descrybe logo
You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Louisiana-Pacific Corporation Port of Tacoma v. Asarco Incorporated, Defendant-Third-Party v. William Fjetland B & L Trucking and Construction Co., Inc. Industrial Mineral Products, Inc. Murray Pacific Corporation Portac, Inc. Cascade Timber Company Executive Bark Inc. Wasser & Winters Company Eagle Trucking, Inc., Third-Party-Defendants-Appellees. Louisiana-Pacific Corporation v. Cascade Timber Company, Third-Party Defendant/counter-Claimant/appellant v. Asarco Incorporated, Defendant/third-Party William Fjetland B & L Trucking and Construction Co., Inc. Industrial Mineral Products, Inc. Murray Pacific Corporation Portac, Inc., Third-Party Louisiana-Pacific Corporation Port of Tacoma, Portac, Inc., Third-Party Defendant/counter-Claimant/appellant v. Asarco Incorporated, Defendant-Third-Party William Fjetland, Third-Party Louisiana-Pacific Corporation v. Murray Pacific Corporation, Third-Party Defendant/counter-Claimant/appellant v. Asarco Incorporated, Defendant/third-Party William Fjetland B & L Trucking an

Citations: 13 F.3d 1378; 94 Daily Journal DAR 485; 94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 282; 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 11241Docket: 92-35144

Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; January 12, 1994; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed several appeals involving the Washington Product Liability Act (WPLA) claims related to property contamination allegedly caused by ASARCO Incorporated's slag. The primary legal issue was the statute of limitations applicable to the WPLA claims, focusing on when these claims accrued. The district court had previously ruled the statute began in 1986, linked to a cleanup order from the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE). However, ASARCO argued that the statute should have commenced in 1981 when the plaintiffs were or should have been aware of the contamination, making it a factual issue for remand. The court emphasized that under Washington law, a claim accrues when the plaintiff discovers the harm's causal connection to the product. Additionally, the court affirmed certain damages under CERCLA, reversed the district court’s dismissal of the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) claims, and remanded for further proceedings. The decision included amendments to the previous opinion, affecting awards and liability findings under various statutes, and highlighted unresolved issues regarding the timing of awareness of contamination by the plaintiffs.

Legal Issues Addressed

Accrual of Claims under Washington Product Liability Act (WPLA)

Application: The court determined that under Washington law, a cause of action for products liability accrues when the claimant discovers the causal connection between the product and the harm.

Reasoning: The court looked to Washington state law, particularly a precedent that established that a cause of action in products liability accrues upon the claimant's discovery of the causal connection between the product and the harm.

Inclusion of Damages under CERCLA

Application: The court noted that except for specific damages awarded to Portac, all other damages under the WPLA were included in the upheld CERCLA award.

Reasoning: The court also noted that, except for specific damages awarded to Portac, all other damages under the WPLA were included in the upheld Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) award.

Reversal of District Court’s Dismissal of MTCA Claims

Application: The appellate court reversed the district court's dismissal of the MTCA claims and remanded for further determination regarding the plaintiffs' entitlement to those claims.

Reasoning: The court reversed the district court's dismissal of the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) claims and remanded for determination of the plaintiffs' entitlement to those claims.

Statute of Limitations in Products Liability Cases

Application: The court remanded the issue to determine when the plaintiffs were aware or should have been aware of the damage, emphasizing that the statute of limitations begins when any damage is discovered.

Reasoning: The statute of limitations for a claim begins when a claimant becomes aware or should have become aware of the essential elements of their cause of action.