Jud g es F l a u m , T ind er, and H am ilton d id no t pa rticip ate in 1 th e c o n sid er a tio n o f th e r eq u es t fo r r eh ea ri n g .



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 N ORMAN W. B ERNSTEIN , et a l., P la intif fs-A pp ella nts/C ross-A pp ellees,
v. P AT R I CI A A. B AN KERT, etal., D efend a nts-A pp ellees, AND A U T O O W NE RS M UTUAL I NSURANCE C OMPAN Y, D ef endant-Appelle e/ C ross -App el lant.

A pp ealsfr o m the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, Indian apolisDiv isi on. No . 1:08- cv-00427

—Richar d L . Y oun g, Chief Ju dge .
A RG UE D O CT OB ER 31, 2011 D ECIDED D ECE MBE R 19, 2012 A MEND ED J UL Y 31, 2013 12 N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523

The H o n o ra ble J on E
. D eG uil io, J ud ge ofthe Un it ed Stat es 2 Di s tr ic t C ou r tf orthe Nor the r n Di s t r i c to fI nd i a na , s i t t i ngby des i gna t i on. Befo re K ANNE a nd W I L LI A MS, C ircu it Judges , a nd D E G UILIO, D istrict Judge. 2 D E G UILIO, D istrict Judge. Th i s a pp eali s the l ate st ch apt eri n the s to r y o fthe Env i r o nm ent alChe m i ca la nd Conser vati on C om pany ( “Envir o- Ch em ”) , a defunct I nd i ana co rp or ati on with an e xpensiv e e nvi ro nm ental l eg ac y . Envi r o - Che m c o nduc te d was te
- ha ndl i nga nd dis po s a lo pe r a t i o ns a tthr e e s i t e s n o r th o fZ i o ns v i l l e, I ndi an a, unt i li t cl o se d i ts do o r s i n the ea r l y 1 98 0s , a nd it le ft co ns i der ab l e amoun ts o fpo l l ut an ts b eh i nd. The pla i nti ff s in thi s a cti on a re the tr ustee s o f a fund crea ted to fi nance a nd o ver see the cl eanup proj ect at o n e of th ose th ree sites. Th e d efend an ts are t h e f orm er ow ne rs ofthe si te, thei r cor pora te entit ies ( i ncl ud i ng Envi ro Ch e m) , a nd the i ri ns ur e r s , n o ne o fwh o m ha v e p a i d i nto th e t r us t des pi te a n a l l eg ed o bl i g at i o n t o do s o . The p l a i nt i f f s s u e d t o r e c o v e rc l e a n u p c o s t s u n d e rth e C o mpr eh en si ve Env i r o nm en ta lRe spon se , Co m pen sa ti o n a nd Liab i lityA ct ( “CE RC LA ”) , the I nd i ana Envi ro nm ental LegalA cti ons St atute ( “EL A ”) , and m or e. The dis tr i ct co ur t di smi ss ed al lc l ai m s atthe s um m ary j udg m en t s t a g e , a n d th e p l a i n t i ff s a p p e a l e d

. In r e s p o n s e , o n e o ft he i ns ura nc e c o mpa ni e s t a r g e t e d b y the p l a i nt i ff s fi l e d a c on d itio n al c ro ss -ap p ea l, h op in g t o p re se rv e a fav or ab le o ut c o me e v e n i n the e v e nt o f a r e v e r s a l o f the di str i ct cour t’ s fi nalj ud gm ent.N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 3 On D ecem ber19 , 20 12, thi s paneld ec ided both a p p e a l s , a ffi r mi n g i n p a r t a n d r e v e r s i n g i n p a r t th e dist ri ct c ourtdeci si on a nd r em anding th e case f or fu rt h er p ro c ee d in gs on th e rein st at e d c l a im s. Ber ns t e i n v . B a nk ert, 70 2 F
. 3d 964 ( 7th Ci r. 20 12)
. The defendantsappe l l ee s r eque st ed a pa ne lr eh ea r i ng, a nd the Env i r o nm entalPro tect i on Agency j oi ned thei r re q u estas am i cu s cu r i ae . W hi l e we concl ud e that th e a rgum ents advanced by the par ti es do not w ar ran t reconsi derat i on o f our deci si on, we gr ant r ehear i ng, i n part, to address so m e i ss ue s r ai se d b y t he EPA
. S pec i fi ca l l y, the EPA i denti fi ed cer tain passag es ofo ur o ri gi nalop in ion w hi ch sugge ste d that a party m ay nev ers tructur e a settl ement agr eem ent with th e E PA i n such a w ay as to re sol ve thei r l i abi l i ty i m m edi ate l y upon executi on o fthatag re em ent. That i s no t the ca se. A party r esponsibl e for an i nstance o fenvi ro nm en ta l c on tam i nati on m ay o bt ain a n i m m edi at ely e ffec ti ve r el ea se from the EPA i n a s ett l em ent, o r i t m ay o btain onl y a per f or m ancedepend ent c ondit i onalco venant not to sue with a n accom p any i ngdi sc l ai m ero fa ny l i ab i l i ty
. W he th er, and w hen, a gi ven set tl em ent “r eso l ves” a party ’ s l i abi l i ty t o th e EPA wi thin the m e a ningo f4 2 U. S
. C. § 9 6 1 3 ( f ) ( 3 ) ( B) i s ul ti m at ely a c as e- spe ci fi c que st io n de pen dan t o n the ter m s o fthe set tl em ent b efor e the co urt. In thi s ca se, the t er m s o fth e a dm i ni str ati ve set tl em ent di d not provi de f ora re soluti on upon ente ring i n to the agr eem ent. The f ol l owing const i tutes t h is panel ’ s a m ended o pi ni o n s upe r se di ngo urpri or o pi ni o n a nd r es o l ving the a pp eal s in both N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523
.4 N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 B AC KGR OUND T h e app el l ants

— pla i nti ff s be l ow

— ar e the trustee s o f the Third S i te Trust Fund (“Tr ustee s”)
. Thi rd S i te i s a CE RC LA si te l oca ted abo u t fi ve m i l es nor th o fZi onsvi l l e, I nd i ana. A l ong w i th two o therC E RC LA si tes i n cl ose pr o xi m i ty

— th e Env i r o - Che m S i te t o the no r tha nd the N or thsi de Sa ni tar y Landfi l l( “N SL”) to the nor theas t

— T hird Si te w as ow ne d and ope rated by t h e B an kert f ami l y a nd the i rc o r po r at e en ti ti es a t al l ti m es r el ev an t t o th i s l i t i g a t i o n . Up u n t i l th e e a r l y 1 9 8 0 s , En v i r o - C h e m, o ne o ftho se e nt i ti es , was e ng ag ed i n broker i nga nd re cycl i ng i nd ustr i aland com m er ci alwastes at al lthr ee si te s. I t i s undi spu te d tha t Env i r o - Che m ’ s o per at i o ns ex ten ded to Thi r d S i te ; hi st o r i ca la er i alpho to g r aph s depict Thir d Site being used f orta nk and drum st or age , and fo rm erEnvi ro-C hem em plo yee s hav e ind i cate d that Thir d Si te host ed w ast e hand l i ng and dispos alo perati ons. E n v iro-C h em ce as ed op er at ion s in19 82 , an d sh or tly ther eafterthe U ni ted S tat es En vi ro nm entalPro tect i on A genc y ( “ EP A” ) u nd e r t o o ka n e xt e nd e d e ff o r tt o c l e an up the m ess i t l eft be hi nd

. The cl eanup i ni ti al l y focuse d o n the Env i r o - Che m S i te a nd the NSL, b uti n 1 98 7 an d 1992 co nsul tants col l ecte d soi l, gr oundw ate r, se epage so i la nd s ee pag e wat ers ampl es fr o m Thi r d S i te
. The sa m p les ind ica te d ele va te d co n c en tr at ion s o f vo lat ile or ga n ic c om p ou n d s (“ V O C s” ) an d se m i-vo lat ile or ga n ic com pound s ( “SVOC s”) i n the ar eas te sted. Si m i l ar l y, surf ace w ate r sam ple s co l l ecte d by the EPA i n 198 8 fro m ne a rb y F i nl e y Cr e e ks ho we d e l e v a t e d l e v e l s o fV OCsN os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 5 im m ed iately ad j acen t to and dow ns tream from Th ird Si te. These re sul ts w er e co nsi ste nt with add i ti onal s a mpl e s c o l l e c t ed i n 19 8 5 a nd 1 9 8 6 fr o m s ur f a c e s e e ps d isc h ar gin g fro m T h ird Site an d int o Fi n l ey C re ek . In sh o r t, T h i r d S i t e wa s p o l l u t e d , a n d i twa s t r a n s fer r i ng i ts pol l utants to Fi nl ey Creek

. Finl ey Creekfl ows south in t o E ag le C re ek R es er vo ir, an d E ag le C re ek R es er vo ir supp l i es a por ti on o fthe dri nki ng waterf orthe City ofInd i anapol i s. The pol l uti on o fFinl ey Creekwa s there

f o r e ca us e f o rr ea lc o nc ern. I n 19 96 , th e EPA c o unt er ed th e th r ea t by i ss ui ng a Uni l at er alAd m in i st r at i ve Or der( “UA O”) o ut l i ni ng a p l a n t o r e a l i g n F i n l e y C r e e k

. T h e p l a n c a l l e d f o r e l i mi nati ng an oxbow, t h e top o fwh i ch to uched are as of hi g h c o nt ami na ti o n a t Thi r d S i te , a nd f o rr er out i ng the c re ek aw ay fr om the si te and to the s outh. The r eal i gnm ent pr oj ect w as desi gnate d a ti m e- cri ti calr em ova l proj ect, and the re spond en ts to the U A O com ple ted i t in Se pt em ber19 96. S ubj ect to peri odi c m ai ntenance i nspecti ons, the EPA approv ed thei r perf or m ance. H avi ng av er ted a n y si gni fi cant cor rupti on o fthe dri nki n g w ate r supp l y, the EPA tur ned i ts att enti on t o cl ea ni ng up Thi r d S i te i ts el f

. I n Oct o be r 19 99 , th e E PA enter ed i nto an A dm i ni str ati ve Order b y Conse nt ( “A OC ”) w i th a num bero fr espondents, ea ch ofwh om was desi gnated a po te nt i al l y r es po ns ibl e par ty( “P RP” ) f o rc o ntam i nati on a t the si te. The 19 99 A OC was div i ded i nto two s epa r at e par ts : o ne de al i ngwi th“ N o n-P r emi um Re spo nde nt s” an d o ne dea l i ng wi th “P r emi um Respo nd en ts.” Th e N on- Prem ium Res p ond en ts agreed to un d er-6 N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 ta ke an E n gin ee rin g E va lu at ion an d C os t A n a lys is ( “EE /CA ”) o fr em ova lal ternati ves f orThi rd S ite. They al so agr eed to settl e a tr ust

— the Thi rd S i te Trust, o f w hi c h t he appel l ants ar e Tr ustee s

— and to fund i t t o th e ex te nt ne ce ss ary to ba nk r o l l th e EE/ CA and any add i ti onalnece ssa rywork

. Through the Trust, they w ou ld reim bu rse the EP A f or pas t res p ons e and oversi ght c ost s a s wel las future ove rs i ght c ost s incurr ed i n c o nj unc tion wi ththe EE/ CA pr oj ec t. The Pr emi um Respondents, o n the othe r hand , were al leg ed to be de m inim is con tributo rs to the con tam inatio n a t Th ird Si te. They w er e enti tl ed to se ttl e o ut with a defi ned, o neti m e m onet ar y c ontr ibuti on t o the Tr ust c on si ste nt with 42 U
. S. C
. § 9622(g). The Non- Pr emi um Re spo nde nt s m et th ei ro bl i g at i o ns unde rthe 1 99 9 AO C a nd ob tained EPA a ppr o va lo fthe fi na lEE/ CA r epo r t o n Oc tobe r2 4, 2000. No co py o fthe EPA no ti ce o fa ppr o va lwas i nc l ude d i n the r ec o r d, a nd w e o n ly kn ow o fi t thro ugh affi davi ts subm i tte d w i th th e p ar ti es’ sum m ar y j ud gm ent b ri ef s. But, i n any case , the par ti es do not dispute that the 1999 A OC was com pli ed w i th fully t o i ts c om ple ti on. In 200 1, subsequent t o approving the work done und erthe 1999 AO C, th e E P A i s s u e d a n E n f o r c e me n tAc t i o n Me mo r an du m se l ecting o ne o fthe re m ova lact i ons f or the si te i denti fi ed by the EE/A C and o utl i ni ng cl eanup obj ecti ves. I n Nov embe r2002, the pa r ti es e nt er ed i nt o a s ec o nd AO C t o p er f o r m the wor kc al l ed f o rb y the Enf o r ce m en t Ac t i o n Me mo r a n d u m. F o r th e mo s t p a r t, th e 2 0 0 2 AOC tr acke d the f or m o fthe 1999 A OC
. It in c luded se parat eN os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 7

W e u se “the Ba nk e r t s ” t o r e fe r c ol l e c t i ve l y t o Pa t r i c i a A. 3 Ban ke rt , both i nd ividually and in hercapaci ty as pers onal re p re se n t a tiv e o f th e e sta te o f Jon a th a n W . B a n k er t, S r.; J o n a th a n W. B a n k e r t, J r . ; G r e g o r y B a n k e r t ; a n d E n v i r o - C h e m. pr o vi si o ns a ddr es singthe r es po ns ibi l i ti es o fPr emi um an d Non- Pr emi um Re spo nde nt s and c o nt aine d the sam e r ese rv ati on o fr i ghts and condit i onalco venants not t o s ue . F ur the r mor e , the No n- Pr e mi um r e s po nd e nts m ai ntai ned the s am e r esponsibi l i ti es vis- a-vis th e Trust, w hi ch w as once aga i n ass i gned to m anage the re m ova l eff or t. A t the ti m e thi s l aw sui t was fi l ed, the w or k t o be per f o r m ed und er th e 20 02 AOC w as s ti l lo ng o i ng, a nd no EP A no t i c e o fa pp r o v a lh a d i s s ue d. Underthe t er m s o fthe 1 99 9 an d 2 002 A O Cs an d th e corresp ond ing Tru st A greem en t, th e Tr u s t e es are em p ow er ed to h old an d m an ag e fu n d s; to ret ain en gineers an d others to ca rry out t h e w ork to be pe rf or m ed und erthe A OC s; to proj ect future cos ts; to ob ta i n additi onalfund s a s nee ded fro m the set tl or s ( i .e., the Non-Pr em i um Respondents) ; and, subj ect to pri or approval, to br i ng s u it against those wh o do not m eet th eiro bl i gat i ons to the Tr ust. The Banker t a pp el l ees 3 wer e l i st ed as Non- Pr emi um Re spo nde nt s unde rthe 19 99 a nd 2 00 2 AO Cs, b utha ve no t m etthe i robli g at i o ns by payi ng i nto the Tr ust o r othe rwis e. On Apr i l1 , 2 00 8, the T rus tees fi l ed a Compl aint ag a i n s t th e B a n k e r t s a n d th e i r v a r i o u s i n s u r e r s i n t he So u th er n D ist ric t o f Ind ian a w ith six co u n ts : C ou n t I, a CER C L A c o s tr e c o v e r y a c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 4 2 U
. S
. C.8 N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523

