ILNews

COA clarifies and affirms original opinion in environmental cleanup case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals granted the request of the city of Indianapolis and the Department of Environmental Management to take another look at its opinion issued in April that allowed businesses that neighbored a contaminated property to intervene in the cleanup case. But the judges affirmed the court’s original decision in all respects.

In the April decision, the appellate court addressed the effect of the simultaneous trial court proceedings and administrative proceedings before the Office of Environmental Adjudications regarding the same issue. IDEM and the city brought civil actions against Ertel Manufacturing, which resulted in an administrative settlement agreement and a settlement approved by the court.

Threaded Rod Co. and Moran Electric Service Inc., which had property located near the contaminated Ertel site, sought to intervene in the trial court action against Ertel. The Court of Appeals allowed the companies to intervene and held the trial court should retain jurisdiction over the entire case until the OEA reaches a final decision on the companies’ pending administrative petitions regarding a no further action letter.  Then, the trial court should make a decision regarding the disbursement to the city of remaining escrow funds.

In Moran Electric Service, Inc., and Threaded Rod Company, Inc. v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Environmental Management, City of Indianapolis, Ertel Manufacturing Corp., 49A02-1305-MI-432, IDEM and Indianapolis argue that the judges misinterpreted the trial court’s role in this action. They argue the trial court could not order the release of the escrow funds. But the trial court did approve the settlement agreement, and so their argument fails under the doctrine of invited error.

The judges found that IDEM and the city have misplaced reliance on I.C. 13-25-4-23 because the statute does not allow IDEM to perform remedial actions and obtain damages from a party through an administrative order.

Finally, the judges noted it did not matter if they mischaracterized Threaded Rod and Moran as “adjacent property owners,” because the opinion also noted that they were “former or current owners of adjacent properties.” Regardless of the language, they are subject to possible liability for the contaminants on those properties, the judges held.
 

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. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  2. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  3. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  4. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

  5. No, Ron Drake is not running against incumbent Larry Bucshon. That’s totally wrong; and destructively misleading to say anything like that. All political candidates, including me in the 8th district, are facing voters, not incumbents. You should not firewall away any of voters’ options. We need them all now more than ever. Right? Y’all have for decades given the Ds and Rs free 24/7/365 coverage of taxpayer-supported promotion at the expense of all alternatives. That’s plenty of head-start, money-in-the-pocket advantage for parties and people that don’t need any more free immunities, powers, privileges and money denied all others. Now it’s time to play fair and let voters know that there are, in fact, options. Much, much better, and not-corrupt options. Liberty or Bust! Andy Horning Libertarian for IN08 USA House of Representatives Freedom, Indiana

ADVERTISEMENT