Ecolex Logo
Le portail au
droit de l'environnement
Résultats de la recherche » Jurisprudence

Northern Pacific Center, Inc. v. BNSF Railway Company.

Pays/Territoire
États-Unis d'Amérique
Type de cour
Nationale - cour supérieure
Date
Jul 4, 2012
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Nom du tribunal
United States Court of Appeal for the Eigth Circuit
Juge
Murphy, Melloy and Colloton.
Numéro de référence
Nos. 11-3103/3139
Langue
Anglais
Sujet
Terre et sols, Environnement gén.
Mot clé
Pollution du sol/qualité Responsabilité/indemnisation Substances dangereuses
Résumé
The Northern Pacific Center incurred costs to reduce pollution on a property it owns in Brainerd, Minnesota which had formerly been owned by BNSF Railway and used as a railcar construction and maintenance facility. When the contamination was discovered, the former owner conducted cleanup sufficient to obtain sign-off by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency at that time, but not sufficient to allow redevelopment later planned by the new owner. The Center sued BNSF under the Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act (MERLA), Minn. Stat. § 115B.01 et seq., to recover its costs. BNSF moved for summary judgment on the basis of MERLA's statute of limitations, which the district court denied. Both parties later moved for summary judgment on the merits, which the district court granted to BNSF, concluding that "the type of costs the Center had incurred were not recoverable under MERLA." The Center appealed the adverse grant of summary judgment and BNSF cross appealed the district court's denial of summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds. The Appeals Court ruled, "We affirm the grant of summary judgment to BNSF and dismiss BNSF's cross appeal as moot". The key determination in the case is whether the type of costs incurred was "remedial" or "removal". Response costs are defined under MERLA to include both removal costs and costs of “remedial action.” The definitions of “removal” and “remedial action” under MERLA (similar to under the federal cleanup statute) are long and somewhat overlapping. Private parties in Minnesota have relied on the breadth of the “removal” definition as authorizing recovery under MERLA of a broad range of cleanup costs. The 8th Circuit, in affirming the district court’s decision in Northern Pacific, indicated that such reliance was misplaced. Under the 8th Circuit’s interpretation, removal costs are limited to those costs expended to “mitigate immediate harm,” and do not include “long-term cleanup costs.”
Texte intégral
COU-159403.pdf