Fo r r e a s on s unk no wn t o us , the Co m pl a i ntdi d n oti nc l ude 4 a “C o u n t V I.” § 96 07 ( a) ; Co untI I, s ee k i nga de cl ar at o r y j udg m en t und erCE RC LA o fth e d efendants’ j oi nt and se ver al l i ab i l i t y ; C o u n tI I I, a c o s t r ec o v e r y a c t i o n u n d e rth e E L A, co di fi ed atI
. C. § 13

- 30

- 9- 2; CountI V, ne g l i g en ce ; Co untV, nuis ance; an d Count VI I, se eking a decl ar ato ryj ud g- 4 m ent o fco ver age ag ai nst the i nsurer s. On M ay 30, 20 08, o ne o fthe Bankert s’ form er i nsurer s, Auto Owner s M utua lIns ur an ce Co m pan y (“A ut o Owner s”) , m oved to di sm i ss the Tr ustee s’ Com pla i nt ag ai nst i t pursuant to Fed er alRule s o fCi vi lPro cedure 12(b) ( 6) an d 12(d). T he coverage prov isi ons of A u to O w ne rs’s p olic ies w ith t h e B an ke rt s w er e p re vio u sly litiga te d in connect i on with cl eanup eff or ts at the En vi ro - Ch em S i te i n the 1980 s, and A uto Ow ners ar gued that the f avo ra b le j udg m en t i t o bt aine d i n th at ca se pr ec l ude d a fi ndi ng o fc o ve r ag e i n thi s ca se . On S eptem ber1 7, 2 00 8, the d istri ct cou rt co n verted the p ortion of A ut o Ow ne rs’s m otion claim ing p reclusion to a m otion for su m m ary j u dgm ent a nd per m i tte d the par ti es to conduct dis

cove ryand subm i t a dd i ti onalbr i efi ng. On M ar ch 16, 20 10, th e di st r i ctc o ur t en te r ed ano r derde ny i ngthe mot i o n. On Septem b er22 , 20 09, the Bankert s m ove d fo r sum m ar y j ud gm ent o n sta tute ofl i m i tat i ons gr ounds. Th e T r us t e e s r e s po nd e d, a nd the Ba nk e r t s r e pl i e d. On Decembe r 1 0 , 2 0 0 9 , the Tr us t e e s mov e d t o s t r i ke a port i on o fthatr epl y o r, i n the al ternati ve, for per m i ssi on to fi le sup p lem en t a l b r iefing. T he district cou rt heardN os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 9

or alar gum ent o n A ugust 3 , 20 10. On Septe m ber29 , 20 10, the di str i ct c ourtdeni ed the Truste es’ m oti on t o strike an d grante d sum m ary ju d g m en t in the B an kerts’ favor. Fir st, th e d ist ric t c ou rtfou n d t h a t t h e T ru st ee s c ou ld notb r i nga CE RC LA c o s tr e c o v e r y c l a i m un de r4 2 U. S
. C. § 9607 (a), w hich i s w h at C ou nt Iof th e C om p lai nt pu rport ed to do. Instea d, the di str i c t courtco nstr ued the Tr ustee s’ CE RC LA cl ai m as o ne f orco ntributi on p urs ua nt to 42 U
. S. C
. § 9613 (f ). N ex t, th e d istric t cou rt f ound that th e s tatute o fl i m i tat i ons appli cabl e t o t hatkin d of C E R C L A cla i m h a d ru n . Th is, intu rn, in va lidated the decl ar ato ryj u d gm ent r equest conta i ned i n Co untI I
. F i na l l y, the di st r i ctc o ur t f o und tha t th e st atut e o f l i m i ta ti o ns ha d r un wi th r es pec t to ea ch of the Truste es’ st ate l aw cl ai m s a ga in st the Banke rt s. Counts I thr o ugh V we r e di s mi s s e d. N ex t, the dist ri ct c ourtas ked the part i es to re porto n the s tatus ofCount VI I, wh i ch so ught a decl ar ato ryj ud gm en t of c ove ra ge aga i nst Au to Ow ners and the othe r i n sure rs . A l lpart i es conceded thati t was m oo t; i ns ur an ce c o ve r ag e wa s a no n- i ss ue wi th o uta c o ntr ove rs y o verthe und er l yi ng l i ab ility. On October13 , 2010 , the Trus te es move d the c o ur t to r ec o ns i derthe g r a nto fs ummar y j ud gme ntwi th r e s pe c tt o the EL A cl ai m a nd t o c er ti fy the ques ti o n t o the Indi an a Sup rem e C o u r t. O n Feb rua ry 3, 2011, the d istri ct cou rt denie d that m oti on a nd ente red fin alj ud gm ent in f avo r ofthe defe nd ants , di sm i ssing Count VI Ias m oo t consiste n t with the parti es’ posi ti ons. The Trust ees fi l ed a t i m el y no ti ce o fap p ea lo n M ar ch 3, 20 11, and A uto Owner s cr o ss - appe al ed. W e ta k e up e ac h a ppea li n tur n.10 N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 T HE T RUS T E E S ’ AP PE AL The Tr us te es a ppea lthe di st r i ctc o ur t’ s di smi ss ala t th e s ummar y j ud g men ts t a g e o fthe i rCE RC LA a nd EL A cl ai m s, as wellas the dism i ssa lo fthei r decl ar ato ryj ud gm en t cl ai m a g ainst A ut o Owner s. The y a l so a ppea lthe di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s de ni a l o f the i r mot i o n t o s t r i k e a por ti on ofthe Banker ts’ sum m ar y j ud gm ent r epl y. They hav e not appeal ed the dist ric t co urt’ s di sm i ssa lo fthei r sta te law n eg lige n c e a n d n u isa n c e c laim s, a n d a s a re su lt t h o s e c laim s a re lost . W e fin d th at th e T ru st ee s h av e, in f act, pl ed a ti m el y C ER CL A cost re cove rycl ai m , al though the s cope o fthei r re cove rywill b e l i m i ted. A s a r esul t, Cou nt s Ia nd I Imustb e r eins ta ted

. Co untI I I, c l ai m i ng c on tr ibu tio n u n d er th e I n d i a n a E L A , i s t im ely as w ell. Re i n s t a t i n g th o s e c l a i ms me a n s th e r e i s a l i ve c o ntr o ve r syo ve rl i ab i l ity, a nd s o we m us t r ev er se the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s di sm i ssa lo fCount VI Ias m oo t.

I . C o u n t s I a n d I I : C E RC L A C l a i ms I n Count Io fthei r Com p lain t, the Tr ustee s s eekto r ec o ve r funds whi ch th e Ban k er ts al l eg edly o we to the Thi r d S i te Tr us t pur su ant to o bl i g at i o ns c r ea te d b y the 19 99 an d 2 00 2 AO Cs. The Tr us te es c ha r ac te r i ze Co unt Ias a clai m f or c o s t r e c o v ery un d er 42 U
. S. C
. § 9607(a), b u t t h e d ist ric t c ou rth e l d : (1) t h at a § 9 60 7(a ) cla im w as u n av aila b le t o th e T ru st ee s; (2) t h at th eir cla im m us t the r e fo r e be one for contribu tion un d er § 9613(f) ; and (3 ) thatthe l i m i tat i ons peri od fo r a co ntributi on cl ai m ha d r un. Co untI I, s ee k i nga de cl ar at o r y j udg m en t o f l i ab i l i ty, i s es se nt i al l y a der i va ti ve cl ai m ; o nc e theN os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 11 dist ri ct c ourtco ncl ud ed t hat Count Iwas not ti m el y, C ou n t II ha d to be d ism iss ed as w ell. W e r evi ew a dist ri ct c ourt ’ s g ra nt o fsum m ar y j ud gm en t b as ed on a st at u te of li m i ta tio n s d e n ov o. Step ney v. Nape r vi l l eSch. D i s t
. 20 3 , 392 F.3d 236 , 2 3 9 ( 7 th Cir. 20 04 )
. To the e xt en t we a r e ca l l ed u po n t o r ev i ew the d istri c t c o urt ’s int erp retation of the sta tu te, th e stan d ard of re vie w is like w ise d e n ov o. Stori e v. R andy ’s Auto Sal e s LL C, 589 F.3d 8 7 3 , 8 76 (7th C ir. 2009). W e are m i nd ful, to o, o fthe defe re nce typi cal l y a ccor ded to th e s u mma r y j u d g me n t n o n - mo v a n t wi th r e s p e c t t o t he re so l uti on o ff actuali ssues , but note thatthi s di spute i s a l mo s te n t i r e l y a l e g a lo n e , wi th th e u n d e r l y i ng f acts undisputed: the Bankert s arg u e that the Tr ustee s h av e ad vanced o ne ty pe ofCE RC LA cl ai m , and that i t is ba r r ed bythe st atut e o fl i m i ta ti o ns ; the Tr us te es a r g ue that th ey have advanced another type ofcl ai m , and that i t i s no t. They a re bo th p ar ti al l y c or re ct, but the ne t re sul t i s that the di str i ct c ourtm ust be r everse d w i th re spect to Count I
. That, i n turn, i s e nough to r eviv e Cou ntI I
. F i na l l y, we fi nd no abus e o fdi scretion i n the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s d en ialo fthe Truste es’ m oti on t o str i ke port i ons ofthe Bankert s’ sum m ar y j ud gm ent r epl y.
A. C E RC L A a n d S ARA S t a t u t o ryS c h e me I n 1 98 0, Co ng r es s en ac ted the Co m pr eh en si ve Env i r o nmen t a l Re s po ns e , Co mpe ns a t i o n, a nd Li ab i l i t y Act, 42 U. S
. C. § § 96 01

- 96 75 , i n r es po ns e t o the s er i o us e nv i r o nm en ta la nd hea l thr i sk s po se d b y i ndus tr i alpo l l ut i o n. B u r ling to n N o rthern an d S a nta Fe R y. C o . v. U nited Sta tes ,12 N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 556 U
. S. 599, 602 ( 200 9) (c iti ng U ni t e d S t at e s v. Be s t f oods , 524 U
. S
. 5 1 , 5 5 ( 1 9 9 8 ) )
. CE RC LA i s n o tkno wn f o ri ts c lar ity , or for it s b re vit y. Exxon Corp. v. H unt, 475 U
. S. 35 5, 36 3 (1 98 6 ) ( n o t in g C E R C L A p ro vis ion s a re “n ot
. . . m od el[ s] ofl egislati ve d raftsm an sh ip,” and i ts statu tory langu age is “at best inartfu l an d at w orst red un d an t”). Bu t i ts pu rpos e, at le ast, i s s tr ai ghtf or w ar d: the a ct was des i g ne d t o prom ote th e ti m ely c l ea nup o fha za r do us w ast e s i tes and to ensur e that the c ost s o fsuch cl ea nup e ff o r ts wer e bo r ne b y tho se r espon sibl e f o rthe c on ta m in at ion
. B urlin gto n N o rthern , 55 6 U. S
. at6 02 ( ci ting C onsol. Ed is on C o. of N
. Y
. v. U G I U ti l. , Inc. , 42 3 F.3d 90 , 94 (2d C ir. 20 05 )); K ey Tr o nic C o rp. v. U nited Sta tes , 511 U
. S. 809, 81 9 n. 13 ( 1994 ) ( “CE RC LA i s desi gned to enco urag e pri vate par ti es to ass um e the fi nanci alr esponsibi l i ty o fc l ea nup b y a l l o wi ngthem to seekr ec o ve r y fr o m o th

er s. ”)
. Re l ev an t to thi s ca se , tw o CERCLA se ct i o ns

— 42 U
. S. C
. §§ 9607(a) and 9613(f)

— aff or d ri ghts ofact i on to p riv at e p ar tie s s ee kin g t o re c ov e r e x p en se s a ss oc iate d w i th cl eaning up co ntam i nated si tes
. A cti ons und er § 9 607( a) and § 9 613( f ) ar e g ove rn ed bydi ffer ent s tatutes ofl i m i tat i on, and w e m ust deci de und er w hi ch se cti on th e Tr us te es ’ CERC L A cl ai m f al l s be f o r e det er m i ni ng whe the ri ti s t i me-b a r r e d. 42 U
. S. C. § 9 607( a) , the fi rs t o fthe tw o sect i ons i n questio n, i s t h e “ c os t re c ov er y” p ro v i sio n of C E R C L A . I t id en tifie s fo u r c at eg or ies of p ot en tia lly re s p o n sib le par t i e s r e l a t i v e t o a nyi ns t a nc e o fc o nt a mi na t i o n b ase d on th eir rela tio n sh ip to th e c on ta m in at ed sit e. See § 9 607( a) ( 1)

- ( 4)
. W hen a re l eas e o r thre ate ned re l eas e of h az ar d ou s s u b st an c es oc c u rs , th e P R P s a re st ric tlyN os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 13

The te rm s “re m ovalact i on” and “r em edi al ac t i on” r epr es en t 5 the t wo p r i m a r y f or m s o fr e s po ns e c on t e m pl a t e d b y CERC LA: ( 23 ) The t er m s “r em ove ” or “r em oval ” m ea ns the c l ea nup or re m ovalofr el ea s ed h az ar do u s s u b s t anc es fro m the e nvi ro nm en t, s uc h a c t i ons as m ay be ne c es s ar y ta k en in the e ven t ofthe thr ea tofr el ea s e ofha za rdou s s ubst anc es i nt o the environm ent, s uch act ions as m ay be neces sar y to m onit or, as s es s , an d ev alu ate the r el ea s e or thr ea tofr el ea s e of ha za rd ou s sub stan ces, the d ispo sal of rem ov ed m ater ial, or the t a ki ngo fs uc h othe r a c t i on s a s m a y be n e c e ss ary to p rev en t, m inim ize, or m itiga te d a m a g e to the p u b lic health or w elf are or to the environm ent, w hich m ay otherw is e re sul t from a re le ase or threatofrel eas e. * * * (24) T he term s “re m ed y ” or “re m ed ial actio n” m ean s tho se act ions consi st ent w ith perm anent rem edy tak en i nst ead o f o r in a d d iti o n to re m o v a l a ct io n s in th e ev en t of a rel eas e or thr eate ned rele ase ofa hazardous subst ance into the en v iron m en t, to p rev en t or m inim ize th e relea se of ha za rd ou s sub stan ces so th a t t h e y d o n ot m igr ate to cause s ubs t ant i al dang ert o pr es en tor fut ur e pub lic he alth or w elfare o r the env iron m en t. 42 U. S. C. § 96 01 ( 23 )

