Contribution protection for settling parties, §113(f)(2)
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

A district court held that CERCLA §113(f)(2) does not afford the U.S. government protection from contribution claims brought by a third-party PRP in a case involving cleanup costs incurred at the…

Asarco, LLC v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.

The Eighth Circuit upheld the dismissal of a company's breach of contract and contribution claims against a railroad in connection with a lead-contaminated Superfund site in Omaha, Nebraska.…

Trinity Industries, Inc. v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co.

The Third Circuit held that a PRP that entered into a consent decree resolving its state-law liability with the commonwealth of Pennsylvania in connection with contamination at an industrial…

Asarco LLC v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.

A district court held that a settlement agreement bars a mining corporation from seeking contribution from a railroad company under CERCLA for environmental liability related to the Omaha Lead…

Solutia, Inc. v. McWane, Inc.

The Eleventh Circuit held that parties subject to a consent decree may not file claims for cost recovery under §107(a) of CERCLA and that their remedies are limited to filing claims for…

Axel Johnson, Inc. v. Carroll Carolina Oil Co.

The court holds that the former owner and operator of a refinery may not bring cost recovery or contribution actions under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act…

Wademan v. Concra

The court holds that a husband and wife lacked standing under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA),…

Foamseal, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Co.

The court holds that contribution bars in Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) settlements not involving the United States or a state government are valid…