ILNews

Personal cars fall under federal act exemption

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The billing agent for a central Indiana volunteer fire department can’t bill individuals involved in auto accidents with their personal vehicles for clean-up costs of hazardous substances, according to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In Emergency Services Billing Corp. Inc., individually (and as agent for) agent of Westville Volunteer Fire Department v. Allstate Insurance Co., et al., No. 11-2381, Emergency Services Billing Corp., which is the billing agent for the Westville Volunteer Fire Department, sent invoices itemizing the response costs incurred by the fire department to four individuals involved in separate auto accidents. ESBC believed the individuals and their auto insurers would be liable under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act.

The District Court held that motor vehicles for personal use fall under the “consumer product in consumer use” exception to CERCLA’s definition of facility, and so defendants can’t be charged with the fire department’s costs for responding to the accidents.

The CERCLA allows for clean-up costs to be recovered from owners of a “facility” in which hazardous substances have been released. The CERCLA definition of facility includes motor vehicles, but the definition states a facility does not include “any consumer product in consumer use.”

ESBC argued that the phrase “consumer product” is ambiguous and the courts should defer to how the Environmental Protection Agency has defined the term; defendants maintained any use of tools outside of the statute to define the term is inappropriate.

The 7th Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision, finding the defendant’s interpretation of “consumer product” to be persuasive.

“CERCLA’s ‘consumer product’ exemption from the term ‘facilities’ cannot reasonably be read to exclude personally-owned, personally-operated motor vehicles,” wrote Judge Joel Flaum. “The language of CERCLA is clear on its face, and a look into CERCLA’s legislative history, the term ‘consumer product’ as it is used in other statutes, and the EPA’s interpretation of the term only confirms our conclusion.”

 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT