{ Banner Image }
搜索此博客

订阅更新

最近的帖子

博客编辑器

博客贡献者

第八巡回赛 Upholds Finding that 迪科 Arranged For Disposal under 塞拉

在长期运行的另一部分中 迪科 该案于2019年4月11日获得美国第八巡回上诉法院的一致肯定。 district court’对Dico,Inc.和Titan Tire Corporation(Titan International Inc.的两个相关实体)的1100万美元判决 美国诉Dico Inc.,编号:17-3462(2019年4月11日,第八届)。该判断是基于以下发现:“arrangers”根据《综合环境应对,赔偿和责任法》(“CERCLA”)当他们将受污染的建筑物出售给不知情的买家时,法院认为这是故意的 act to rid themselves of environmental obligations to safely dispose of 印刷电路板.

事实 此案源于Dico Inc.及其子公司Titan Tire Corporation在2007年进行的某些交易 南部爱荷华州机械的建筑物(“SIM”)在爱荷华州得梅因市。有争议的建筑物受到多氯联苯(“PCBs”), and were subject to a 1994 Administrative Order issued by 环保局 which required the removal of portions of the contaminated materials, encapsulation of the remainder, and a long-term maintenance plan that would include ongoing testing and annual reports to the 环保局 of the site conditions. The Order also importantly required that 迪科和泰坦轮胎 immediately notify 环保局 upon any changes at the site that would threaten release of the 印刷电路板.

At the time of the sale to SIM卡, 迪科 did not disclose the presence of 印刷电路板, or 环保局’s Order, to SIM卡. Further, 迪科 was aware of SIM卡’s plan to demolish the buildings, therefore threatening the release of the 印刷电路板, but failed to notify 环保局 under the Order as required.  And as expected, shortly after the sale, SIM卡 indeed tore the buildings down and stored the salvageable materials 在空旷的地方,EPA后来遇到了PCB污染。 环保局采取了补救措施,然后寻求从Dico收回成本。

2012年,在爱荷华州南区地方法院,EPA指控Dico违反了CERCLA,因为“arranged” for the disposal of the 印刷电路板, and that 迪科 violated the 1994 Order by failing to adhere to the long-term maintenance plan, failing to prevent the release of 印刷电路板, and failing to notify 环保局 of the change in site conditions. 环保局 succeeded on summary judgment, and the 地方法院 imposed civil penalties and punitive damages in 2014. On appeal, in 2015 the 第八巡回赛, as we wrote about 这里,确认了对行政命令问题的即席判决,但由于它认为存在事实问题,因此又退回了安排人的责任和惩罚性赔偿问题。

然后在2017年,我们还发布了有关 这里, the 地方法院 again held 迪科和泰坦轮胎 liable as 编曲 and held them jointly and severally liable for $5.4 million. The 地方法院 also held 迪科 liable for the same amount of punitive damages, and found both 迪科 and Titan liable for all costs not yet reported, all future costs, all enforcement costs, and attorney’s fees.

迪科再次在第八巡回上诉法院面前,辩称以下法院对证明这一事实的事实没有足够的重视。 建筑物的销售是 不旨在导致处置有害物质的合法交易。  This included that in 2004 迪科 has sold a separate building to SIM卡 in a bona fide transaction, that the buildings were "useful products" and the disposal of 印刷电路板 merely an unintended consequence of the sale, and that the precise costs of disposal were unknown and hence could not be a motivating factor relied upon by the court to find intent.

所有这些论点均被拒绝。 上诉法院认为,2004年与2007年交易之间存在相似之处 绝不是Dico的确凿证据’s intent regarding the sale of the building, particularly in light of 迪科's withholding of information from SIM卡 regarding the contamination and 环保局’s requirements.  Moreover, because Dico and Titan Tire 知道了 被污染的建筑材料是为了 be moved to another location where the 印刷电路板 would, in effect, be disposed of, the Court held inapplicable the dictate that “单纯的知识”不足以赋予表述的责任 in 伯灵顿N.&圣达菲(Santa Fe Ry)。诉美国,556 U.S. 599。  Lastly, the Court of Appeal sided with the 地方法院’持有以下证据,发现无论Dico可能避免的处置成本估算的精确度如何,记录都支持适当的处置成本将远远超过建筑物的调查结果’s purchase price.

综上所述,依靠 在“清除错误”标准的审查中,第八巡回法院认为 district court’肯定没有发现错误 下面的判决和判决 Dico and Titan Tire jointly and severally liable as 编曲 under 塞拉 for the unlawful disposal of the PCB contaminated waste.