Christian v. Atlantic Richfield Co.

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court reviews summary judgment against property owners seeking restoration damages from arsenic and other contamination associated with the former Anaconda copper smelter. The court holds that reasonable abatability, rather than continued migration alone, is the central consideration in determining whether nuisance and trespass claims constitute continuing torts for statute-of-limitations purposes. It affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. A continuing nuisance or trespass based on environmental contamination does not require proof that the contamination continues to migrate. The controlling consideration is whether the injury is reasonably abatable; migration is relevant but not dispositive.
2. Summary judgment was improper because competing expert reports created genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the contamination continued to migrate and whether it could reasonably be abated.
3. Negligence and strict liability are theories of liability rather than injuries. They may be considered under the continuing tort doctrine when the underlying injury, such as nuisance or trespass, is continuing.
4. Under the circumstances presented, the continuing tort doctrine does not apply to the plaintiffs' unjust-enrichment claim because monetary restitution for past use of property is not the type of abatement contemplated by the doctrine.
5. The wrongful-occupation claim could be treated as continuing and was not barred under the two-year statute of limitations applied by the District Court. The District Court applied the wrong limitations provision.
6. The discovery rule did not toll the limitations periods for the plaintiffs' constructive-fraud and unjust-enrichment claims because the plaintiffs had sufficient information regarding potential contamination to prompt reasonable inquiry and did not establish fraudulent concealment or self-concealment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the continuing tort doctrine requires evidence that environmental contaminants continue to migrate.
2. Whether genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether contamination on the plaintiffs' properties could reasonably be abated.
3. Whether the continuing tort doctrine could apply to claims other than nuisance and trespass.
4. Whether the discovery rule applied because the facts constituting the claims were concealed or self-concealing, or because ARCO prevented the plaintiffs from discovering them.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded