ELR Citation: ELR 20169
No(s). 05-674 (W.D. Mich. Jul 22, 2009)

A district court, on motions for summary judgment, held that defendant companies could not be held liable under CERCLA for contamination on property owned by its subsidiary. The plaintiff, successor-in-interest to one of the operable units at the site, argued that one of the companies is directly liable for costs incurred at the site based on the company's assumption of the environmental liabilities of its subsidiary. But plaintiff was not a party or an intended beneficiary of their assumption agreement and, thus, has no basis to assert any rights or claims under that agreement. Even if plaintiff had standing to enforce the agreement, there is no mention in the agreement of any assumption of the subsidiary's liabilities. Nor was a second defendant company directly liable as an operator of the site. The company's role in facilitating access to the site for remediation activities by plaintiff and other third parties does not qualify as managing, directing or conducting operations specifically related to pollution. Plaintiff also contends that the defendant companies have derivative liability for their subsidiary's environmental liabilities because the veil between the companies and the subsidiary must be pierced. But the evidence presented is not sufficient to create an issue of fact as to whether the defendant companies have engaged in any kind of fraud or abuse of the corporate form such that they should be held derivatively liable for their subsidiary.