2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 5-5-2009 

# FP W oll & C o v . Fi fth and Mit chell P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-1622

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" FP W o ll & C o v . F i fth and Mit che ll " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1406. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1406NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 07- 1622

_____________ F . P . WOLL & COMP ANY, A ppel l ant

v. F IF T H A N D M IT C H E L L S T R E E T C O R P O R A T IO N ; F I F T H AND MI T CH E L L S T RE E T CO M P ANY; D. C. F I LT ER AND CHEM I CAL, I NC. ; DON ALD L. KAH LE R; E AT ON L AB OR AT OR I E S , I NC . ; M E T - P RO CO RP OR AT I ON;

P H IL A D E L P H IA N A T IO N A L B A N K ; P N B C O M M E R C IA L F IN A N C E C O R P .; L A N S D A L E F O R E S T P R O D U C T S ; H A JO C A C O R P O R A T IO N ;

T O O L S A L E S & S E R V IC E , IN C .; C N A IN S U R A N C E C O M P A N Y ; C E N T E N N IA L IN S U R A N C E C O M P A N Y ;

JO H N D O E S (1 -1 0 0 ); A B C C O R P O R A T IO N S (1 -1 0 0 ); CO NT I NE NT AL CA S UAL T Y C OM P ANY; V A L L E Y F O R G E IN S U R A N C E C O M P A N Y ; P E NN AMER I CA I NS UR ANC E CO M P ANY; J E T RO NI C I NDUS T RI E S I NC . , tr a d i n g a s E AT ON C HE M I CA L CO .

A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 96- cv- 05973) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le M a ryA . M c L a u g h lin

A r gued M ar ch 24, 2009 B efor e: R E N D E L L , A M B R O and J O R D A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: M ay5, 2009)2

L o u is G ia n s a n te , E s q . [ ARGUE D] G i ans ant e & C obb 63 E as tM ai n St r eet M oor es t ow n, N J 08057 C ouns el f orAppel l ant K e v in J . S o m m a r, E s q . [ ARGUE D] Som m ar , T r acy& Som m ar 210 Sout h B r oad St r eet P. O . B ox 227 L ans dal e, PA 19446 C ouns el f orAppel l ees F i f th and Mi t chel lStr eet

C or por at i on, and F i f th and Mi t chel lStr eet

C om pany J ayD . B r anderbi t , E s q. T h e re s a M . M u lla n e y , E s q . [ ARGUE D] K ent& M cB r i de 1 6 1 7 Jo h n F . K en n ed yB o u leva rd Sui t e 1200 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103 C ouns el f orAppel l ee E at on Lab I

nc. OPI NI ON O F THE COURT R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge. F . P . W o ll & C o m p an y(“W o ll ”) a p p ea ls from the ju d g m en t of the D istri ct C o u rt g ran ti n g itsu b stan ti al reli ef ag ains t Fifth a n d M it ch ell S tr ee t C o m p an y(“F ifth S tr ee t”), th e p re v io u s o w n e r o f

W o ll’ s c o n ta m in a te d s ite , a n d E a to n L a b o ra to ri e s , In c . (“ E a to n ” ), a form ert enantt hatm anufa ctur ed drycl eani ng chemi cal s atthe s i t e. W ol l cont ends that t he r el i ef gr ant ed fol l ow i ng a benc h t r i al and a j urytr i al – an aw ar d of $346, 958. 00 andSet t l ement s r eac hed betw een W ol l and otherdefe ndant s t ot al i ng $370, 000. 00 1 ex ce ed ed E aton an d F ifth S tr ee t’ s li ab il ityto W o ll . A cc o rdin g ly , alth o u g h the C o u rt aw ar ded W ol l damages , no funds w er e ac tual l ypai d t o W ol l byFi fth St r eetand Eat on. T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on overthe C E R C L A cl ai m s under28 U . S. C . § 1331 2 a n d s u p p l e m e n t a l j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rth e s t a t e l a w c l a i m s u n d e r2 8 U . S . C . § 1 3 6 7 ( a ) . We exer ci s e j ur i s di ct i on overt he j udgm entent er ed bythe C our tunder28 U . S. C . § 1291. We r e v i e w th e Di s t r i c tCo u r t ’ s c o n s t ru c t i o n o f th e S T S P A de novo . Salve Regi na 3 C o lleg e v . R u ss e ll , 499 U . S. 225, 231 ( 1991) ( appl y i ng de novo rev iew to d istri ct co u rt ’s d eterm ination o f state law ). 3 decl ar at or yr el i ef a gai ns tt he def endant s forfutur e r es pons e cos t s and contr i but i on under t he C om pr ehens i ve Envi r onm ent al R es pons e C om pens at i on and Li abi l i t yA ct ( “C E R C L A ”) , 42 U . S. C . §§ 9607( a) , 9613( f) , and the Penns y l vani a H aza r dous Si t es C l eanup A ct( “H SC A ”) , 35 P. S. § 6020. 101 et s eq ., a n d a g a in st E a to n f o r sim ilar c o sts u n d e r t h e P e n n s y lv a n ia S to ra g e T a n k a n d S p ill P re v e n tio n A c t ( “ S T S P A ” ), 3 5 P .S . § 6021. 101 et