- ( 24 )
. Prac t i c al l y spe aki ng, “r em ovalac t i ons are ‘ tho se tak en to cou nte r im m inen t an d sub stan tial thre ats to pu blicheal th and w el f are, ’ w hil e re m edial act ions ‘ are l onger ter m , m or e perm anent r es pon se s. ’ ” M or riso n E nte rs . , LLC v. D ra vo Corp. , 63 8 F. 3d 59 4, 60 8 ( 8th Ci r. 20 11 ) ( quo t i ng M inn eso ta v. K al m an W . A bra m s M etal s, Inc. , 15 5 F .3d 101 9, 102 4 (8th C ir . 19 9 8 )). l i abl e for“a l lco sts of rem ova lo r re m edi alact i on 5 i ncurr ed by the Unite d Sta tes Governm ent o r a S tat e o r14 N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523

“The national conti ngenc y p lan s pecifie s procedu res 6 f orpr e pa r i nga nd r e s po nd i ngt o c on t a m i na t i on s a nd w as p ro m u lg a t e d b y th e E n v ir o n m en ta l P ro te ct io n A g en cy [.]” U ni t ed Sta t es v. A t l
. R es ea rc h C orp. , 551 U.S
. 128, 135 n. 3 ( 2007) ( c i t i ng C oope r Indus. , Inc. v. A vi al l Ser vs. , Inc. , 54 3 U. S. 15 7, 16 1 n
. 2 (20 0 4 )); se e al so 40 C. F. R
. § 300. 1 etseq . anIndi ant r ibe no t i nc o ns i stent wi ththe na ti o na lc o nting en cy pl an [ , ] ” § 96 07 ( a) ( 4) ( A), as wel l as for “any 6 o th erne ce ss ary c o st s o fr es po ns e i nc ur r ed bya ny othe r perso n consi ste nt w i th the nati ona l conti ngency pla n. ” § 96 07( a) ( 4) ( B). The phras e “ any o therp er son, ” a s used i n § 96 07( a) ( 4) ( B), has been re ad l i ter al l y t o m ean anyper son othe r than the U ni ted S ta tes, a St ate , o r an I nd i an tr ibe

— i n other w or ds, any p erson othe r than the e nti ti es l i ste d i n subpart( A ). S ee U nite d States v. A tl
. Resea r ch Corp. , 5 5 1 U. S
. 1 2 8 ( 2 0 0 7 )
. T hu s , § 9 6 0 7 ( a ) ( 4 ) ( B) gr ants one PRP the sam e rights a s a n i nnocent partyto su e an o th erPRP f o rcleanu p c o st s i nc ur r ed i n a re m o va l or re m ed ial a c tio n . Id

. In s uchc as es , the de fen dant’s l i abi l i ty

— al though s tr i ct

— ne ed no t be j o i nta nd se ve ra l. See B urlin gto n N o rthern , 55 6 U .S
. at61 3- 14. J udi ci ala ppo r ti o nm en t is p r o pers o l o nga s th e d efe n d an t c an d em o n s t ra te th at th er e is a re as on ab le basi s fordeter m i ni ng th e co ntributi on o fea ch cause to a sin gle h ar m . Id

. ( ci tingU ni t e d S t at e s v. Che m - D yneCorp. , 57 2 F .Su p p . 802 , 810 (S.D . Oh io 19 83 ); R ES TATE M EN T (S EC OND ) OF T O RTS § 4 33 A (1)( b ), p. 43 4 (1 96 3-1 96 4)). 42 U. S
. C. § 9 61 3( f ) , on th e o th erha nd, i s th e “c o nt r ibuti on” provi si on o fCE RC LA
. A d d ed to the sta tute by th e Superfund A m endm ents and Reauthor i zati on ActN os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 15

O ne could reas onab ly concl ud e, based s olel y on the physi cal 7 s t r uc t ur e o f§ 9 6 1 3 ( f ) , tha t§ 9 6 1 3 ( f ) ( 3 ) ( B) do e s n otcreate a dist inct, se cond cause ofact ion f or cont ribu ti on, i nst ead (co n tin u ed ...) o f1 98 6 ( “S ARA ”) , i t cr ea te s two di stinc t r i g ht s to c o ntr ibuti on, ea ch subj ect to i ts own pre re quis i tes
. The fi rs t is codifi ed at 42 U
. S. C
. § 9613(f) (1): A ny per son m ay see k c ontributi on fro m any othe r perso n w ho i s l i abl e orpote nti al l y l i abl e under sect i on 96 07 ( a ) o fth is t itle , during orfol low ing any civi l ac t i on und e rs e ct i on 960 6 o f t hi s t i t l eorun de rs e ct i on 9607 (a) of this ti tl e . ( emphas i s adde d)

. In C oop erIndus. , Inc. v. Aviall Se rvs . , Inc. , 5 4 3 U. S
. 1 5 7 ( 2 0 0 4 ) , th e S u p r e me C o u r t h e l d t ha t th e i ta l i ci ze d phr as e ha s a l i m i tinge ffec t. “ The na tu r almean i ng o fthi s s entence i s that the co ntribution m ay onlybe soughtsubj ect to the sp ec ifi ed condi ti ons[
. ] ” Id

. at1 66 ( emphas i s adde d)

. To r ea d the c l au se m o r e ex p an sively w ou ld ren d er the itali cized ph rase su p erflu ou s, w h ich th e C ou rtw as loat h e t o d o. Id

. (cit in g H ibb s v. Wi nn , 5 42 U. S
. 8 8, 1 01 ( 20 04 ) )
. In s ho r t, “ [ t] he r e i s no r ea so n why c ong r es s woul d b o th ert o s pec i fy c o ndi ti o ns u n d e rw h i c h a p e r s o n ma y b r i n ga c o n t r ib u t i o n c l a i m, a n d a tth e s a me t i me a l l o w c o n t r ib u t i o n a c t i o n s ab s en t thos e co nd i ti ons. ” Id

. A fte r C o o per, a contr ibuti on a cti on un d er 42 U
. S. C
. § 9613(f) (1) m ustb e pr e- dat ed bythe fi ling of a civilaction p urs ua nt to § 9606 or § 9607(a). The seco nd co ntributi on r i gh t of acti on i s co difi ed at 42 U
. S. C
. § 9613(f) (3)( B ): 716 N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 7 s i m pl y m odi fyi ng o r fur the r des c ribi ng the c ondi t i ons u nd er w hich a § 96 13 (f )( 1) con trib u tion act i o n m i g ht b e av ailabl e. Butthe Su pre m e Cour tha s f or eclosed tha tr ea di ng. S ee Co oper, 54 3 U .S. at 16 3 (“SA R A also cre ated a sep ara te ex p re ss r ig h t o f co n tr ib u tio n, § 1 1 3 (f)(3)(B ) . . .”). “Pa r a g r a p h ( 2 ) ” i s C ER C LA ’ s “ c o n t r ib u t i o n b a r ” p r o v i s i o n, 8 sta tin g : A person w ho has r es olved its l iabil ity to the United Stat es or a St ate in an adm ini st rat ive or j ud ic ia lly app roved s et t l em en ts hal l no tbe l i abl e f or c l ai m s f or c ont rib ut i on regarding m att ers add res se d in the se tt le m ent. Su ch s ett le

m entdoe s no tdi s c har ge an y ofthe othe r pot en t i al ly li abl e pe r s on s un l e s s i t s t e r m s s o pr ov i de , bu ti tr e duc es the p ote nt i al l i abi l i t y ofthe othe rs by the am ountofthe se tt le m en t. 4 2 U .S.C . § 9 6 1 3 (f)(2). A per so n w ho ha s resolv ed its lia bility to th e U nited Sta tes o ra S t a t ef

ors ome ora l l o

f a re s p o n s ea c t i o n o rf

o rs o me oral l of thec os t s of such ac t i on i n a n a dm i ni s t r at i veor judici ally app ro v ed s et tl em ent m ay see k c ontr ibuti on fr o m a ny pe r so n who i s no t par tyt o a s et tl ement referred to in p aragrap h (2). 8 ( em phasi s a dd ed). A s the S up re m e Cour t d id with re spect to § 1 13( f ) ( 1), s up ra , we re ad the i tal i ci zed phrase as a l i m i ti ng pro vi sion : a § 9 613( f ) ( 3) ( B) c ontr ibuti on cl ai m i s on ly a va il abl e t o a per son w ho has “r eso l ved i ts liab ili ty
. . . i n an adm i ni str ati ve orj ud i ci al l y a pp ro ved s e t t l em ent. ” Se eal s o Cons ol
. Edi s on Co. , 42 3 F
. 3d at 95 ( hol ding that the r eso l uti on o fCE RC LA l i abi lityi s a pr er equi si te t o a § 9 61 3( f ) ( 3) ( B) c o nt r ibut i o n a ct i o n). ToN os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 17

r ea d the s ec ti o n a s affo r di ngthe s ame r emedy t o o ne w h o has notr eso l ved hi s l i abi l i ty w oul d be nons ensi cal, and i t would r en d er the l i m i ti ng l anguage superfl uous. T h e Su p re m e C ou rth as lon g in sis te d t h at res u lt s h ou ld b e a vo id ed w h er ev er p os sib le. See C o o per, 543 U
. S. at 166; U nite d Sta te s v. N ordic Village, Inc. , 50 3 U.S
. 30 , 35

- 36 (19 92 ) (refe re n c in g t h e “ s e t tle d ru le th at a st at u te m u st, i f p ossible, be con s t r u e d i n su ch f ash ion tha t every w ord h as so m e op er at ive effe c t.” ); Lou i s vi l l e& Nas hvi l l eR. Co. v. M o ttley, 219 U
. S. 467, 475 (1911 ) (“W e m us t h ave regard to al l th e wo r ds u s e d b y Co ng r e s s , a nd a s f a ras p ossible gi ve effect to them

. ”). I n sum m ar y, ea ch CE R CL A r i ght o fact i on ca rr i es w i th i t i ts own sta tutory tr i gge r, and e ach i s a d i stinct re m ed y avai l abl e t o perso ns i n differ ent pr oce du ra l c irc u m st an c es . SeeAtl. Rese arch , 5 51 U. S
. a t 1 39 ( ci ting Cons ol
. Edi s on Co. , 423 F. 3d at 99 ); s ee also N iaga ra M oha w k P ow er C orp. v. Ch evron U SA , Inc. , 596 F
. 3d 112, 12 2 ( 2d Cir

. 20 10)
. W here a perso n has b ee n s u b j ecte d to a ci vi lact i on und er 4 2 U .S
. C. §§ 9606 o r 9607 ( a) , he m ay at te m pt to r ec o ve rhi s ex pen di tu r es th r o ug h a c o nt r ibut i o n s ui t un de r 4 2 U. S
. C. § 9 6 1 3 ( f ) ( 1 )
. W he r e a perso n has r eso l ved hi s l i abi l i ty to the U ni ted S tat es, o r to a s t a t e , f o rs o me o ra l lo fa r e s p o n s e a c t i o n o rf o rs o me oral lo fthe cos ts ofsuch acti on in an adm i ni str ati ve or j ud i ci al l y a pp ro ved se ttl em ent, he m ay att em p t to r ec o ve rhi s ex pen di tu r es i n a c o nt r ibuti o n s ui t pur su an t to 42 U .S .C
. § 9613(f) (3)( B ). I f ne ither of th ose triggers ha s o cc ur r ed, a plaintiffdo es no t ha ve a c l ai m f o rc o ntr ibut i o n un derCERCLA. Tha t do es no t m ea n h e ha s no re m edy, however

. A ny ti m e a perso n has incurr ed “nece s-18 N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523

sar y c ost s o fr esponse . . . co nsi ste nt with the nat i onal co nt i ng en cy p lan[, ]” CE R C L A prov ides f or a § 9 60 7(a )(4) (B ) c o st rec ov er y a c tio n . Th es e a re th e p lain ter m s o fthe sta tute.

B. C lassifyi n g the T rus tees’ CE R C LA Claim The ne xts te p i s to a ppl y the s ta tu to r y s ch eme to the f ac ts t o d e t e r mi n e wh i c h s o r to fc l a i m, o rc l a i ms , t he T r us te es ha ve a dva nc ed, a nd whe th eri t i s ba r r ed bythe a p p l i c ab l e s t a t u t e o fl i mi t a t i o n s . In C o u n t I o fth e C o mpla i nt, the Truste es see k t o re cove r th e c osts they in c u rre d p u rs u an t t o th e 1 9 9 9 an d 20 02 A O C s. In or der t o deter m i ne wh i ch k in d o f CE RC LA cl ai m Count I sta tes , we m ust t ake a cl ose r l oo k a t the undisputed do cument ar y e vi den ce pr e s e n t e d , pa r ti cul ar l y t he A OC s them sel ves. In doi n g so , we fi nd thatthe Truste es ha ve s ta te d a c o str ec o very claim unde r§ 9 60 7( a) , b ut o nl y wi thr es pec t to cost s i nc ur r ed pur su an t to the 20 02 AOC. At thi s po i nt, costs i nc ur r ed pur su an t to the 19 99 AOC co ul d o nl y b e recov er ed th r o ug h a c o nt r ibut i o n c l a i m, wh i c h i s t i me-b a r r e d.

