The State of New Jersey can no longer assert that it should be exempt from liability under the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act, N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11, et seq. (“Spill Act”), based on a decision by the New Jersey Superior Court, Middlesex County in NL Industries v. State of NewJersey, Docket No. L-1296-14, affirmed by the Appellate Division this week (Docket No. A-0869-1413). In this case, Plaintiff NL Industries filed a complaint against the State seeking contribution under the Spill Act for cleanup costs associated with remediating contamination resulting from the construction of a sea wall and jetty at the Laurence Harbor shoreline in Old Bridge Township. The complaint alleged that the State, in accordance with its regulatory jurisdiction, approved the construction of a sea wall incorporating the use of heavy metal slag materials which ultimately caused or contributed to lead contamination for which the estimated cost of remediation was likely to exceed $75 million dollars. The State moved to dismiss, arguing, inter alia, that the Spill Act did not retroactively abrogate sovereign immunity, i.e., that they should not be held liable for any offending action or omission (in this case, lead contamination) that occurred prior to the enactment of the Spill Act in 1977 and that the N.J. Tort Claims Act requirements applied before the Spill Act liability could be imposed on the State.
In denying the State’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff NL Industries’ Complaint, Superior Court Judge Wolfson ruled that since the Spill Act’s definition of a “person” subject to the provisions of the Act expressly included the State of New Jersey, and because Spill Act liability extends to any person “who is in any way responsible” for discharging a hazardous substance, and granted a right of contribution against “persons who are in any way responsible” for discharging a hazardous substance, it would be illogical to exclude the State from Spill Act liability. Judge Wolfson further ruled that the N.J. Tort Claims Act requirements did not apply to the State’s liability under the Spill Act.
If you have any questions about the NL Industries v. State of NewJersey decision or believe that it might apply to your case, please contact me, John M. Scagnelli.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
NL Industries v. State of New Jersey Spill Act Decision
Author: John M. Scagnelli
Legal Update: New Jersey Spill Act Decision
The State of New Jersey can no longer assert that it should be exempt from liability under the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act, N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11, et seq. (“Spill Act”), based on a decision by the New Jersey Superior Court, Middlesex County in NL Industries v. State of NewJersey, Docket No. L-1296-14, affirmed by the Appellate Division this week (Docket No. A-0869-1413). In this case, Plaintiff NL Industries filed a complaint against the State seeking contribution under the Spill Act for cleanup costs associated with remediating contamination resulting from the construction of a sea wall and jetty at the Laurence Harbor shoreline in Old Bridge Township. The complaint alleged that the State, in accordance with its regulatory jurisdiction, approved the construction of a sea wall incorporating the use of heavy metal slag materials which ultimately caused or contributed to lead contamination for which the estimated cost of remediation was likely to exceed $75 million dollars. The State moved to dismiss, arguing, inter alia, that the Spill Act did not retroactively abrogate sovereign immunity, i.e., that they should not be held liable for any offending action or omission (in this case, lead contamination) that occurred prior to the enactment of the Spill Act in 1977 and that the N.J. Tort Claims Act requirements applied before the Spill Act liability could be imposed on the State.
In denying the State’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff NL Industries’ Complaint, Superior Court Judge Wolfson ruled that since the Spill Act’s definition of a “person” subject to the provisions of the Act expressly included the State of New Jersey, and because Spill Act liability extends to any person “who is in any way responsible” for discharging a hazardous substance, and granted a right of contribution against “persons who are in any way responsible” for discharging a hazardous substance, it would be illogical to exclude the State from Spill Act liability. Judge Wolfson further ruled that the N.J. Tort Claims Act requirements did not apply to the State’s liability under the Spill Act.
If you have any questions about the NL Industries v. State of NewJersey decision or believe that it might apply to your case, please contact me, John M. Scagnelli.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