s eq . – w as nots ubs t ant i al enough. W ol l ur ges thatthe C our ts houl d have 1 g ran ted a m o n etaryaw ard fo r fu ture c lean -up co sts, an d sh o u ld h av e p erm itted re co v ery of the amounti tw oul d have r ece i ved fr om an abort ed s al e of the s i t e as an el ementof damages . W e, l i ke the D i s t r i ctC our t , r ej ectboth of thes e cl ai m s . W ol l al s o l evel s four ot herat t acks bas ed on the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s handl i ng of otheras pect s of the ca s e. W e dea l wi t h t h e s e s u mm a r i l yb e l o w. 2 W ol l s eeks r ei m bur s ementforfutur e cl ean- up cos t s underthe ST SPA and the H SC A . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed r el i ef on the bas i s thatfutur e r es pons e cos t s w er e t oo

3
s pecul at i ve t o s uppor ta monet aryj udgm ent . W e conc ur . W ol l conce des thatnei t hert heW e r ej ectW ol l ’ s cl ai m fornatur al r es our ce da m ages underthe H SC A on s i m i l ar 4 gr ounds . T he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l yconcl uded that , abs entan age ncydet erm i nat i on t hat W o ll d estroy ed n atura l r eso u rce s, thes e d am ag es w ere too sp ec u lat ive to su p p o rt m onet aryr el i ef. 4 E nvi r onm ent al Pr ot ect i on A gency( “EP A ”) northe Penns y l vani a D epart m entof E nvi r onm ent al Pr ot ect i on has i ndi cat ed thatfur t herr emedi al act i on i s nece s s aryor demanded paym entfr om W ol l forfutur e r es pons e cos t s . A . 805. I n fac t , the EP A om i t t ed th e S ite f ro m its in v e n to ry o f

p o s s ib le g ro u n d w a te r c o n ta m in a tio n s o u rc e s . A . 8 0 5 -8 0 6 . H ence , W ol l ’ s fi r s tar gum enti s unavai l i ng. 4 W e a lso rejec t W o ll ’s co n tention that d ec laratoryreli ef w as in ad eq u ate. T h e e n try of a d ecl arat oryj ud gm ent ensured W oll prom pt r ei m bu rs em ent of reas on able r espon se cost s i ncu rr ed in the fu ture, w hil e prot ect i ng E at on and F i ft h S treetfrom an ex cess j udgm enti n t he eve ntfur t herr es pons e cos t s w er e noti ncurr ed. T hus , w e agr ee w i t h the C our t ’ s gr antof dec l ar at or y , r athert han addi t i onal m onet ary , r el i ef. W ol l nextcont ends t hati t s cl ai m fort or t i ous i nt er fer ence w i t h contr act– bas ed on t he fa i l ed s al e of the s i t e for$1. 4 m i l l i on, w hi ch w as notcompl et ed due t o di s coveryof t he cont ami nat i on – gi ves r i s e t o damages underthe ST SPA . W e di s agr ee. T he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our thas fr amed t he damages r ecove r abl e underthe ST SPA as

“ c le a n u p a n d d im in u tio n in p ro p e rt yv a lu e .” C entolanz a v. Lehigh V al l ey D ai r i es , I

nc ., 6 5 8 A .2 d 3 3 6 , 3 4 0 (P a . 1 9 9 5 ). C entolan za in s tru c ts th a t th e S T S P A , a “ re m e d ia l s ta tu e ,” s houl d be “l i ber al l ycons t rued. ” I tal l ow ed forthe r ecove r yof cl ean- up cos t s andW ol l al s o as ks t he C our tt o cert i fyt o t he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our tthe fol l ow i ng 5 i s s ues : ( 1) w hethert he ST SPA ort he H SC A author i zes r ecove r yof l os tpr ocee ds fr om t he s al e of r eal es t at e on the bas i s of t or t i ous i nt er fer ence w i t h contr act ; ( 2) w hetherthe H S C A authori zes r ecov eryof d am ages fo r pr op ertydim i nu t i on and futur e cl ean-up cost s; (3 ) w h e th e r th e H S C A a u th o riz e s a n a w a rd o f a tto rn e y s’ f