1 . T h e 1 9 9 9 AOC U nd erthe 1999 A OC , the N on- Pre m ium Respondents took on si gn ificant resp ons ibi li ties. T he y agreed to un d ertake th e E E /C A stud y of rem oval alternat iv e s for T hirdN os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 19

An E E / C A i s c l a s s i fi e d a s a “ r e mo v a l a c t i o n ” b y the EP A. 9 S ee40 C .F .R . § 3 0 0 .41 5 (b )(4)(i). B oth the ca se la w a nd the a d m inistra tiv e m ater ials 10 add res si ng C ER CL A frequentl y switc h back and f orth bet w een referri ng to s ect ions ofthe actby theirs ect ion num ber, as en a ct ed , an d th ei r sec tio n n u m b er , as c o d ifie d . “S ec tio n 10 7 (a )” (co n tin u ed ...) S i t e , t o d e v e l o p a n d s u b mi ta n E E / C A r e p o r tt o th e E P A, 9 and t o set tl e and fund the Thir d S i te Trust. T h ey also ag r ee d t o r ei m bur se the fede r alg o ve r nm en t f o rthe E PA ’s pas t resp ons e and oversigh t c osts, for any futu re ove rs i g htc o s t s i nc ur r e d in c o nj un c t i o n wi th the EE / CA proj ect, and f oran a m ount ce rt ai n to be exp en d ed by the Depart m ent o f the I nter i ori n addressing natural r es o ur ce da m ag es a t Thi r d S i te
. The 1 99 9 AO C l ai d o ut deadli nes forthe N on- Prem i um Respondents t o m eet thei r o b l i g a t i o ns , a nd ma de c l e a rtha tn o r e l e a s e fro m CERCLA l i ab i li tywoul d o cc urunt i ltho se o bl i g at i o ns w er e m et: E x c ep t a s e x p re ss ly p r o vid ed in Se c tio n X III (C ov en an t N otto Su e), n ot h in g in th is O rd er c o n s titutes a sat i sf acti on o f o r re l eas e fro m any cl ai m o r ca us e o facti o n a g ains t th e Re spo nde nt s o ra ny perso n not a partyto thi s Order, f orany l i abi l i ty such pers on m ay have und erCE RC LA , o therst atute s, orthe c om m on l aw , i ncl ud i ng but not l i m i ted to any c l a i ms o fthe Uni t e d S t a t e s f o rc o s t s , da mag es and i nter estunder S ecti ons 106(a ) or 1 07( a) o r C E R C L A , 42 U
. S. C
. §§ 9606(a), 9607 (a). 1020 N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 10 o f C E R C L A , for ex a m p le , w a s co d ifie d at 42 U .S.C . § 9 6 0 7 (a ); “S ec t i on 113(f) ” cor re s ponds t o § 96 13 ( f ) , e t c . Fore as e of referenc e, w e refe r t o CE R CL A s ect ions by theirdesi gnatio n w ith in th e U n ite d St a te s C o d e. The cove nants no t t o sue re fer re d to i n the disc l ai m er abov e were express l y c ondit i oned on the Res pond en ts’ fulfi ll m en t of th eir obligati ons un d er the O rd er: E x c ep t a s o th er w ise sp ec ifica lly p ro vid ed in t h is O rd er, up on issu an ce of the [N otice of C om p let io n ], U
. S. EPA co venants notto sue Respondents f or j ud i ci ali m posi ti on o fdam age s o r c ivilpenal ti es orto ta ke adm i ni str ati ve acti on a gainst Res pond ents f or an y fa ilu re to p er for m ac tio n s a gr ee d to in t h is O rd er [.] * * * [ I ] n c o ns i der at i o n a nd upo n Re spo nde nt s’ pay m en t of[the EPA ’ s r esponse co sts ] , U
. S EPA co venants not to sue o r take ad m i ni str ati ve acti on a gainst Resp on d en ts u n d er Sec tio n 10 7(a ) of C E R C L A [.] A nd , m ostexpl i ci tl y, as m odi fi ed by the a tta ched er ra ta sheet : These co venants ar e co nd i ti oned upon the com ple te and satisfacto ryper f or m ance b y Res pond ents of th eir obligati ons un d er this O rd er. M or eov er, j ust a s the EPA r efu se d t o gi ve up i ts ri ghts to sue th e R es pond ents, the Respondents r efused to consi der th e O rd erto be an adm i ssi on o fl i abi l i ty on thei r part:N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 21 Respond en ts ’ ag re em ent t o com plywith a nd be bound by the te rm s o fthi s Orderand not to conte st th e b as is or va lid i t y o ft h is O rd er or its te rm s s h all not con st itu te any a dm i ssi on o fl i abi l i ty by any ( or al l ) o f the Respondents norany adm i ssi on byRes po nd e nt s o fthe b a s i s o rv al i dit y o fU. S
. EP A’ s fi nd

in gs , con c lu sio n s o r d et e r m i n at ion s c on ta in ed in th is Ord er. U nd erthe plain la nguage ofthe A OC , with r espectto the No n -P re m i um Respondents, the EPA ’ s co venants no t t o s ue

— a nd the a c c o mpa ny i ngr e l e a s e fr o m CER CLA liab i l i ty

— wo u l d t a k e e ffe c twh e n th e y h a d s e e n t he EE /AC proj ect thro ugh to i ts com ple ti on a nd pro vi ded th e Tru st w ith su ffici en t fun d s to m eet its m one tary c om m itm en ts p u rs u an t t o th e A O C , an d n o s oo n er . I t i s undis pu ted thatthe N on- Prem i um Respondents d id m ee t t h os e o b l iga tio n s, as th e E P A ap p ro ve d th eir perf or m ance ofthe 1999 A OC o n Octobe r 24, 20 00.

a. Th e Trustee s have a § 96 13( f ) ( 3) ( B) co ntr i bu t i on cl ai m f o rc o st s i ncurr ed undert he 19 99 AO C. By th e te r m s o fthe A O C, whenthe Non- Pr emi um Re spo nde nt s co m pl et ed per f o r m an ce o fthe i ro bl i g at i o ns und erthe 1999 A OC and obt ai ned a not i ce o fapprov al fr o m the EPA, the c o ndi ti o na lc o ve na nt s no t to s ue c o nta i ne d the r ein wen t i nt o e ffec t. At tha t po int, the NonPrem i um Respondents, and by extensi on the Trust, had

“ r e s o l v e d [ th e i r ] l i ab i l i t y t o th e Un i t e d S t a t e s . . . f o rs o me oral lo fa re sponse acti on o r f orso m e o r al lo fthe cos ts of such acti on” thro ugh an adm i ni str ati ve settl em ent,22 N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 thus sa ti sfyi ng the prere quis i tes f ora contr ibuti on acti on pursuant to 42 U
. S. C. § 9 613( f ) ( 3) ( B). S peci fi cal l y, the Tr ust had r eso l ved i ts l i abi l i ty to the Unite d Sta tes w i th r es p ect to the e xecuti on o fthe EE /CA and w i th re spect to the r ei m burse m ent o f g ove rnm ent r esponse and oversight co sts i ncurr ed pri orto and i n conj uncti on w i th the EE/CA proj ect. A s a r esult , t h ey w er e e nti tl ed to r ec o ve r th e co st s th eyi nc ur r ed i n a cc o m pl i sh i ng th o se t as k s th r o ug h a c o nt r ibut i o n a ct i o n. Of c ours e, the T ru stees al so i ncurr ed neces sar y c ost s ofr esponse c on si ste nt with the nat i onalco nti ngency p lan. T he y d id n ot sim p ly reim bu rs e t h e E PA f or a re m ova lacti on i t had al re ady per f or m ed; theyfund ed and executed the re m oval act i on them sel ves. In that sense , the tr i gg er fora § 9 607( a) co st re cove ryact i on was a l so met. Thi s br i ng s us t o on e o fthe que st i o ns ra i sed i n the b r i e f s : a r e the r e a nyc i r c ums t a nc e s u nder w h ich a pla i nti ffm ay bring bo th a cos t r eco ver y anda con t r ib ut ion clai m un d er CE R C L A ? T he Sup rem e C ou rt l eft th atpo ss ibi l i tyo peni n A tl antic R es earch : W e d o not su ggest th at § § 1 07(a)(4) (B) and 113(f) h av e n o ov er lap atall. Key Tron ic C o rp. v. U nited Sta tes , 511 U
. S. 809, 816, 114 S. Ct. 1960 , 12 8 L. Ed

. 2d 797 ( 1994 ) ( st at ing the st atute s pro vi de “si m i l arand so m ew hat ove rl apping re m ed[i es] ”)
. Fo r i nstance , we re cogni ze that a PRP m ay susta i n ex p enses pursuant to a con sen t d ecree fol low ing a su it u nd er § 106 or § 107(a). See, e . g., U nite d Tec hnolog ie s C orp. v. Brow ning-Fe rr is Indust ri es, Inc. , 33 F. 3d 96, 97( 1stCi r. 19 94)
. In such a ca se , the PRP do es no t i nc urc o st s vo l unt ar i l y b utN os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 23 d o e s n o t r e i mb u r s e th e c o s t s o fa n o th e rp a r t y . We do not deci de w hetherthese c om pel l ed cos ts ofr espo ns e ar e r ec o ve r ab l e unde r § 11 3( f ) , § 1 07 ( a) , o rb o th

. 551 U
. S. at13 9 n. 6. M ost circu its, after At l an t i cRe s e ar ch , h ave not al l owed a pl ai nt i fft o pur su e a co str ec o ve r y c l ai m whena c o ntr ibu tio n cla im is av aila b le. See So lutia , Inc. v. M cWa ne, Inc. , 672 F.3d 12 30 , 123 6-3 7 (1 1t h C ir. 20 12 ); M or r i s on Ente rs . , LL C v. D r avo Corp
. , 638 F.3d 594 , 603 (8th C ir. 2011); Ly onde l l Che m . Co. v. O cc i de nt al Che m . Corp. , 60 8 F
. 3d 284, 29 1 n. 19 ( 5th C ir. 20 10) ( ackno w l edgi ng, and not d isturbin g, d istri ct cou rt’s i m p li cit dec isi on th at p lai nt iff c ou ld n otp u rs u e b o t h rem ed ies ); Age r eSy s . , Inc . v. Advanc e d Envtl. Te ch
. Corp. , 602 F.3d 204 , 229 (3d Cir. 2010); N iagara M oha w k P ow erCo rp. v . Ch evron U
. S.A., Inc. , 59 6 F.3 d 11 2, 12 8 (2 d C ir. 20 10 ); I TTIndu s . , Inc . v. B orgWarner, Inc. , 5 0 6 F
. 3 d 4 5 2 , 4 5 8 ( 6 th C i r . 2 0 0 7 )
. T wo j us ti fi ca ti o ns ar e us ua l l y g i ve n f o r r ea ch i ngthat c o nc l usi o n. F i r st, c ou rts ha ve no te d tha t, de spi te i ts pa ss i ng ac k no wl edg m en t o fa po ssible o ve r l ap i n A tl antic R es earch , the Suprem e Cou rthas re peatedl y e m phasi zed the proce du ra l “dis ti nctness ” of the CE RC LA ri gh ts o f ac tio n . Se e, e . g. , 551 U .S. at 1 38 ; Niaga ra M oh awk, 59 6 F
. 3d at 12 8; IT TInd us. , 5 06 F. 3d at 458. S eco nd , so m e co urts have concl ud ed that perm i tting a partywh o has a l re ady r eso l ve d hi s o wn l i ab i l i tythrou gh a s et tl ementt o pur su e a § 96 07 (a)( 4)(B ) ac tio n w ou ld allow h i m t o e x p loit C E R C L A ’s “ c on tr i b u t ion ba r” p ro vis ion to sh ift fu ll l i abi l i ty onto the tar geto fhi s s uit, a r es ultanti theti cal to th e p u rp os e o f th e s ta tu te
. S e e, e . g. , Soluti a , 6 72 F. 3d at 12 37 ; A gere Sys. , Inc. , 60 2 F
. 3d at 228- 229.24 N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 The “co ntributi on ba r” ar gum ent, al though com m on i n the c as e l aw, i s ba se d o n a f au l typr emi se . The a r g um en t i s th ata § 96 07( a) c o str ec o ve r y s ui t i m po se s j o i nt an d s ev er all i ab i l i tyo n i ts target, wher ea s a co nt r ibut i o n d e fen d a n to n l y f a c e s e q u i t ab l e a p p o r t i o n me n t
. At th e sa m e ti m e, pur su an t to § 96 13 ( f ) ( 2) , a p arty who has “ re sol ved it s l i abi l i ty to the Unite d Sta tes o r a S tat e i n a n a dm in i st r at i ve o rj udi ci al l y a ppr o ve d s et tl ement sh al lno t be l i ab l e f o rc l ai m s f o rc o nt r ibut i o n r eg ar di ng m att er s a dd re sse d i n the set tl em ent. ” S ev er al c ourt s have concl ud ed that al l owing a par ty w ho has r eso l ved i ts l i ab i l i tythr ou gh s et tl ement

— an d who thus meet s th e pr er equi si te s for a § 96 13 ( f ) ( 3) ( B) c o nt r ibut i o n a ct i o n, as w el las f orpro tect i on un d er § 9613 ( f ) ( 2)

— to pur su e a co st re cove ryact i on inste ad w oul d al l ow that par ty to i m po se j o i nta nd s ev er all i ab i l i tyo n a de fen dan t w i thout any fearo fa counte rc laim , due to the oper ati on of § 96 13 (f)(2 ). Solutia , 67 2 F.3 d a t 1 23 7; A gere Sys. , Inc. , 602 F.3d at 228-229. Th eoreticall y, one PR P cou ld sh ift fulll i abi l i ty onto ano th erPRP and escape al ll i abi l i ty hi m sel f

. Giv en thatCE RC LA i s intended to dist ribute th e c os ts of en vir on m en ta l co rre c tio n a m on g a ll o ftho se who b ea rresp ons ibi l i tyf o ra n ins ta nc e o fc o nta m in at i on , see B urlin gto n N o rthern , 55 6 U.S
. at60 2, such gam esm anshi p seem s inapp ro pri ate
. The probl em , o fco urse , i s that § 96 07( a) does not al way s i m po se j o i nta nd s everall i ab i l i ty
. Appor ti o nm en t i s pro per on a co st re cove rycl ai m wh er e the re is a r easonab l e ba si s ford et erm i ni ng the co ntributi on o fea ch c au se to a sin gle h ar m . B u rling to n N o rthern , 55 6 U.S
. at 61 4. Ap p o r t i o n me n ti s l i k e wi s e th e r e me d y f o ra c o n-N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 25 tribution claim

. A s a resu lt, cou nt erclaim or n o cou nt ercl ai m , ther e i s no t m or e r i sk that a defendant co u ld be g am ed i nto shoul deri ng fulll i abi l i ty, o r m or e than hi s f ai r shar e, bya pla i nti ffwith a § 9607 ( a) co st r e c o v e r y a c t i o n tha n b y a p l a i nt i ffwi th a § 9 6 1 3 ( f ) ( 3 ) ( B) con tribution action. A fter B urlin gto n N o rthern , t h e “ c on tr ibuti on ba r” ar gum ent i s no t per suasi ve. The othe r j usti fi cati on usual l y o ffer ed f orl i m i ti ng a pla i nti ffto o ne f or m o fCE RC LA act i on

— the pr oce d u ral dist i nctness of the re m edi es

— i s mo r e c o mpe l l i n g . As th e Seco nd Ci r cui t ha s o bs er ve d, “ [ t] o a l l o w [ a qua l i fy i ng c on tr ibu tio n p lain tiff] to p ro c ee d u n d er § 96 07 (a) w ou ld i n effect null i fy t h e SA RA am endm ent a nd abr oga te the r equi re m ents Congre ss pla ced on c ontr ibu tion cl ai m s under § 9 613. ” Niaga r a M oh awk, 5 9 4 F
. 3 d a t 1 28.

