead Levels in Drinking Water

APM Reports (from American Public Media) has just released a report on May 4, 2020 that raises some critical questions not only about the quality of the water we are
Read More
Published Reports Claims EPA is Hiding True Lead Levels in Drinking Water

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