Under a recent decision by the Supreme Court of New Jersey, businesses can pursue contribution claims under the Spill Compensation and Control Act (Spill Act) prior to the conclusion of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s (NJDEP) enforcement efforts.
In Magic Petroleum v. ExxonMobil, the specific question before the court was whether the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, under which the court declines original jurisdiction and refers specific issues to the appropriate administrative body, applies to Spill Act contribution claims.
The Facts of the Case
In 2003, the NJDEP sued Magic Petroleum, Inc. (Magic) for the costs of remediating hazardous material on property owned by the company. Although Magic maintained that other parties contributed to the contamination, Magic was held liable for all of the cleanup expenses pursuant to the DEP’s determination that Magic was a discharger.
During the course of the NJDEP proceedings, Magic filed a claim for contribution under the Spill Act, alleging that Exxon Mobil Corporation (ExxonMobil) and several other parties were partly responsible for the remediation costs. The trial court dismissed Magic’s claim based on the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, concluding that the contribution claim could only be filed following complete remediation of the site.
The Appellate Division affirmed. It concluded that the NJDEP was in the best position to identify the extent of the contamination, analyze the extent of the discharge and devise a cleanup strategy; therefore, any claims for contribution should await the agency’s approval of a remediation plan.
The Legal Background
The Spill Act prohibits the “discharge” of “hazardous substances” into the environment and provides for the cleanup of that discharge. In addition, the Spill Act imposes strict liability and mandates that all dischargers are jointly and severally liable. Accordingly, the NJDEP may collect the entire amount of cleanup costs from one discharger, even when that party was only partially responsible for the spill.
Pursuant to the Spill Act, dischargers ordered by the NJDEP to pay for the entirety of cleanup costs may seek contribution from other responsible parties. In addition, courts are given liberal discretion to “allocate the costs of cleanup and removal among liable parties using such equitable factors as the court determines are appropriate.”
The Court’s Decision
The New Jersey Supreme Court disagreed with the lower courts. It unanimously held that “the Spill Act gives the court, not the DEP, jurisdiction over contribution claims.”
Accordingly, property owners or other responsible parties may file contribution claims in Superior Court, and a court may allocate liability before the final resolution of a site remediation plan by the DEP. The justices further ruled that the trial court may assign liability based on evidence presented at trial, but may not be able to issue a final damages award.
“Because the DEP may join a party at the onset of a claim, prior to determining the full extent of the contamination, it follows that a private entity is granted that same right to hold a responsible party accountable through a contribution claim,” Justice Faustino Fernandez-Vina explained. “To deny this right would be fundamentally unfair, especially when the contributing plaintiff could be liable for a substantial amount of the cleanup costs, even when not entirely, or even substantially, responsible for the contamination.”
If you have any questions about the NJ Supreme Court’s decision or would like to discuss how it may impact your company, please contact me, Ken Hollenbeck, or the Environmental and Land Use attorney with whom you work.
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 Can Be Filed Prior to DEP Remediation Plan Approval
Author: Kenneth J. Hollenbeck
Under a recent decision by the Supreme Court of New Jersey, businesses can pursue contribution claims under the Spill Compensation and Control Act (Spill Act) prior to the conclusion of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s (NJDEP) enforcement efforts.
In Magic Petroleum v. ExxonMobil, the specific question before the court was whether the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, under which the court declines original jurisdiction and refers specific issues to the appropriate administrative body, applies to Spill Act contribution claims.
The Facts of the Case
In 2003, the NJDEP sued Magic Petroleum, Inc. (Magic) for the costs of remediating hazardous material on property owned by the company. Although Magic maintained that other parties contributed to the contamination, Magic was held liable for all of the cleanup expenses pursuant to the DEP’s determination that Magic was a discharger.
During the course of the NJDEP proceedings, Magic filed a claim for contribution under the Spill Act, alleging that Exxon Mobil Corporation (ExxonMobil) and several other parties were partly responsible for the remediation costs. The trial court dismissed Magic’s claim based on the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, concluding that the contribution claim could only be filed following complete remediation of the site.
The Appellate Division affirmed. It concluded that the NJDEP was in the best position to identify the extent of the contamination, analyze the extent of the discharge and devise a cleanup strategy; therefore, any claims for contribution should await the agency’s approval of a remediation plan.
The Legal Background
The Spill Act prohibits the “discharge” of “hazardous substances” into the environment and provides for the cleanup of that discharge. In addition, the Spill Act imposes strict liability and mandates that all dischargers are jointly and severally liable. Accordingly, the NJDEP may collect the entire amount of cleanup costs from one discharger, even when that party was only partially responsible for the spill.
Pursuant to the Spill Act, dischargers ordered by the NJDEP to pay for the entirety of cleanup costs may seek contribution from other responsible parties. In addition, courts are given liberal discretion to “allocate the costs of cleanup and removal among liable parties using such equitable factors as the court determines are appropriate.”
The Court’s Decision
The New Jersey Supreme Court disagreed with the lower courts. It unanimously held that “the Spill Act gives the court, not the DEP, jurisdiction over contribution claims.”
Accordingly, property owners or other responsible parties may file contribution claims in Superior Court, and a court may allocate liability before the final resolution of a site remediation plan by the DEP. The justices further ruled that the trial court may assign liability based on evidence presented at trial, but may not be able to issue a final damages award.
“Because the DEP may join a party at the onset of a claim, prior to determining the full extent of the contamination, it follows that a private entity is granted that same right to hold a responsible party accountable through a contribution claim,” Justice Faustino Fernandez-Vina explained. “To deny this right would be fundamentally unfair, especially when the contributing plaintiff could be liable for a substantial amount of the cleanup costs, even when not entirely, or even substantially, responsible for the contamination.”
If you have any questions about the NJ Supreme Court’s decision or would like to discuss how it may impact your company, please contact me, Ken Hollenbeck, or the Environmental and Land Use attorney with whom you work.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