“ ‘ W hen Congre ss ac ts to am end a st atute , [ cour ts] presum e i t intends i ts am endm ent t o h av e rea land substa nti aleffect. ’ ” Id

. ( ci ti ng S t o n ev . INS , 51 4 U.S
. 38 6, 39 7 ( 19 95 ) )
. W e ag r ee wi ththe se nt i m en ts e xpr es se d b y the Se c on d C irc u it. T h ro u gh SA R A , C on g re ss int en tio n ally amende d C E RCLA t o i nc l ude e xpr es s r i g ht s to c o nt r ibut i o n, s ubj e c tt o c e r t a i n pre r e qu i s i t e s . I f§ 9 6 0 7 ( a ) a l r e a dy pr o vi ded th e r i g ht s o fa ct i o n c o nt emplated by the SAR A am endm ents, then the a m endm ents w er e j ust so m an y sup erfl uo us w ord s. T he c an ons of statu tory const ructi on co unselag ai nst an y inter preta ti on that lea d s t o th at res u lt. SeeH ibb s , 54 2 U.S
. at10 1. I n shor t, with r espectto t h e 1999 A OC , the Truste es ha ve a c o nt r ibut i o n a ct i o n un der§ 9 61 3( f ) ( 3) ( B)
. Al th o ug h, giving the words thei r pla i n m eani ng, theyhave26 N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 als o in c u rre d “ n ec es sa ry c ost s o fr esponse , ” see § 9607 (a)(4 )( B ), as i s requ ired to su stain a cos t recovery action, w e agree w ith o u r s is t er circuits tha t a plaintiff is li m ited to a con tribution rem edywheno ne i s av a i l ab l e . T h e n e x t s t e p i s t o d e t e r mi n e wh e th e rt he Truste es’ r eco ver y, o n a c ontr ibuti on theor y, f orco sts i nc ur r e d p ur s ua ntthe 1 9 9 9 AOC i s t i me-b a r r e d.
b. Th e T rus t e e s a r e t i me - ba r r e d fr o m r e c o v e r i ng co st s ex pende d pur sua ntt o t he 19 99 AO C. The sta tute ofl i m i tat ions f orCE RC LA co ntributi on action s can be foun d at 42 U
. S. C
. § 9613(g)(3) : N o act ion for c ontr ibuti on forany re sponse cos ts or dam age s m ay be c om m enced m or e than 3 y ear s a fter

— ( A ) the da t e o fj ud g men ti n a nya c t i o n under thi s chapte r f orr eco ver y o fsuch co sts o r dam age s, o r ( B) the d ate o fan a dm i ni str ati ve or der under sect i on 9 622( g) of thi s t i tl e ( re l ating to de m inim is set tl em ents) o r 9622(h ) o fthi s t i tl e ( re l ating to c os t re c ov er y s et tle m en ts ) or e n t ry of a jud icia lly approve d s ettl em ent with re spect to such cos ts ordam age s. T h e B anker ts ar gue that be cause the de m inim is pa r t i es, al so kno wn as the Pr emi um Re spon den ts , s et tl ed o ut pu rs uant to § 9622 ( g) , the thre e ye ar l i m i tat i ons peri odN os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 27

Althoughthe Bank er t s f ai l ed t o r ai s e the i s s ue, anar gum en t 11 c a n a l s o be m a de tha tthe 1999 A OC wa s “ a n a dm i ni s t r a t i ve or der

. . . under § 96 22 ( h) [ , ] ” t o the e xt en tthatthe NonP rem ium R esp o n d e n ts ag reed to reim b u rse resp on se costs i nc ur re d by the fede ra l gove rn m en t purs uan tt o thats ec t i on. Thatwoul d pro vi de a n a ddit i ona l b asi s f or s t ar t i ng the thr ee y ear clock on the d ay the A O C w as e x ecu ted

. In its a mi cu s b rief, the E P A sug g ests that b y m ak ing no te of this po t e n t i a l wr i n k l e we “ a d d r e s s e d ” th e i s s u e a n d r e a c h e d a c on c l us i onthatw a s “ i nc or r e c t
. ” [ EP A am i cu s b ri ef, p p . 12 -1 3 ). In f act, w e ne ither ad d ress it nor reac h a ny con clu sion at all; w e h a v e r el ie d o n it in n o w a y in re a ch in g o u r d ec isi o n . b e g a n t o r u n o n th e d a t e th e A O C w a s e x e c u t e d. 11 The Truste es ar gue in re sponse that i t ce rt ai nl y di d w i th re spect to any cl ai m s that the de m inim is par ti es might ad van c e , bu t tha t non e of th e § 9613(g)(3) triggers ha ve o cc ur r ed wi thr es pec t to theiro wn cl ai m s. The T ru st ee s a rg u e t h a t t h eir cla im s fa ll w ith ina “g ap ” in the statutor y c ove ra ge, and that the g ap shoul d be fi l l ed wi th th e l i m i ta ti o ns per i o d appl i cabl e to a ct i o ns unde rU. S
. C. § 9 607( a)
. An “ i ni ti ala ct i o n fo rthe r e c o v e r y o fc o s t s ” u nd e r§ 9 6 0 7 ( a ) mus tb e fi l e d: ( A) f o ra r e mo v a la c t i o n, w i th i n 3 y e a r s af t e rc o mpl e t i o n o fthe r e mov a la c t i o n, e xc e pttha ts uc h c ost re cove ryact i on m ust be br ought w i thi n 6 y ear s a fter a dete rm i nati on t o gr an t a w ai verunder s ecti on 9604 (c ) ( 1) ( C) o fthi s t i tl e forco nti nued r esponse ac ti o n; a nd ( B) fora re m edi alact i on, withi n 6 y ear s a fter i ni ti ati on o fphysi calo n-s i te const ructi on o fthe re m e-28 N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 d ial a c tio n, ex c ep t t h at, i f th e re m ed ial a c tio n is in itiate d w i thi n 3 y ea rs a fterthe com ple ti on o fthe re m ova l a cti on, co sts i ncurr ed i n the re m ova lact i on m ay be r eco ver ed i n the cos t r eco ve ryact i on br o ug htunde rthi s su bpa r ag r aph

. 42 U
. S. C
. §§ 9613(g)(2)( A )- (B). W e nee d not r eso l ve the “ cove ra ge gap” di spute with r e s pe c tto the wo r kp e r f o r med u nd e rthe 1 9 9 9 AOC , be ca us e th e o ut co m e i s th e sa m e ei th erway . Ass um i ng f orthe m om en t th at w e a gr ee w i th the Trust ees that th e lim ita tio n s p er iod fo r a c os t re c ov er y a c tio n sh ou ld ap p ly, w e n ot e t h at an E E /C A is a “ re m ov al a c tio n .” See40 C. F. R. § 300. 415(b) ( 4) ( i )
. That m eans t h at § 9613 ( g) ( 2) ( A ) would a pp l y t o any a tte m pt to r eco ver the c ost s incurr ed i n ex ecuti ng the EE/CA

. U nd erthat sta nd ar d, the l i m i tat ion s p er i od beg an r unning when th e EE / CA p r oj e c twa s c o mpl e t e d in Oc t o b e ro f2 0 00. Th e Co mpl a i nti n thi s c a s e wa s fi l e d o n Apr i l1 , 2 0 08, si gni fi cantl y m or e than thre e yea rs l ate r. Reco ver y i s t i m ebar re d. A ssum i ng, o n the othe r h an d , that we ag re e wi ththe B an k er ts a nd a ppl y the s ta tu te o fl i m i ta ti o ns f orco ntributi on a cti ons, we w oul d m ar k a st art d ate f or the l i m i tat i ons peri od on the date the AO C w as executed. Pursuant to § 9 613( g) ( 3) ( B), the Truste es h ad thre e yea rs fro m thatdate

— i n 199 9

— i n whi cht o fi l e ana ct i o n. They m i sse d the deadl in e b y a pp ro xi m ate l y s i x yea rs ; re c ov er y is t im e-b ar re d . U n d er eith er p a r t y ’ s th eo ry , i t is too l ate f orthe Truste es to re cove r the c ost s they incurr ed i n c a r r y i ngo utthe 1 9 9 9 AOC
.N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 29 2 . T h e 2 0 0 2 AOC Aft e ra pp r o v i ngthe w o r kdo ne u nd e rthe 1 9 9 9 AOC , th e EPA i ss ue d a n Enfo r ce m en t Ac tio n Mem o r an dum sel ecting a re m ova lact i on a nd cle anup obj ecti ves fr o m a mo n gth e o p t i o n s d e t a i l e d i n th e E E / C A. In N o v e mber20 02, the parti es enter ed i nto the s econd A OC to i m p l em ent those so l uti ons. The 20 02 A OC i ncl ud ed i denti cal condi ti onalco venants notto sue and an i den ti ca ldi sc l ai m erof li ab i l i tyo n the pa r t o fthe Re spo nden ts ; i ts s tr uc tu re w as l ar g ely pa r al l elt o tha t o fthe 1999 A OC
. To the exte nt thatthe T ru st ees’ sui t s eek s t o re cove r expenses ar i si ng o ut o fthei r perf or m ance o f th e 20 02 AOC, i t i s no t a con tr ibut i o n a ct i o n. The T ru stees have been subj ecte d to no ci vi lact i on under §§ 9606 o r 9607, so a co ntributi on a cti on under § 96 13( f ) ( 1) i s u na v a i l a b l e . O n th e o th e rh a n d , u n d e rth e p l a i n t e r ms of th e A O C , th ey cou ld not ha ve “resolved [t h eir] l i ab i l i tyt o the Uni te d S ta te s . . . f o rsom e o ra l lo f[ th e w or k p er fo r m ed u n d er th e 2 00 2 A O C ] or for so m e o r all ofth e c o s t s o f[ the wo r kp e r f o r med u nd e rthe 2 0 0 2 AOC ] in a n admi ni st r at i ve . . . se tt l ement ” at an y ti m e before sa ti sf ac to r y di sc ha r g e o fthe i ro bl i g at i o ns unde rthe 20 02 AOC. S i nc e th e w ork t o b e per f o r m ed unde rthe 20 02 AOC w as o ng o i ngwhen th is a ct i o n was fi l ed, a nd no n o t i c e o fa pp r o v a lh a d i s s ue d wh i c h wo ul d t r i gge r the c ondit i onalco venan ts notto sue, a contr ibuti on acti on under § 96 13( f ) ( 3) ( B) i s l i ke w ise unavai l abl e. W hat the Tr ustee s have done, w i th re spect to the w or k c al l ed f o r by th e 20 02 AO C, i s i nc ur co st s o f r es po ns e co nsi ste nt with the na tio nalco nti ngency pla n, as i s r equi re d to fi le a cost reco very act ion un d er § 9607(a).30 N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 So , a pla i n re adingo fthe s ta tu te and a soberl oo k a t th e fa c ts m ak e itcle ar th at a c os t re c ov e r y ac tio n is av ailab l e. None th el es s, b etwee n the Ba nk er ts a nd the EPA w ri ti ng as am i cu s i n s uppo r t o fr eh eari ng, thr ee di ffer en t re as on s h av e b ee n ad va n c ed w h y t h i s c ou rtsh ou ld fi nd thatthe Truste es ar e l i m i ted to a contr ibu tio n ac ti o n fo rc o st s i nc ur r ed pur su an t to the 2 00 2 AO C. The fi rs t, cham pio ned pri m ar i l y by the Bankert s, is t hat “co m pel l ed” co sts i ncurr ed pursuant t o an A OC m ust, as a m att ero fl aw , be re cove re d i n a c ontr ibuti on a cti o n. The s ec o nd, a r g ue d b y b o thpa r ti es , i s t hat th e m er e a ct o fsign i ng a set tl em ent a gr eem ent a m ounts to a r eso l ut ion o fl i abi l i ty f orpurposes o fthe sta tute. The th i r d ar g um en t i s ba se d o n po l i cycons i der at i o ns and on the theo rythatwithhold ing a co ntributi on a c t i o n un t i ll i ab i l i t y i s a c t ua l l y r e s o l v e d wi l ldi s c o urag e future p o l l ut er s fr o m s et tl i nge ar l y wi ththe PRP
. None ofthes e a rgum ents ar e factual l y o r l ega l l y c onvi nci ng, and they do not w ar ra nt a differ ent r esul t.

a . T h e v o l u n t a ry/ c o mp e l l e d c o s t s d i c h o t o my The Bankert s’ fi rs t a rgum ent focuse s o n a di stincti on between vo l untaryand com pel l ed cos ts: theycla im that th e S upr eme Co ur t d r ew a l i ne i n the s an d i n A tl antic R es earch and that i n the curr ent l ega l envi ro nm ent a cost re co ve r y a ct i o n i s av ai l ab l e o nly t o pl aint i ff s who i nc ur r ed co st s “v o lunt ar i l y ”. “ Compel l ed” c o st s, o n the o th er h an d , may o nl y b e r ec o ve r ed th r o ug h a c o nt r ibuti on a cti on. S i nce the Trust ees were “co m pel l ed” to cl ea n up th e si te b y the ad m i ni st r at i ve s et tl ementN os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 31 proce ss, the Bankert s a rgue thattheyar e l i m i ted to a contr ibuti on acti on. There ar e thre e si gni fi can t probl em s with thi s a rgum ent. The fi rs t pr obl em with the Banker ts’ ar gum ent i s that i t ha s no ba si s i n th e te xt o f th e so ur ce case . I n A tl antic R es earch , th e Co ur t was a sk ed to de ci de whethe rthe phr as e “any othe r perso n” i n § 9 607( a) ( 4) ( B) pr ovi des PRP s, i n additi on t o “i nnocent” parti es, w ith a r i ght t o re c ov er r esponse co sts fro m o therPRPs. 55 1 U.S
. at13 1. A rguingag ai nst th at r esult, the U ni ted S tat es sugge ste d to the Cour t that a l l owing one PRP to m ai ntai n a § 96 07( a) cos t r eco ver y a cti on a gainstano therPRP w oul d gi ve i t l i cense to “cause sho p” bet w een an act i on f orco st r ec o ve r y a nd a n a ct i o n fo rc o nt ribut i o n, c ho o singwhi ch

eve r sect i on o ffer ed a per cei ved advantag e under the c i rcum sta nces ofthe case . I n resp ons e to the gove rnm en t’s conc ern, the C o u rt em phasi zed the p ro c eduraldi stinctness o fthe re m edi es. The Court c on tr ast ed a pl ai nti ffwh o see ks to re cove r expend i ture s he hi m sel fi ncurr ed i n cl eaning up a s i te wi th a p l a i n t i ffwh o s e e k s t o r e c o v e rth e c o s to fr e i mbursing ano therper son’ s e xpend i tu re s pursuant to a se tt l ement ag r ee m en t o r j udg m en t. 55 1 U. S
. at 13 9. The f o r m eri s a ty pi ca lc o strecovery cl ai m , wher ea s th e lat te r is a ty p ica l co n tr ibu tio n c laim u n d er § 96 13 (f)(1 ). Id

