ILNews

Court overturns breach-of-contract ruling

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a Marion Superior Court decision granting partial summary judgment in favor of the defendant on an issue of breach of contract, ruling a state agency couldn't approve a cleanup that didn't comply to federal standards.

In Indiana Department of Environmental Management v. Raybestos Products Co., No. 49A02-0609-CV-782, IDEM appealed the trial court's grant of partial summary judgment to Raybestos on the issue of a breeched agreed order and a judgment of more than $16 million to Raybestos after a bench trial.

Raybestos - which makes car brakes and clutches - is located next to Shelly Ditch, an open earthen drain pool that empties into Sugar Creek. IDEM tested the water in Shelly Ditch in 1995 and found polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the water downstream from the plant. IDEM sent Raybestos a notice of potential liability, and the two parties entered into an "agreed order" in which Raybestos would prepare a risk assessment subject to the approval of IDEM. IDEM approved a plan submitted by Raybestos that would clean the water to contain no more than 238 parts per million of PCB in certain "hot spots."

Following personnel changes, IDEM decided to disapprove the cleanup proposal, fearing it would set a bad precedent, and withdrew its approval of the risk assessment.

An administrative law judge reviewed IDEM's actions and determined Raybestos waived its right to seek review based upon the terms of the agreed order. Raybestos sought judicial review of the administrative law judge's ruling. The Marion Circuit judge determined Raybestos did not waive its right and IDEM had no authority to withdraw its approval; the judge order IDEM to re-approve the risk assessment and cleanup. Instead of appealing, IDEM contacted the Environmental Protection Agency to get involved. The EPA issued a unilateral administrative order requiring Raybestos to clean up the PCB levels to no greater than 10 parts per million, as is required by federal regulation.

Raybestos filed a complaint in Marion Superior Court of breach of contract against IDEM and sought damages for the more costly EPA-ordered cleanup. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to Raybestos on the breach issue and entered judgment of more than $16 million in damages and attorney fees.

The Court of Appeals determined the 238 parts per million cleanup proposed by Raybestos and based on the approved risk assessment by IDEM did not meet applicable federal standards. In the agreement order between the two parties, it stated in cases of conflict in applicable laws, rules, or ordinances that the most stringent standard would apply - the 10 parts per million of PCB in the water. An agreement that would permit cleanup levels more than 20 times that of the applicable federal regulations would be contrary to public policy and Raybestos can't rely on that agreement to recover for any breach by IDEM, wrote Judge Paul Mathias.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Other than a complete lack of any verifiable and valid historical citations to back your wild context-free accusations, you also forget to allege "ate Native American children, ate slave children, ate their own children, and often did it all while using salad forks rather than dinner forks." (gasp)

  2. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  3. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  4. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  5. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

ADVERTISEMENT