e e s; a n d (4 ) w h e th e r so il cont ami nat i on cons t i tut es a “c ont i nui ng tr es pas s ” forpurpos es of the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . E ach of

t hes e i s s ues conce r ns s ett l ed l aw , does notcontr ol the out come of t he cas e, ordoes notpr es entan i s s ue of “ s ubs t ant i al publ i c i m por t ance ” r equi r i ng “pr om pt a n d d e f in itiv e re s o lu tio n ” b yth e P e n n s y lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt . See 210 Pa. C ode § 63. 10; 3d C i r . L . A . R . 110. 1. A ccor di ngl y , W ol l ’ s r eques tforcert i fi cat i on i s deni ed. 5 pr oper t ydi m i nut i on, butdi d noti ndi cat e thos e damages w er e exc l us i ve. I ndeed, fol l ow i ng C entolan za , l ow erPenns y l vani a court s have a l s o al l ow ed forr ecove r yof p e rs o n a l in

ju ry d a m a g e s . See W

ack v
. Far m land I

ndus
. , I nc. , 7 4 4 A . 2 d 2 6 5 (P a. S u p er. C t. 19 9 9 ); B r uni v. E

xxon Corp. , 5 2 P a. D & C 4 8 4 , 2 0 0 1 W L 1 8 0 9 8 1 9 (C o m . P ls. 2 0 0 1 );
s ee al s o Kr ebs v. U

ni t ed Ref i ni ng C o. of

P a. , 893 A . 2d 776, 786 ( Pa. Super . 2006) (c o n f irm in g th a t p riv a te p lain tiff s c a n b rin g S T S P A c laim s f o r c lea n u p , d im in u tio n in p ro p e rt yv a lu e , a n d p e rs o n a l in ju ry). C entolan za , how ever , m ade c l earthatthe damages r ecove r abl e undert he ST SPA onl yr eac h as faras nece s s aryt o pr om ot e the goal of the A c t – th e p ro m p t c le a n -u p o f s p ills . S e e id
. D amages fordi m i nut i on i n pr oper t yval ue, w h ic h typ ic a lly a p p ro x im a te lo s t p ro c e e d s , s e rv e th is p u rp o s e a n d a re a lr e a d yre c o v e ra b le . T h e ju ry c o n s id e re d d im in u tio n in p ro p e rt yv a lu e in d e te rm in in g its d a m a g e s a w a rd . D upl i cat i ng t hi s el ementof damages w oul d pr oduce a w i ndfal l , notpr om ot e pr om pt cl ean-up . W e t herefore r ej ectt his no vel theo ryof d am ages. 5 W o ll also lev e ls f

o u r a n c ill a rya ttac k s o n th e D istric t C o u rt’s r u lin g s. F irst, W o ll6

cont ends t hatt he C our ti m pr oper l yconcl uded thati t s comm on l aw cl ai m s w er e barr ed by t he appl i cabl e s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . A l t hough W ol l fi l ed i t s compl ai ntaft erthe s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons expi r ed, i ti ns i s t s t hatenvi r onm ent al cont ami nat i on cons t i tut es a “c ont i nui ng tre sp a ss ” th a t to lls th e sta tu to ryp e rio d . W o ll’s a rg u m e n t is f o re c lo se d b yp re c e d e n ts cl as s i fy i ng s oi l and gr oundw at ercont ami nat i on as a perm anentchange r atherthan a c o n tin u in g tr e s p a s s . See D om br ow s kiv. G ould E l ectr oni cs , I nc. , 954 F. Supp. 1006, 1013 (M .D . P a . 1 9 9 6 ) (“ in v a sio n s s u c h a s w a ter w e ll co n tam in a tio n , w a ste , d u m p in g , [a n d ] so il cont ami nat i on fr om under gr ound s t or age t anks . . . have a l l been s ai d t o have c r eat ed a p erm an en t cha n g e in th e lan d so as to co n sti tute a p erm an en t tresp ass.”); T ri-C o u n ty B us i nes s C am

pus Joi ntV

ent ur e v. C l ow C or

p. , 792 F. Supp. 984, 996 ( E . D . Pa. 1992) ( concl udi ng t hatt he depos i t i ng of haz ar dous w as t e, a “c om pl et ed ac tatthe t i m e thatt he p ro p e rtyw a s c o n v e y e d ,” c o n stitu tes a p e rm a n e n t tres p a ss ); see al so Su stri k v. Jon es & Laughl i n St eel