. Underthe c i r cumst an ce s as hy po th et i ca l l y de fi ne d, the C ou rt saw no room f or choos ing betw een t h e tw o: “[B]y re i m bursing co sts pai d to othe r parti es, t h e PRP has not i ncurr ed it s own co sts o fr esponse and ther ef or e ca nnot re cove r und er§ 107( a)
. A s a re sul t, though el i gibl e to see k32 N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 contr ibuti on under § 11 3( f ) ( 1), th e PRP cannotsi m ult an eo u sly se ek to re c ov er th e sam e ex p en se s un d er § 10 7(a ).” Id

. The Courtco ncl ud ed that the gov er nm ent’ s ca uses hop p ing w orri es w ere thu s un foun d ed

. Bu t before m oving on, the Court re cogni zed the l i m i tat i ons ofi ts o wnc o n c ept ua li l l u s t r a t i o ni n a f o o tn o t e , wh i c h we have quoted once al re ady: W e do not sugge st that §§ 107( a) ( 4) ( B) and 11 3( f ) have n o ov e r l a p atall. Key Tron ic C o rp. v. U nited Sta tes , 511 U
. S. 80 9, 81 6, 114 S. Ct. 19 60, 12 8 L. Ed

. 2d 797 ( 19 94 ) ( st at i ngthe s ta tu te s p rovi de “s i m i l ara nd som ew h at ove rl apping re m ed[i es] ”)
. Fo r i nstance , we r ec o g ni ze tha t a PRP m aysus ta i n e xpe ns es pur su ant to a c o ns e ntde c r e e fo l l o wi nga s ui tu nd e r§ 10 6 or § 10 7(a ). Se e, e . g. , U nited Tec hnol ogi e s Corp. v. B rown ing-Ferr is Industr ie s, Inc. , 33 F. 3d 96, 97 (1st C ir. 1994 )
. In such a case , t h e P RP does no t incur co sts vol untari l y b ut does notr eim b urse the cos ts of a n o th e rp a r t y . We d o n o td e c i de w h e th e rth e s e c o mp ell ed c osts of resp ons e a re rec overab le u nd er § 113(f) , § 1 0 7 ( a ) , o rb o th

. F o ro u rp u r p o s e s , i ts uf fi c e s t o d e mons tr ate thatco sts i ncurr ed voluntari l y a re r eco ver ab l e o nly b y wa y o f § 1 0 7 ( a ) ( 4 ) ( B) , a nd cos ts of re i m burse m ent t o anothe r perso n p u rs uant to a leg al jud gm en t o r se tt lem en t a re rec ov er ab le on ly un de r§ 1 1 3 ( f )
. T hu s , a ta mi ni mum, n e i the rr e med y sw all ow s the other, con t r a ry to the G overn m en t’s ar gu m en t. 551 U
. S. at13 9 n. 6. The Bankert s co ncl ud e, ba se d on the quoted f oo tnot e, that onl y parti es w ho vol untari l y i ncur re sponse cos ts canN os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 33 bring an acti on f orco st re cove ryunder § 9607( a) , and that parti es w ho a re “co m pel l ed” to i ncur r esponse co sts because o fan en for cem ent a cti on o r a g ove rnm ent s ett l em en t m us t pr o ce ed under§ 9 61 3( f ) i ns te ad. Butthe C ou rt s a i d “ co s t s i nc ur r e d v ol unt ar i l y a r e r e c o v e r abl e only by w ay of [ § 9 60 7( a) ( 4) ( B). ] ” Id

. ( em phasi s a dd ed). That i s no t the sa m e a s s aying tha t o n l y vo lun ta rily in cu rred co sts ar e r ec o ve r ab l e bywayo f§ 9 60 7( a) ( 4) ( B)
. The l at te ri m pl i es the e xc l us i o n o fc o st s of an y othe rty pe; the f or m erdoes not
. The S u p re m e Cour t s ai d, and m eant, th e f o rm er. I n f ac t, the Co ur t ex pl i ci tly l eft o penthe po ss ibi l i tytha t par ti es who wer e “c o m pel l ed” t o i nc ur cos ts

— i nc l udi ngpa r ti es who i nc ur r ed co st s su bs eque nt to gov er nm ent s ettl em ents

— mi ghtp r o ceed under § 96 07( a) n on et h ele ss . Id

. T h e s ec on d p ro b lem w ith th e B an ke rt s’ p os itio n is that they have produced no l egal authori ty i n supp or t o f i t. The c as es the y c i te whi ch didho l d that P R Ps who i ncurr ed cl ea n up co sts under g ove rnm ent s ett l em ents w er e bo und to pursue a co ntributi on cl ai m di d so b e c a u s e th e s t a t u t o r y tr i g g e r s f o rc o n t r ib u t i o n c l a i ms we r e me t, n o tb e c a us e the c o s t s we r e c o mpe l l e d a s o pp os ed to vo lu n ta ry . S e eNi ag ara M oh awk, 59 6 F
. 3d 112 (h old in g t h at th e p lain tiff h ad a c on t r i b u tio n cla im und er§ 9613 (f) ( 3) ( B), bec ause the pl ai nti ffhad re sol ved i ts CE RC LA l i abi l i ty th rough an a dm i ni str ati ve set tl em ent); Appl e t on Pape rs Inc . v. Ge orgeA. W hi t i ng Pape rCo. , 572 F.S up p. 2d 1034, 10 43 ( E.D. W i s. 20 08) ( dism i ssing a § 96 07 ( a) c o str ec o ve ry c la i m wher e a § 96 13 ( f ) ( 1) c o ntr ibuti on cl ai m was avai l abl e t o pla i nti ff s byvi rtue o f a pr ev i o us EPA l awsu it, a nd no tingtha t “[ d] es pi te the34 N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523

cour ts’ use ofthe ter m s ‘v ol untary ’ and ‘ i nvol untary ’ to dist i ngui sh betw een pay m ents re cove rabl e under § 10 7( a) a nd tho se r ec o ve r ab l e unde r§ 1 13( f ) , the op er at ive p rin c ip le a p p ea rs to be th at § 10 7(a ) is av aila b le to recover p aym en ts only in c ases w he re § 1 13(f) i s not.”). The case s ci ted bythe Bankert s with differ ent o utcom es si m pl y r einf o r ce the s tr aight

- f o r war d a ppl i ca ti o n o fthe st at u to ry sc h em e. SeeI T TIndus. , Inc. , 5 06 F
. 3d 45 2 ( pl ainti ff’ s § 96 13 ( f ) (3)( B) c l ai m was di smi ss ed wher e th e A OC di d not r eso l ve pla i nti ff’ s l i abi l i ty, as would be s t a tu toril y nec essary to su p p ort a § 9613(f) (3)( B ) action ); C hit a ya t v. V

a nd erbilt A ssoc s. , 7 02 F
. S upp. 2d 69 ( E. D. N
. Y. 20 10 ) ( di smi ss i nga § 9 60 7( a) c l ai m b ec au se , i n the c ou rt ’s e ye s, th e p lain tiff n ev er “in c u rre d ” c os ts , as is necess ar y fora cos t r eco ver y a cti on)
. A t l eas t o ne ca se dir ectly r efutes th e Banker ts’ ar gum ent that co sts i ncurr ed pursuant t o a set tl em ent c annot be r eco ver ed unde r§ 9 60 7( a)
. In W
. R. Gr a ce & C o .- Conn. v. Zot os Inte rn. , Inc. , 55 9 F
. 3d 85 ( 2d Cir

. 200 9), a l andfi l lo w ner br o ug ht an ac ti o n to r ec o ve r co st s i t i nc ur red i n the i nvest i gat ion a n d r em ed iat ion of a co ntam i nated l andfi l l si te pu rs uant to a gov er nm ent s ett l em ent a gr eem ent. Despi te the e xi ste n c e ofthe set tl em ent a gr eem ent, the c ourthel d that the pl ai nti ffco uld r ec ov er i ts cl ea n u p c o s t s u n d e r§ 9 6 0 7 ( a ) b e c a u s e n e i th e rc o n t r ibuti on t ri gge r had occurr ed. The se ttle m ent had not re so lve d C E R C L A liab ility (§ 96 13 (f)( 3 ) ( B )) an d n o c ivil acti on had bee n filed ( § 9 613( f ) ( 1) )
. In shor t, nota si ngl e o ne o fth ese cas es tr eat ed the vol untary/ com pel l ed cos ts dicho tom y a s di sposi ti ve. The th i r d, a nd mos t o bv i o us , pr o bl em wi ththe Bankert s’ ar gum ent i s that they a re as ki ng us to i m poseN os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 35 a requ irem en t tha t ap p ear s now he re i n th e statu tory text. I m posi ng a re quir em ent not evi dent on the fac e of the s tatute a rguabl y v i ol ate s fund am en ta lr ule s o f st at u to ry co n st ru c tio n . Se eE. I
. D uP o nt de N e m ours an d Co. v . U n ited S ta tes , 5 0 8 F
. 3 d 1 2 6 , 1 3 3 n . 5 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 7 )
. As outl i ned i n detai labo ve, CE RC LA does n ot ask whether a p er so n inc u rs co st s v olu n ta rily o r in vo lu n ta r i l y . It ask s w hether a perso n i ncurr ed cos ts of res ponse con sist e n t w ith th e nat ional contin gen cy p lan, w he th er a pe rs on has pre vi ousl y b een s ubj ecte d to a ci vi lact i on und er§ 9606 o r § 9 607(a ) , and so o n. The Banker ts have advanced no per suasi ve re aso n, and w e ca n thi nk o f no ne , why we wou ld fl at l y di sr eg ar d the t er m s o fthe statute a nd r epl ac e th em wi tha ne w sc he m e o fthe Bankert s’ choo si ng, es peci al ly on e w i th so l i ttl e t o re co mme n d i ti n th e c a s e l a w.
b. E qua t i ngs i g ni ngas e t t l e me nta g r e e me nt w it h t h e resolution ofl iab il ity The Bank er ts ’ se cond ar gum ent i s that the phras e “r es olv ed its liab ility

. . . in an ad m in ist ra tiv e o r j u d icia lly approve d sett l em ent[ , ] ” a s a st atuto ryprere q u isi te to a co nt r ibut i o n s ui t unde r§ 9 613(f )( 3) ( B) , r ea l l y j us t m ea ns
“ e nt e r e d i nt o an a dm i ni str ati ve orj ud i ci al l y a pp ro ved set tl em ent, ” e ven where the s ett l em ent m ay or m ay not lead to a resol ut ion of li abili ty d ep en d ing on futu re eve nts. In i ts am i cu s br i ef i n su ppo r t o fr eh ea r i ng, the EPA ar gue d th e sa m e. The EPA s um m ar i ze d i ts ar g um en t as f ol l ows:36 N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 U nlike “disch arge,” “rel e a se,” or “sat isfy,” th e w ord “r eso l ve” i s not a te rm o far t in contr act l aw and i s no t d efi ne d in B lack’s L aw D ictionary. C ong ress th erefore di d not intend t o r equi r e a PRP to c o m pl et ely e xt i ngui sh i ts l i abi l i ty bef or e obtaini ng co ntributi on ri ghts. Rather, Congr ess pro vi ded co ntributi on r i ghts to a PRP w ho “ has r eso l ved i ts liabi l i ty
. . . i n an adm i ni str ati ve orj ud i ci al l y a pp roved se ttl em ent. ” 4 2 U
. S. C. § 9 613( f ) ( 3) ( B). Given thatco ntext, Congr ess m eant that the set tl em ent a gr eem ent ne eds to re sol ve a PRP ’s li abi l i ty, notthatthe re l eas e, co ve na nt, o ro ther l i ab i l i ty
- r es o l vingt er m i n the agr eem en t m ust be effecti ve f orco ntributi on r i ghts to ar i se. I n the A OC s, the set tl i ng PRP s prom i sed to p er form cer tain re m ova lact i ons and EP A pro m i sed no t t o s ue c o nc e r ning tho s e a c t i o ns . Th e AOCs ther ef or e a re “s ett l em en t[ s] ” that r eso l ved the PRP s’ l i abi l i ty f orr esponse act i ons w i thi n the m eani ng o f [ § 9 613( f ) ( 3) ( B)] and thus tri gge re d contr ibuti on ri ghts up on thei r effecti ve dates. T he a r g um en t, a s st at ed i n the pa ss ag e ab o ve a nd e xpla i ned i n m or e deta i lthr oughout the E P A bri ef, i s no t l ega l l y persu asiv e. The EPA i gnor es tr adit i onalr ule s o f sta tutory inter preta ti on a nd j um ps i m m edi ate l y fro m i ts ob s e r v a t i o n tha t “ r e s o l v e ” i s no t a “ t e r m o f a r t ” t o a di scussi on o fH ouse Report s a nd o th erev i dence of l egi sl ati ve i ntent extr i nsi c to the sta tutory t ext. That path ofanal ysi s i s no t co rr ect. W he n a s ta tu te i ts el fdo es no t defi ne a t er m , “ we c o nstr ue the ter m ‘ i n acco rdance w i th i ts or dinar y o r natura lN os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 37

m eani ng, ’ a m eani ng wh i ch m ay be s up pli ed by a di cti onary . ” C arm ichael v. Th e P aym entCente r, Inc. , 336 F. 3d 6 3 6 , 6 4 0 ( 7 th Ci r . 20 03) ( quoti ng FD ICv. M eyer, 510 U
. S. 47 1, 47 6, 11 4 S .C t. 99 6, 12 7 L .E d .2 d 3 0 8 ( 19 94 )). Th is is b ecause “the pla i n l anguage of a sta tute i s the bes t e vidence ofl egi sl ati ve i ntent. ” Senne v. Village of P alatine, Ill
. , 695 F. 3d at 597, 612 (7 th Ci r. 20 12) ( Fl aum , J
. , di sse nti ng) ( ci ti ng U ni t e d S t at e s v. Cl i nt wood E lkhor n M i ni ng Co. , 55 3 U. S
. 1 , 1 1 ( 20 08 ) ( “T he s tr o ngpr es um pti o n that th e pla i n l anguage o fthe sta tu te expres ses co ngre ssi onal i n t e n ti s r e b u t t e d o n l y i n r a r e a n d e x c e p t i o n a lc i r c u mst an c es .”) (in te rn al m ar ku p o m itt ed )). O f co u rs e, w h ile “[ w]e fr eque nt ly l o o kt o di ct i o na r i es t o de te r m i ne the pla i n m eani ng of w or ds, ” San de rs v. Jac ks on , 20 9 F
. 3d 99 8, 1 00 0 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 0) , we al way s do s o wi thc au ti o n, sensi ti ve to the ne ed to co n si der the m eani ng o ftho se w ords i n conte xt and t o the re al i ty that m any w or d s in ou r language ar e s usceptibl e o fm ult i ple “o rdi naryo r n at u ra l” m ea n in gs . U nite d States v. C o stel lo , 66 6 F
. 3d 1 0 40 , 104 3-4 4 (7 th C ir. 20 12 ); s e ea l s o Trs . o f Ch i c ag o Tr uck D rivers, Helpers, an d Wa reho u s e Wo rkers U nio n (In dep .) P ension Fu nd v. Le as e way Tra ns p. Co. , 7 6 F
. 3 d 8 2 4 , 82 8 (7t h C ir. 19 96 ). I ft h e ord in ar y m ea n in g of a w or d is tot al l y a m bi guous, then reso rtto l egi sl ati ve m ate ri al s o f the ty pe r e fe r e nc e d b y the EP A i s s o met i mes wa r r a nt e d. Bu t e ven then, “where

