ELR Citation: ELR 20231
No(s). 08-CV-13503 (E.D. Mich. Sep 29, 2009)

A district court granted in part and denied in part motions to dismiss an automobile company's CERCLA and state-law actions against a gas company for costs it has incurred and will continue to incur in connection with environmental contamination at a former manufactured gas plant in Dearborn, Michigan. The court denied the gas company's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim for cost recovery under CERCLA §107. The gas company argued that in order to assert a cause of action under §107, which authorizes cost recovery actions against PRPs, the plaintiff must have incurred its costs voluntarily. Because the plaintiff seeks recovery of funds it paid pursuant to a consent order, the gas company argued that the plaintiff must seek recovery of involuntarily incurred costs through CERCLA §113(f), which authorizes contribution claims. The court disagreed. The broad language set forth in §107 does not, on its face, limit recovery to only voluntarily incurred costs. Rather, it allows recovery for "any other necessary costs." Moreover, there is no basis for interpreting CERCLA in a way that would discourage parties from entering agreements with the states to ensure a proper cleanup. The court, however, granted the gas company's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' contribution action. Although the consent order "resolves" the plaintiffs' liability, it does not qualify as an administrative settlement under CERCLA §113. And while the plaintiffs' Michigan Environmental Protection Act claim was not barred by the statute of limitations, CERCLA §113 preempts its common-law claim for contribution.