ELR Citation: ELR 20523
No(s). 88-5836 (11th Cir. Feb 9, 1990)

The court rules that there is no per se rule that a product's manufacturer can never be liable for the product's disposal under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). An electric utility had purchased transformers containing mineral oil unintentionally tainted with polychlorinated biphenyls. After using the transformers for about 40 years, the utility sold them as scrap, and they contaminated the scrap yard. The court first holds that an appeals court applies de novo review to a district court's order granting summary judgment, and then holds that the district court in this case did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for additional discovery time. The court next holds that CERCLA §107(a)'s liability for those who "arrange for" disposal of hazardous substances depends on the facts of each case. CERCLA's remedial purposes require a liberal judicial interpretation, though merely selling a product without additional evidence that the transaction includes an arrangement for ultimate disposal is not enough to trigger CERCLA liability. Finally, the court holds that summary judgment is appropriate in this case, because there is nothing in the record to support an inference that the transformer manufacturers arranged for the transformers' disposal.

[The district court opinion appears at 18 ELR 20998.]

Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant
Norman Coll
Coll, Davidson, Smith, Salter & Barkett
3200 Miami Ctr., 201 S. Biscayne Blvd., Miami FL 33131-2312
(305) 373-5200

Counsel for Defendants-Appellees
Thomas Burke
Rumberger, Kirk, Caldwell, Cabaniss, Burke & Wechsler
11 E. Pine St., P.O. Box 1873, Orlando FL 32802
(407) 425-1802

Counsel for Intervenor-Appellant
William Martin
Peterson & Bernard
707 S.E. Third Ave., P.O. Drawer 14126, Ft. Lauderdale FL 33302
(305) 763-3200

Before HATCHETT and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges, DYER, Senior Circuit Judge.