. . . th e i nter preta ti on ur ged by [a party] is not sup p orted by com m on u sage, dictiona ry defini ti on, or co urt deci si on, such inter preta ti on ca nnot be uphel d.” Tort iv. U ni t e d S t a tes , 24 9 F
. 2d 623, 62 5 ( 7th Cir
. 19 57) ( quoti ng G ellm a n v . U nited Sta tes , 2 35 F. 2d 87, 93 ( 8th C ir. 1 95 6) )
. In shor t, i t i s what Congre ss s ays ,38 N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523

The O xf ord E nglis h D ic tio n a ry ent ry on “res olve” i s rather 12 exten si v e , b u t the sectio n titled “to un tie; to a nsw er, solv e; to decide, determ ine” se em s m o st a pp li cable to this s tatutory con text. Th at sectio n in clu d es, in te r a lia , “[t]o a nsw er (a qu est i on) ; t o s ol ve ( a pr obl em ofan y kind ); to det er m i ne , s et t l e, or de c i de up on( a po i nto r m a t t e r r e ga r di ngwhi c h the r e i s do ub t or d ispu te)”; as w ell as “to settle ( a d isp u t e o r arg u m en t); to reco nc ile op p os i n g elem en ts or ten d en cies w ithin ( a co nflict, contrad icti on, et c. ) [
. ] ” O xf ord E nglis h D ic ti onary, available at htt p://w w w . oed.c om /

. The N ew O xf ord A m eri can D ic ti onary defi ne s “ res ol ve, ” whe n us ed a s a t ra ns i t i ve verb i n a no ns p e c i a l i z e d c o n t e x t, a s “ s e t t l e o r fi n d a s o l u t i o n t o ( a p r o b l e m, dispute, or c on te n ti ous m att er) [
. ] ” N E W O XF ORD A MERICAN D I CT I ONA RY ( A n g u s S t e v e n s o n e ta l

. , e d s . , 3 d e d

. 2 0 1 0 )
. Me r r i a mW eb ster con tain s seve ral p o ten tially ap p licab le d efinition s: ( 1 ) t o de a l wi th s uc c e s s ful l y: c l e ar u p < re so l ve dou bts> < re so l ve a dispute>; ( 2) to find an answer t o; ( 3) to m ake cl ear or und erstan d ab le; a n d ( 4 ) t o reac h a firm d ecision ab ou t < re so l ve to get m or e s le ep> < re so l ve d i s p u t e d p o i n t s i n a t e x t > . Me r r i a mW ebs t er , ava i l ab le at http ://w w w .m erri am - webs t er . c om (co n tin u ed ...) not w hat Congr ess m e ans to s ay, thatbec om es the l aw of the l and. St atuto ry i nter preta ti on i s ther ef or e an ex ercise best grou nd ed i n th e tex t of th e statu te itself

. T h e s t a t u t e a ti s s u e i n th i s c a s e p r o v i d e s s o me conte xt cl ues a s t o the m eani ng o fthe phrase “r esol ved i ts l i abi l i ty[
. ] ” § 9613( f ) ( 3) ( B). Fi rs t, “r eso l ved” cl ear l y a cts as a ve rb and take s a n obj ect

— “l i abi l i ty. ” That el i m i nates the v ar i ous di cti onar y d efiniti ons cove ring “r eso l ve” used as an i ntra nsi ti ve verb o r as anothe r p ar t of speech entir ely . A va r i ety o fpo te nt i almean i ng s st i l lr emai n, 12N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 39

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 12 ( en t ri es r en um ber ed t o e l i m i nat e i nappl i c able , s pec i al i ze d or obs ol et e def i ni t i o n s )
. “ Di c t i o n a r y . c o m” pro vi des on e pot en t i al l y a ppl i c abl e defi ni t i on: “t o c om e t o a defi ni t e or e a r n e s td e c i s i o n a b o u t ; d e t e r mi n e [
. ] ” I ta l s o p r o v i d e s “ c o n fi r m” a s a s y n o n y m. but ce rt ai n com m onal i ti es can b e d isce rned. A l lo fthem see m to i nvol ve the c oncept ofa concl usi ve deter m i nati on o fs o m e k i nd. An i ss ue whi chi s “r es o l ve d” i s ani ss ue w hi ch i s deci ded , deter m i ned, or settl ed

— fi ni shed, with no ne ed to r ev i si t. Thi s se ns e o fthe wor d i s con si st en t wi tha c o m m o n s en se unde r st an di ngo fi ts r o le in th e st atut o r y t ex t, a nd i s al so c o ns ist en t wi ththe waythe ter m i s re gul ar l y used by cour ts of l aw i n u n re late d c on te x ts
. Se e, e . g. , Guzm an v. Ci ty of Chi cago , 68 9 F
. 3d 74 0 , 74 5 ( 7 th Ci r . 20 1 2 ) ( qu e s t i o n o fl i ab i l i t y was “ r e s o l v e d” by th e d istri ct cou rt’s det erm ination, at th e sum m ary j u d g m e n t stage, that th e d efend an t w as li able); Sh eph erd v. C. I
. R. , 1 47F
. 3d 633, 635 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 8) ( su g g es ting th at to “re so lve ” a ta x p a y e r ’ s liab ility , in th e re fu n d su it con tex t, mean s to make a fi na lde te r m i na ti o n o fthe issue); B a ylo r Heati ng & A ir C o nd itio nin g, I n c. v. Federa ted M ut
. Ins . Co. , 98 7 F
. 2d 415 ( 7th Ci r. 19 93) ( noting tha t pl aint i ff’ s “c o nt es te d l i ab i l i ty w as r es o l ve d” when th e Se venth Ci rcui t concl usi vel y found against hi m i n an ea rlier d ec lar at or y ju d g m en t a c tio n ); D ei m erv. Cincinnati Sub-Zero Prods. , Inc. , 99 0 F
. 2d 342, 34 4 ( 7th Ci r. 199 3) (cha racterizing a legal claim as “resolved ” on s u m m a ry j ud gm ent where it w as concl usi vel y deci ded )
. The ci ted case s s ug g e s ttha t, a s a ma t t e ro fc o mm o n pa r l a nce,40 N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523

co ur ts c o ns i derl i ab i l i tyt o b e “r es o l ve d” when th e i ss ue oflia b ility i s dec ided , i n w hol e o r i n part, i n a m anner that car ri es w ith i t a t l eas t s om e degr ee ofcer tainty and final i ty. A ccor dingl y, having sur vey ed the st atuto ryco ntext, the di c t i o na r y de fi ni t i o ns , a nd the c o mm o n us e o f s i mi l a rt e r ms b y th e fe d e r a lc o u r t s mo r e g e n e r a l l y, we be l i e v e the “ o r di na r y o r na t ur a l ” mea ning o f the phrase “r es olv ed its liab ility

. . . in an ad m in ist ra tiv e o r j u d icia lly appr o ve d s et tl ement ” i s c le ara nd un ambi g uo us . To m eetthe sta tu tory t ri gge r f ora contr ibuti on a cti on un d er § 9613(f) (3)( B ), the n atu r e , e x ten t, or am ou nt of a PRP ’ s li abil ity m ust be deci ded , deter m i ned, o r set tl ed, at l eas t in part, byway ofag re em ent with the EPA
. A s a m att ero fsi m ple , o bser vabl e f act, thatdi d not happ en he r e . Y e s , the No n- Pr e mi um R e s po nd e nt s “ s e t t l e d” wi ththe E PA. The y a g r ee d t o pe r f o r m c er ta i n a ct i o ns i n o r dert o r emedy a n ins ta nc e o fenvi r o nm en ta lc o nt a m ination. Bu t the y d id n ot settle the issu e of l i ab il ity f orthat co ntam i nati on

— w hi ch i s what the sta tute re quir es

— at all

. Th e pa rties do n ot nee d to take this p an el’ s w or d fo r i t. They c an r eferto the l an gu ag e w hi ch they the mse l v e s c ho s e t o i nc l ud e i n the 2 0 0 2 AOC : Re sp on dents’ ag re em ent t o com plywith a nd be bound by the te rm s o fthi s Order and not to conte st th e b as is or va l i d i t y o f th is O rd er or its te rm s s h all not const i tute a n y adm i ssi on o fl i abi l i ty by any ( or al l ) o fthe Respondents no r any a dm i ssi on byRes po nd e nt s o fthe b a s i s o r val i dity o fU. S
. EP A’ s fi nd

in gs , con c lu sio n s o r d et er m i n a t ion s c on ta in ed in th is O rd er .N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 41 I t i s v er y di ffi cul t t o say, i n l i ght o fthe quoted passa ge, th a tth e a g r e e me n tb e t we e n th e p a r t i e s c o n s t i t u t e d a re soluti on o fl i abi l i ty. The a tt empts b y the EPA a nd the B an k er ts t o a r g ue othe r wi s e de pe nd o n the a s s e r t i o n tha t“ [ i ] n the AOC s, the s ett l i ng PRPs pro m i sed to p er f or m cer tain re m ova l acti ons and EP A p ro m i sed notto sue concerni ng tho se ac tio n s.” B u t w h ile th e N on -P re m iu m R es p on d en ts d id i nde ed pr o m i se t o pe r f o r m cer ta i n r emov ala ct i o ns , the EPA o nl y conditi ona llypro m i sed to r el eas e the N on- Prem i um Responde n ts fro m l i abi l i ty. The co nd i ti on wh i ch h ad to be m etw as co m p let e p er for m an c e, as w ell as cer tifi cati on there of

. I fthe EPA ’ s co venant not to su e is th e c on te m p lat ed “re so lu tio n of liab ility ” in thi s ca se

— an d the a r g um en t adv an ce d by th e EPA an d the Bankert s see m s to agr ee that i t is

— t he n, b y th e t e r ms ofthe A OC i tse l f, the re soluti on o fl i abi l i ty w oul d not o cc urunt i lpe r f o r m an ce w as compl et e, whi chi s th e fi rs t t i m e a t which the co venant w oul d h av e any e ffect. I n fact, the E PA ex p ressly reserved i ts right to “seek[] l ega lo r equi tabl e r elie f to e nfo rce the ter m s o f [ th e] Or der ” ata ny t i m e be for e th o se c o ve na nt s went i nto effect. O f co u rs e, if th e E P A h ad inc lu d ed an im m ed iat ely effecti ve prom i se not to sue a s co nsi derat i on f or enter i ng i nto the a gr eem ent, the si tu atio n w oul d be di ffer en t. Tha t i s ex ac tly whatoccu r r ed i n RSR Corp orat i on v. Com m e r ci al M e t al s Co. , 49 6 F.3d 55 2 ( 6th Ci r . 2 0 0 7 )
. In th a tc a s e , a s a t e r m o fth e AO C , “ th e U ni ted S tat es agr eed ‘ not to s u e o r tak e a dm i ni str ati ve42 N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 action ’ that w ou ld im p o s e ad d iti ona l li abili ty on R SR and i ts co- defe nd ants[
. ] ” Id

. at 55 4. A s a re su l t, a ll parti es agr eed that RSR had r eso l ved i ts liabi l i ty thro ugh set tl em ent an d w as ther ef or e e nti tl ed to a § 9 61 3(f) (3)( B ) co n tr ibu tio n ac tio n . Id

. a t 5 5 6
. The Si xth Cir cui t a l so agr eed, r eas oni ng tha t “ R SR’ s pro m i se of future perf or m ance was the ve ryco nsi derat i on i t g ave i n exchange f orthe U ni ted S tat es’ co ve n ant no t t o se ek fu rt h er d a m ag es . RS Ran d its co -d efe n d an ts in othe r w or ds r esol ved thei r l i abi l i ty to the Unite d Sta tes by agr eeing to as sum e all l iab ility ( vi s- a- vi s the U ni ted St ate s) f orfuture re m ed ialact i ons. ” Id

. a t5 5 8 ( e mp ha sis ori ginal). The Ba nk erts and the EPA be l i ev e th i s pan el ’ s r ea di ng oft he st atute co nfl i cts w i th the S i xth Cir cui t’ s deci si on i n RSR Corpo r at i on . Ho we v e r, we

— like t h e Six th C irc u it

— si m plyr ead the sta tute as re quir i ng tha t l i abi l i ty be “ re sol ved. ” O u r re sul t di ffer s fro m the re sul t r eached bythe S i xth C ir cui t i n RSR Corpo r at i on not because w e a pp l y a co ntra dict or y rule o fl aw , bu t b ecause o f th e o b vio u s a n d d isp os itiv e d iffer en c es in t h e fa c ts . In th at ca se , th e c on se n t o rd er co n ta in ed a n im m ed iat ely effe c tiv e re lea se from liab ility . In th is c as e, it d id n ot . In fac t, far from im m ed iat ely r e so lvin g a ll li ab ility , see49 6 F
. 3d a t5 5 8 , o u rAO C i mme d i a t e l y r e s o l v e d n o n e . S o , the co ns i der at i o n in RSR Corpo r at i on w as an i m m edi ate r e l e a s e fr o m l i ab i l i t y ; the c o ns i de r a t i o n i n thi s case was a co ndi ti ona l p ro m i se t o r el ea se fr o m l i ab i l i tyi fa nd w hen perfor m ance was co m ple ted. G iven the natur e o f the s tatutor y t ri gge r, thatdi stin c ti on cl ear l y warr ants a d iffer en t re su lt

— a re alit y w h ich th e Six th C ir c u i t its elfN os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 43

I n D ra vo , the EPA en t er ed i nt o a s et t l em entag re em en t 13 wi th thr e e P R Ps contain i nga n i m m e di a t e l y e ffe c t i ve c ov e na nt“ no tt o s ue or t o t a ke a ny othe r c i vi l ora dm i ni s t r a t i ve ac t i on aga i ns t ” the s et t l or s. 13 F. 3d a t12 24
. The ag re em en t al s o pro vi ded “EPA agr ee s tha t by ent er i ng i nto and c ar ry i ng o u tth e t e r ms o fth i s C o n s e n tO r d e r , R e s p o n d e n t s w i l l h a ve res olved thei r l iabil ity to th e U nit ed Stat es [
. ] ” Id

