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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT