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.

Ohm Remediation Services, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Cross v. Evans Cooperage Co., Inc., Defendant-Third Party Plaintiff-Counter Claimant-Cross Counter Louisiana Oil Recycle/reuse, Inc. Coastal Leasing Services, Inc. Henrietta McCrary Francis' Drilling Fluid, Inc. Power Tool Repair Service, Inc. American Inspection and Testing Laboratories, Inc. American Manufacturing Company, Inc. Atlas Processing Co. Aviation Laboratories Inc. Boassa International Inc. Cabot Corporation Caleb Brett USA Castrol Inc. Catalyst Recovery of Louisiana Inc. Cherry Picker Parts & Service Company, Inc. Cheyenne Services, Inc. Conoco Inc. Daniel Oil Tools Co. De Nova Oil and Gas, Drilling Measurements Inc. Dravo Lime Company Dresser Industries Inc. Dwaca Enterprises Ebasco Services, Inc. Fruehauf Trailer Corporation Howell Industries Iew Systems Inc. Independent Tank Cleaning Services Inc. Ingersoll Rand Co. Koch Service Inc. Krc Southern Inc. L & B Transportation Louisiana Bulk Carriers Inc. Matlack Inc. Quality Diesel Service Inc.

Citations: 116 F.3d 1574; 27 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 21318; 44 ERC (BNA) 2025; 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 18200; 1997 WL 370843Docket: 96-30714

Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; July 22, 1997; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In OHM Remediation Services v. Evans Cooperage Co. Inc., the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed a case under CERCLA involving OHM, a contractor that conducted hazardous waste cleanup, seeking to recover response costs from Evans and other parties. OHM filed a lawsuit under CERCLA section 107(a) for cost recovery and pursued contribution claims under section 113(f) after the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality ordered remediation due to hazardous spills. The district court dismissed OHM's claims, ruling that OHM lacked a 'protectable interest' in the cleanup site, thus barring recovery under section 107(a), and that OHM needed to admit liability to pursue contribution under section 113(f). The appellate court reversed this decision, finding no statutory requirement for a 'protectable interest' and recognizing OHM as a potentially responsible party (PRP) simply by being a defendant. The court remanded the case for further proceedings, emphasizing CERCLA's intent to allow broad recovery eligibility and clarifying the conditions under which contribution actions can be pursued. Evans' arguments for summary judgment on OHM's section 107(a) claims were deemed unresolved, leaving factual issues for the district court to address.

Legal Issues Addressed

CERCLA's Broad Eligibility for Recovery

Application: The court ruled that section 107(a) does not impose a protectable interest limitation, allowing any person to recover response costs without needing a direct interest in the cleanup site.

Reasoning: Ultimately, section 107(a) does not impose a protectable interest limitation, aligning with Congressional intent to allow any person to recover response costs.

CERCLA Section 107(a) Response Cost Recovery

Application: OHM appealed the dismissal of its section 107(a) claim for response cost recovery, arguing that CERCLA does not require a 'protectable interest' in the cleanup site.

Reasoning: The requirement of a 'protectable interest' for recovery of response costs under section 107 of CERCLA is not supported by the statute's text or legislative history.

CERCLA Section 113(f) Contribution Actions

Application: OHM sought contribution from third-party defendants under CERCLA section 113(f), but the district court initially dismissed this claim, which was later reversed on appeal.

Reasoning: Section 113(f) contribution actions require that the party seeking contribution must be liable or potentially liable under section 107(a).

Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) Designation

Application: The court determined that OHM, as a defendant in the case, qualifies as a PRP, allowing it to pursue contribution claims under section 113(f).

Reasoning: The ruling highlighted that OHM, which disputes its liability and claims it is not a PRP, risks losing its section 113(f) contribution claims due to its own pleadings.