ILNews

Court rules on environmental cleanup case

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the statute of limitations on a claim for contribution toward cleanup costs doesn't begin until the owner is ordered to clean up the property, regardless of whether the owner should have known about the contamination earlier.

The issue in Richard U. Pflanz and Delores J. Pflanz v. Merrill Foster, individually, Merrill Foster d/b/a/ Friendly Foster's Service, and Sunoco Inc. (R&M),  No. 36S01-0710-CV-425, is when the 10-year statute of limitations began on a claim for contribution toward environmental cleanup costs.

Richard and Delores Pflanz bought a former service station from Merrill Foster, who told them there were underground storage tanks of petroleum, but they were not in use and were closed. The Pflanzes opened a tire shop, but later sold the business and leased the property to a third-party.

The Pflanzes discovered in 2001 the tanks remained open and were leaking petroleum and spent more than $100,000 in cleanup costs. They filed a complaint in December 2004 against Foster and Sunoco seeking a determination of liability relating to the environmental contamination, damages under theories of waste, negligence, and stigma, contribution for cleanup costs pursuant to the Underground Storage Tanks Act (USTA), and declaratory relief from future anticipated cleanup costs.

Foster moved to dismiss the claim on the grounds the complaint was barred by the statute of limitations; the trial court dismissed the claim as well as another filed by the Pflanzes on similar grounds.

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the Pflanzes should have tested the property for contamination once Indiana enacted the USTA in 1987 and amended it in 1991, so the statute of limitations began in 1991.

The Indiana Supreme Court decided the statute of limitations on the contribution claim didn't begin to accrue until after the Pflanzes were ordered to clean up the property. Parties who bring contribution claims must wait until the obligation to pay is incurred or otherwise the claim lacks the essential damage element, wrote Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard. As such, when IDEM ordered the Pflanzes to clean up the land in 2001, the claim was within the 10-year statute of limitation.

The statute of limitations of stigma damage claims cannot start until after the claimant has incurred real damage - diminution in property value despite cleanup because future buyers will worry about future cleanup costs. The claim for stigma damages also fell within the statute of limitations, wrote the chief justice.

On the Pflanzes waste and negligence claims, which are governed by a six-year statute of limitations, the Indiana Supreme Court remanded the issue for further examination to determine when the Pflanzes should have known about the environmental issues. The Pflanzes filed these claims, saying they were injured when they purchased the property because Foster fraudulently misrepresented the land; Foster argued the Pflanzes should have investigated the property after the adoption of the USTA legislation.

"We cannot accept the trial court's holding that, as a matter of law, the passage of the USTA automatically put landowners on notice that they should inspect and monitor any underground storage tanks on their property even if, taking the Pflanzes' allegations as true, the former property owners had assured them the tanks were closed and not in use," wrote Chief Justice Shepard.
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. I have had an ongoing custody case for 6 yrs. I should have been the sole legal custodial parent but was a victim of a vindictive ex and the system biasedly supported him. He is an alcoholic and doesn't even have a license for two yrs now after his 2nd DUI. Fast frwd 6 yrs later my kids are suffering poor nutritional health, psychological issues, failing in school, have NO MD and the GAL could care less, DCS doesn't care. The child isn't getting his ADHD med he needs and will not succeed in life living this way. NO one will HELP our family.I tried for over 6 yrs. The judge called me an idiot for not knowing how to enter evidence and the last hearing was 8 mths ago. That in itself is unjust! The kids want to be with their Mother! They are being alienated from her and fed lies by their Father! I was hit in a car accident 3 yrs ago and am declared handicapped myself. Poor poor way to treat the indigent in Indiana!

  2. The Indiana DOE released the 2015-2016 school grades in Dec 2016 and my local elementary school is a "C" grade school. Look at the MCCSC boundary maps and how all of the most affluent neighborhoods have the best performance. It is no surprise that obtaining residency in the "A" school boundaries cost 1.5 to 3 times as much. As a parent I should have more options than my "C" school without needing to pay the premium to live in the affluent parts of town. If the charter were authorized by a non-religious school the plaintiffs would still be against it because it would still be taking per-pupil money from them. They are hiding behind the guise of religion as a basis for their argument when this is clearly all about money and nothing else.

  3. This is a horrible headline. The article is about challenging the ability of Grace College to serve as an authorizer. 7 Oaks is not a religiously affiliated school

  4. Congratulations to Judge Carmichael for making it to the final three! She is an outstanding Judge and the people of Indiana will benefit tremendously if/when she is chosen.

  5. The headline change to from "religious" to "religious-affiliated" is still inaccurate and terribly misleading.

ADVERTISEMENT