ELR Citation: 41 ELR 20160
No(s). 2:11-cv-00002 (S.D. W. Va. Apr 13, 2011)

A district court dismissed a fraud claim brought by a car wash operator against the seller of the property—an oil company—for requiring the operator to sign a document stating that he intended to use USTs on the property even though he had no such intent. The USTs were later found to be leaking when the car wash operator sold the property to the current owner. The current owner filed suit against the car wash operator, but the court found that the operator was not, in fact, an operator of the USTs. The current owner and car wash operator then settled the dispute case, in part based on an arrangement whereby the operator acquired the current owner's rights to pursue compensation and damages from the oil company arising from or related to the company's ownership and operation of the USTs. The operator then filed the instant action against the oil company. Count II of his claim alleged that the oil company fraudulently attributed ownership of the USTs and, by implication, responsibility for the severe soil contamination on the property, to the operator. But his allegations do not plausibly give rise to a valid claim for relief. The operator knew at the time he signed the intent to use document that it was false. Yet, for whatever reason, he signed the document and completed the sale.