Summary
This Tenth Circuit opinion addresses whether a claim to recoup environmental cleanup costs should be characterized as cost recovery or contribution under CERCLA for statute of limitations purposes. The court determines that because the plaintiff settled with the EPA, the claim constitutes one for contribution. Applying the three-year limitations period for contribution actions, the court reverses the district court's grant of summary judgment and remands the case, finding the suit timely.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the action is a contribution action subject to the three‑year limitations period of 42 U.S.C. § 9613(g)(3).
- Whether the district court erred in applying the cost‑recovery limitations period to the contribution claim.
Holdings
- The action is a contribution action; the three‑year limitations period for contribution actions applies, rendering the claim timely.
- The district court erred; the contribution limitations period, not the cost‑recovery period, governs.
Key quotations
“We therefore reverse the grant of summary judgment to the NL entities and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” (at 1192)
Factual background
Atlantic Richfield acquired a Colorado mine that leaked sulfuric acid into a river. After EPA‑ordered remediation, Atlantic Richfield settled with the EPA in 2011, paying $400,000, and later sued NL Industries and NL Environmental Management Services to recover a portion of its cleanup costs, seeking contribution rather than cost recovery.
Procedural history
The district court granted summary judgment, holding the contribution claim untimely under the cost‑recovery limitations period. Atlantic Richfield appealed, arguing the claim is a contribution action subject to the three‑year contribution limitations period.
Remand instructions
Remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.