ELR Citation: 44 ELR 20231
No(s). 3:13CV1406 (N.D. Ind. Oct 17, 2014) (Simon, C.J.)

A district court denied a manufacturing company's motion to dismiss a landowner's state law claims against it for breach of contract and for waste, but granted the company's motion to dismiss the landowner's claims for cleanup costs under CERCLA and state law. Since 1972, the landowner has leased the property to a series of manufacturing companies, and it filed suit against all of them after learning of contamination on the property. The company--the first company to lease the site --argued that the landowner released it from any future liability arising from their lease of the property when, back in October 2005, the landowner agreed to the assignment of the lease to another manufacturing company. But the company failed to offer a legal analysis of when the liabilities occurred. The company asserted that liability occurred when the landowner discovered the contamination. But it is entirely plausible that the condition of the property on which the claims are based could have occurred long enough ago to pre-date the effective date of the release. Either way, that is a matter that needs to be fleshed out through the discovery process and trial. In addition, the company failed to show that the economic loss doctrine precludes the landowner's claim for waste of the real property. But the court dismissed the landowner's CERCLA and state law claims for cleanup costs for failure to state a claim. The landowner, however, may amend the complaint in an attempt to replead those counts.