C or p. , 1 9 7 A . 2 d 4 4 , 4 6 (P a. 19 6 4 ) (trea ti n g ac ti o n s “e ff ec t[i n g ] a perm anentchange i n t he condi t i on of the l and” a s perm anenttr es pas s es ) . T hus , the D istri ct C o u rt ’s dism issal of thes e c lai m s w as p rop er. Second, W ol l cont ends t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n r ej ect i ng a s et t l ement agr eementexec ut ed byW ol l and H ar ol d B i xl er , the form ers ecr et aryand tr eas ur erof E at on, w hi ch gr ant ed B i xl era r el eas e fr om s ui ti n excha nge fora monet aryj udgm ent agai ns tE at on and the as s i gnm entof Eat on’ s r i ght s agai ns ti t s i ns ur er . W ol l cont ends t hat i t s cont actw i t h B i xl erw as perm i s s i bl e underthe Penns y l vani a R ul es of Pr ofes s i onal7

C onduct . H ow ever , W ol l ’ s ar gum enti s notr es pons i ve t o t he tw o gr ounds on w hi ch the C our tactual l yr ej ect ed the s et t l ementagr eement– t hatB i xl erl acke d actual , appar ent , or i m pl i ed author i t yt o s et t l e on beha l f of Eat on, and thatB i xl erand Eat on pos s es s ed confl i ct i ng i nt er es t s , w hi ch r ender ed the agr eementunenfor cea bl e aga i ns tE at on. Fi ndi ng t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s concl us i ons r eas onabl e, w e dec l i ne t o enfor ce the s et t l ement a g re e m e n t. T h ir d , W o ll co n tend s tha t th e D istri ct C o u rterred in p erm itti n g E aton ’s ex p ert, M r. H ey d t, to o p ine o n the typ es o f d am ag es a v ail ab le un d er the S T S P A . A t th e jurytr ial , M r. H ey dtt es t i fi ed thatl os ts al es pr ocee ds di d notcons t i tut e a f or m of cons equent i al damages rec o v era b le un d er the S T S P A . W o ll co n tend s tha t th is t esti m o n yex ce ed ed M r. H ey d t’ s expert i s e as a for ens i c ac count ant . E ven as s um i ng thatadmi s s i on of the t es t i m onyw as e rro r, W o ll d o e s n o t id e n tifya n yp re ju d ice th e re f

ro m . B e c a u se Ju d g e M c L a u g h lin concl uded thatl os ts al es pr ocee ds w er e notr ecove r abl e underthe ST SPA as a mat t erof law , M r H e y d t’s te stim o n yd id n o t im p a c t th e ju ryd e ter m in a tio n . A n e w trial o n th is gr ound i s t hus unw arr ant ed. Four t h, W ol l chal l enges t he C our t ’ s part i al gr antof att orney s ’ fee s . W e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o deci de thi s i s s ue bec aus e W ol l di d notappea l the C our t ’ s or derr egar di ng f e e s , a n d th e ju d g m e n t a p p e a le d f ro m d id n o t im p lic itly o r e x p lic itly d e c id e th e is s u e . See W h ite v . N e w H a m p sh ire D e

p t. of E m p lo y m e n t Se c u rity , 455 U . S. 445, 451 n. 13 ( 1982) (“f ee q u esti o n s are n o t i n h ere n tl yo r ne ce ssaril ysu b su m ed b ya d ec isi o n o n the m erit s. ”);In its su p p lem e n tal b rie f , W o ll w ith d re w its a rg u m e n t th a t th e d ism iss a l o f its 6 C E R C L A claim s w as e rror. 8 s ee al s o B udi ni ch v. B ecton D i cki ns on and C o. , 4 8 6 U .S . 1 9 6 , 2 0 0 (1 9 8 8 ) (h o ld in g th a t a re q u e st f o r a tto rn e y s’ f

e e s d o e s n o t se e k “ re c o n sid e ra tio n o f m a tters p ro p e rly encompas s ed i n a dec i s i on on t he mer i t s ” and i s thus “col l at er al t o” and “ s epar at e fr om t he dec i s i on on t he mer i t s ” ( quot i ng W h ite , 4 5 5 U .S . at 4 5 1 -5 2 )); I n r e C ol on , 941 F. 2d 242, 245 ( 3d C i r . 1991) ( t r eat i ng at t orney s ’ fee s “apa r tfr om the mer i t s forpurpos es of ap p ea l”). 6 F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill A F F IR M th e o rd e r o f th e D istric t C o u rt.