The Supreme Court of New Jersey recently held that private claims for contribution made pursuant to the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act (Spill Act) are not subject to the general six-year statute of limitations that applies to injury to real property.
The court ruled that the Spill Act enumerated only specific defenses which did not include a statute of limitations, and that the absence of a statute of limitations was consistent with legislative intent and the Spill Act’s broad scope.
The Legal Background
The Spill Act provides a right of contribution for “dischargers or persons [who] clean[] up and remove[] a discharge of a hazardous substance” against “all other dischargers and persons in any way responsible for a discharged hazardous substance or other persons who are liable for the cost of the cleanup and removal.” The statute does not include a statute of limitations. However, the Spill Act does state that “[a] contribution defendant shall have only the defenses to liability available to parties pursuant to [N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11g(d)], which are “an act or omission caused solely by war, sabotage, or God, or a combination thereof.”
The Facts of the Case
Morristown Associates v. Grant Oil involved fuel oil contamination at a strip mall shopping center located in Morristown, New Jersey. Plaintiff Morristown Associates purchased the property in 1979. At some point prior to January 1, 1978, one of its tenants, Plaza Cleaners, installed a steam boiler in a room at the rear of the leased space and an underground storage tank (UST) for fuel to operate the boiler. The business had been sold several times when monitoring of a well installed near Plaza Cleaner’s UST revealed fuel oil contamination in 2003.
A subsequent investigation revealed that although the UST was intact, the fill and vent pipes were “severely deteriorated, with large holes along a significant portion of their lengths.” Plaintiff’s experts concluded that those holes had developed as early as 1988 and, since that time, oil had been leaking from the pipes each time the tank was filled. Morristown Associates took responsibility for remediating the property and subsequently brought Spill Act claims against the oil companies that provided service to the property as well as the owners of the dry cleaning business.
The trial court applied the six-year statute of limitations contained in N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1 and concluded that the claims against defendants for damage that had occurred more than six years before that defendant was brought into the case were time-barred. The Appellate Division affirmed, reasoning that general statutes of limitations are applicable when particular statutes did not set forth a specific limitation period. The plaintiff appealed.
The Court’s Decision
The New Jersey Supreme Court sided with the plaintiff and several amici, including the Department of Environmental Protection and the New Jersey State League of Municipalities, which argued that the six-year statute of limitations does not apply to Spill Act contribution claims.
In reaching its decision, the unanimous court emphasized that the Spill Act specifically limited the defenses available. “The plain text supports that the legislature intended to include no statute of limitations defense for contribution defendants,” Justice Jaynee LaVecchia wrote. “A common-sense reading of the plain language chosen by the legislature supports that construction.”
She further explained: “[T]he construction we adopt supports the longstanding view, expressed by the Legislature and adhered to by the courts, that the Spill Act is remedial by design to cast a wide net over those responsible for hazardous substances and their discharge on the land and water of this state.”
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.
Spill Act Contribution Claims Not Subject to Statute of Limitations
Author: John M. Scagnelli
The Supreme Court of New Jersey recently held that private claims for contribution made pursuant to the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act (Spill Act) are not subject to the general six-year statute of limitations that applies to injury to real property.
The court ruled that the Spill Act enumerated only specific defenses which did not include a statute of limitations, and that the absence of a statute of limitations was consistent with legislative intent and the Spill Act’s broad scope.
The Legal Background
The Spill Act provides a right of contribution for “dischargers or persons [who] clean[] up and remove[] a discharge of a hazardous substance” against “all other dischargers and persons in any way responsible for a discharged hazardous substance or other persons who are liable for the cost of the cleanup and removal.” The statute does not include a statute of limitations. However, the Spill Act does state that “[a] contribution defendant shall have only the defenses to liability available to parties pursuant to [N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11g(d)], which are “an act or omission caused solely by war, sabotage, or God, or a combination thereof.”
The Facts of the Case
Morristown Associates v. Grant Oil involved fuel oil contamination at a strip mall shopping center located in Morristown, New Jersey. Plaintiff Morristown Associates purchased the property in 1979. At some point prior to January 1, 1978, one of its tenants, Plaza Cleaners, installed a steam boiler in a room at the rear of the leased space and an underground storage tank (UST) for fuel to operate the boiler. The business had been sold several times when monitoring of a well installed near Plaza Cleaner’s UST revealed fuel oil contamination in 2003.
A subsequent investigation revealed that although the UST was intact, the fill and vent pipes were “severely deteriorated, with large holes along a significant portion of their lengths.” Plaintiff’s experts concluded that those holes had developed as early as 1988 and, since that time, oil had been leaking from the pipes each time the tank was filled. Morristown Associates took responsibility for remediating the property and subsequently brought Spill Act claims against the oil companies that provided service to the property as well as the owners of the dry cleaning business.
The trial court applied the six-year statute of limitations contained in N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1 and concluded that the claims against defendants for damage that had occurred more than six years before that defendant was brought into the case were time-barred. The Appellate Division affirmed, reasoning that general statutes of limitations are applicable when particular statutes did not set forth a specific limitation period. The plaintiff appealed.
The Court’s Decision
The New Jersey Supreme Court sided with the plaintiff and several amici, including the Department of Environmental Protection and the New Jersey State League of Municipalities, which argued that the six-year statute of limitations does not apply to Spill Act contribution claims.
In reaching its decision, the unanimous court emphasized that the Spill Act specifically limited the defenses available. “The plain text supports that the legislature intended to include no statute of limitations defense for contribution defendants,” Justice Jaynee LaVecchia wrote. “A common-sense reading of the plain language chosen by the legislature supports that construction.”
She further explained: “[T]he construction we adopt supports the longstanding view, expressed by the Legislature and adhered to by the courts, that the Spill Act is remedial by design to cast a wide net over those responsible for hazardous substances and their discharge on the land and water of this state.”
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
