ELR Citation: 43 ELR 20110
No(s). 5-08-CV-460, -463 (E.D.N.C. May 6, 2013) (Flanagan, J.)

A district court denied an electric company's motion for reconsideration of a previous ruling that genuine issues of material fact preclude a finding of summary judgment in a contribution case concerning the Ward Transformer Superfund site. The court had issued two orders concerning the site—one in which it granted a defendant power company's motion for summary judgment, and a second in which it denied the electric company's motion for summary judgment. The electric company sought reconsideration of the second order on the basis that the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant in the first. But there is an important distinction between the two orders. The first order concerns a defendant company that sold its transformers to the site, whereas the electric company sent its transformers to the site for repair. The difference between a sale and a repair is critical to determining intent to arrange for disposal of hazardous substances. In addition, there is significant evidence that contributes to a finding of intent to arrange for disposal in the second case. The motion for reconsideration was therefore denied.