. (em p ha sis adde d)

. T h e E i g h th C i r c u i tp l a c e d s p e c i a l e mph a s i s o n t he agreem ent’ s ind ic ati on that the res oluti on of li abili ty was b a se d o n “e n te ri n g in to ” th e a g re em en t. Id

. a t12 2 7
. T h e t e r ms of the A O C at issue in the ca se b efore th is cou rt are d ifferen t. has o penlyr eco gni zed

. S ee, e . g., I T TIndus. , Inc. , 50 6 F
. 3d at 459- 60 ( fi nd i ng that pla i nti ff had no t “r eso l ved i ts l i abi l i ty” f or p u rpos es of§ 9613 ( f ) ( 3) ( B) c ontr ibuti on acti on wh en pl ai nti ff“has notco nceded the quest ion o f l i ab i l i ty as par t o f i ts se tt l ement wi th th e E PA ”). The s a me di s t i nc t i o n d i ffe r e n t i a t e s th i s c a s e fr o m D r avo Corp
. v. Z uber, 1 3 F
. 3d 12 22 ( 8th Ci r . 1 99 4)
. The r e i s no 13 ci rcui t s pli t her e. I n s um m ary, the e ff o r ts o fthe Ba nk er ts a nd the EPA to equa te th e r es o l ut i o n o f l i ab i l i ty, as a l eg alpr o po si ti o n, wi th th e si m pl e ac t o f si g ni ng a se tt l ementagr ee m en t ar e no t per su as i ve . The o r di na r y a nd na tu ra lr ea di ng of th e s ta tu te is t h at a c on tr ibu tio n ac tio n be c om es av ailabl e when a PRP’s l i abi l i ty i s res ol ved

— as i n deci ded o r de t e r m i ned

— th ro u gh s et tle m en t. W hether o r not l i abi l i ty is re sol ved thr ough a se ttl em ent s i m plyi s no t the so rt ofquesti on wh i ch can o r shoul d be deci ded b y u n i v e r s a lr ul e . In s t e a d , i tr e q u i r e s a l o o ka tth e t e r ms ofthe set tl em ent o n a c ase -by- case bas i s. The part i es to44 N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523

a s ett l em ent m ay choos e to st ru cture thei r contr act so tha t l i ab i l i t y i s r e s o l v e d i mm e di a t e l y up o n e xe c ut i on o f th e c on tr ac t. See RSR Corpo r at i on , 496 F.3d 55 2; D r avo , 13 F. 3d 1222

. Or, the parti es m ay c hoos e t o l eave the qu e s t i o n o f l i ab i l i t y o pe n thr o ugh the i nc l us i o n of re servat i ons ofr i ghts, co nd i ti onalco venants , and expres s d isc laim er s o f liab ility

. See, e .g . , I T TIndus. , Inc. , 50 6 F
. 3d at 459- 60 ( fi nd i ng tha t pl ai nti ffhad not “r eso l ved i ts l i abi l i ty” f orpurpo se s of§ 9613 ( f ) ( 3) ( B) c ontr ibuti on acti on w hen pla i nti ff “has not conceded the qu est i on of liab ility as p ar t o f it s s et tle m en t w ith th e E P A ”). In thi s ca se, the parti es cl ear l y c hose to do the l att er

— a cho i ce which t h e E PA ty pica l l y has gr eatweight to in flu en c e.

c . Po l i c yc o ns i de r a t i o ns The fi na la r g um en t adv an ce d by th e E PA and th e Ban k er ts i n s uppo r t o ftheir re que stf o rr eh ea r i ng su g g es ts tha t th i s pan el ’ s dec i si o n c r ea te s ne gative i ncenti ves w hi ch w i l ldi sco urag e PRPs fro m settl i ng with the EP A i n a t i mel y a nd e ffi c i e nt man ne r. They ar gue that i t i s the poss ibi l i ty ofo btaini ng co ntributi on fro m non- set tl i ng par ti es as soo n as a s ett l em ent i s e xec u ted wh i ch i ncenti vi zes PRPs to se ttl e in the fi rs t pl ace, and that re fusi ng to re cogni ze that ri ght of contr ibuti on m eans a s ett l i ng PRP w i l lbe stuck shoul deri ng the fu ll cos t o fthe cl eanup unt il c om ple ti on. W e a re se nsi ti ve to such pol i cy consi derat i ons, but w e ar e no t per suaded that set tl em ent incenti ves w i l lbe negat i vel y effecte d by o u ro p i n i o n i n th e wa y the EPA e n v i s i o n s . T r u e , weN os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 45

S ee http ://cf p u b .epa .gov /com p l i a n c e /resou rces/p olicies/ 14 cl eanup / superfund / index. cfm ?act ion=3&sub _id=1229 ho l d tha t a se tt l i ngPRP is n ot ent i tl ed to s ue a no ns e t t lin g P R P for c on tr ibu tio n u n d er § 96 13 (f)(3 )(B ) u n til th e s e t t l i n gP R P ’ s l i a b i l i t y i s r e s o l v e d

. B u tw e e mphati cal l y do not hol d that the s et tling PRP has no l ega l r ec o ur se unti ltha t ti m e. As s o o n a s th e se tt l i ngPRP i nc ur s r es po nse c o st s co ns i st en t wi ththe na ti o na lc o nti ngency pla n, and unti ll i abi l i ty i s r eso l ved, that settling PR P h as acc ess to a cost r e c overy act ion. W ha t’s m or e, the cos t r eco ver y a cti on i s s ubj ect to a lon ger st at u te o f lim ita tio n s, m ak in g it a rg u ab ly th e p re fer ab le r ec o ve r y v eh i cl e f or a P RP e m ba r k i ngo n wha t m i g ht w ell b e a d ec ad e-l o n g c lea n u p effo rt, an d th u s a c tu ally c re at in g a fu rt h e r p o sit ive inc en tiv e t o s et tle . Th at is exactly w hy the set tl i ng PRP s i n th is c ase

— the v e r y ty pe o fp e o p l e th e B a n k e r t s a n d th e E P A c l a i m a r e d i s adv an tag ed by our deci si on

— ar e ar gui ngi n f avorof cla ss i fy i ng thei r cl ai m as o ne f orco st re cove ry . A ccor dingl y, i t i s di ffi cul t t o s ee h ow our ho l ding, proper l y unders too d, has a ny neg ati ve effe ct o n set tl em en t inc en tives at all

. Bu t ifany n egative ince nt ives are i n f ac t cr eated by de fer r i ngthe a va i l ab i l i tyo fa c o nt r ibuti on a cti on, then the EPA can str ucture its se ttl em ents w i th futur e P RP s i n s uc h a wa y a s t o r e s o l v e l i ab i l i ty effe c tiv e im m ed iat ely u p on ex ec u tio n . Se eRSR Corporat i on , 496 F.3d 55 2; D r avo , 1 3 F
. 3d 12 22
. In f ac t, the EPA ’ s cur re n t m odelA OC has al re ady i ncor pora ted provi si ons to that effect. Thi s o pini on h as no e ffect on 14 th e va l i di tyo fs ucha g r ee m en ts ; a s al r ea dy st ated, the46 N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523

I n the c ont ex tofar gui ng th atthe Tr us t ee s ar e l i m i t ed t o a 15 con trib u t i o n claim

— w hich they did not plead

— the EPA arg u es t h a t w e sho u ld d ism iss the claim p u rsu an t to R u le 12( b)( 6) , rather than on st atute ofl im it ati ons g ro und s. Si nce w e fi n d th a ta c o s tr e c o v e r y c l a i m does exist, ho w ev er, it i s ne c es s ar y t o de c i de whe the r thatc l ai m i s t i m el y. parti es t o an A OC can str ucture the r eso l uti on o fl i abi l i ty i n wha te ve rwaythe y s ee fi t, wi th i n the b o unds o fthe author i ty gran ted byst atute
. Final l y, i t m ust be not ed that the Bankert s have spent the enti re ty of th is litig ati on ar guing tha t g i vi ng a set tl i ng P R P a c cess to a cos t r e c o v e r y a c t i on in s t e a d o fa c o nt r ib ut i o n a c t i o n e qu i ps the s ett l i ng PRP w ith s om e s or t o funfa i r advantage

. T he y now argue that classifying a s e t t ling PR P’s cl ai m as one f or cos t re cove ry i s s o re m ar kably dis a dvantag eous to the s ett l i ng PRP that i t j eop ar d i zes future set tl em ent e ff or ts.

3. Conclusi on ofCER CLA I ssues I n sum m ar y, to the ex tent that the Tr ustee s s eekto r e c o v e rf o rc o s t s i ncurr e d in e xe c ut i ngthe 2 0 0 2 AOC , th ei ra ct i o n i s a co st reco ve r y a ct i o n. Be ca us e th e r emov ala ct i on ca l l ed f o rb y the 2 00 2 AO C was o ng o i ng w hen thi s su i t was fi l ed, the 3- yea r l i m i tat i ons peri od u n d er 42 U .S.C . § 9 61 3(g )(2) (A ), qu ot ed in fu ll sup ra , had not y et begun t o run, le t al one expir ed. The Trust

15 ee s’ c o str ec o ve r y a ct i o n fo re xpe ns es i nc urr ed unde rthe 2002 A OC i s t i m el y a nd m u st b e r ei nstat ed f orfurther p ro c ee d in gs atth e d ist ric t c ou rtlev el.N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 47 W e r ec o g ni ze tha t ne i ther p ar tya ppea r s to ha ve c o ns i d e r e d s p l i t t i n g th e T r u s t e e s ’ c l a i m i n th e w a y th a t we do no w. Butthe r emov ala ct i o ns c al l ed f o rb y the A OC s were tem pora l l y di scr ete proj ects
. I fthatwere not th e case, t h e E P A w ou ld n ot ha ve bee n ab le to certify the fi rs t a cti on’ s co m p l eti on be f or e the se cond acti on had even b een s el ecte d. They need n ot be tr eat ed as an ind ivis ible w h ole

. Se eU nit e d S t at e s v. M anzo , 18 2 F
. S u p p . 2 d 3 8 5 ( D
. N. J
. 2 0 0 0 )
. T h e r e mo v a la c t i o n c o n t e mpl at ed bythe 1999 A O C was c o m pl et ed y ea r s ag o , a nd su p p or ts a c o nt r ibut i o n a ct i o n. The r emov ala ct i o n c o nt e mp l a t e d b y th e 2 0 0 2 A O C w a s o n g o i ngatt h e t i me th i s s u i twa s fi l e d , a n d s u p p o r t s a c o s tr e c o v e r y a c t i o n. Eac h i s g o ve r ne d b y a di ffer en t sta tu te o fl i m i ta ti o ns , a nd the f act that re cove rywith r espectto the f or m eri s t i m ebarred doe s not legall y prec lud e the Tru s tees from pu rsui ng r eco ver y with re spect to the l att er, wh i ch i s no t. Furtherm or e, r eso l vi ng the d i spute i n thi s m anner do es no t r equi r e co ns truct i nga ne w cl ai m whi chthe Truste es did notpl ead. Count I, as wri tte n, i s a n acti on f orco st rec ov er y, and w e ho l d that i t ca n sta nd as an ac ti o n fo rc o str ec o ve r y . Thi s r ul i ngs i m pl y l i m i ts the d am ag es th e p l a i n t iff ca nrec ov er . Th e d ist ric t c ou rtis re ver sed with r espectto Count Ito t h e ex tent that th e Tru stees m ay seek to recov er forcosts incu rred pu rs ua ntt o the 2 0 0 2 AOC
. Fi nal l y, we add re ss the di str i ct cou rt ’ s di sm i ssa lo f Cou ntI I, s ee k i nga de cl ar at o r y j udg m en t o fthe Bankert s’ j oi nt and se ver all i abi l i ty. Count I Ii s ba sed o n 42 U
. S. C. § 96 13 (g) ( 2) , wh i ch pro vi des thati n any acti on48 N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 for r ec o ve r y o fc o st s “the c o ur t sh al le nt era de cl ar atory j ud gm ent o n l i abi l i ty f orr esponse co sts o r dam age s th atwi l lb e bind ing o n a ny s ubs eque nta ct i o n o ra ct i o ns to r ec o ve rfur th err es po ns e co st s o rda m ag es . ” The d i s t r ict co u rt ’s d et er m in at ion th at th e T ru st ee s c ou ld not bri n g a costr eco ver y a cti on obvi ousl y r endered § 9 613( g) ( 2) i nap p licabl e. But si nce we have re vi ved pa r to fCo un tI, we mus tr e v i v e Co un tI Ia s we l l

. We do note , h ow eve r, thatthe m er e f act that the Tr ustee s s eek to i m pose j oint and seve ra ll i abi l i ty does not m ean the y wi l lb e s uc c e ssful

. As we h a v e r e pe a t e dl y s t a t e d, the Banke rt s wil lbe gi ven a n opp ortuni ty to show a r eas onabl e ba si s forapport i onm ent.

D . Th e D i st r i ct Court ’ s D enia l oft he Trust ees’ M ot i on t o St r i ke Acco r di ngt o the Tr us te es , the Ba nk er ts r ai sed a n ar g um ent in thei r sum m ar y j ud gm ent r ep ly bri efwh i ch th ey d id n otrais e in th eir ori g i n a l m ot ion . M or e s p ec ifica l l y, the Ba nk er ts r ai se d the “c o ntr ibut i o n b ar ” ar g umen twh i c h we h a v e p r e v i o us l y di s c us s e d. T he T r us tee s w anted the ar gum ent s tr u c k, but the di str i ct c ourtl et i ts t a n d

. T h e T r u s t e e s n o w a p p e a lth a td e c i s i o n . We re vi ew the d ist ric t co urt’ s g ra nt o r denia lo fa m oti on to st rik e fo r ab u se of d isc re tio n . Stinn e tv. Ir on Works Gym/ Exe c u t i ve Hea l t h Spa, Inc. , 301 F.3d 610 , 613 (7th C ir. 20 02 ); Wi n

f r ey v. Ci ty of

Ch i. , 25 9 F
. 3d 610, 61 8- 619 ( 7th C ir. 20 01 ). “N or m ally , th e d ec isio n ofa t r i al c ou rtis re ver sed und er the abuse of disc re ti on sta nd ar d on ly when th e appe l l at e co ur t i s co nv i nc ed fi r m l y tha t th eN os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 49

re vie w ed d ec isio n lies b ey on d th e p ale of re as on ab le j u stifi cati on under the ci rcum sta nces . ” Harman v. Apf el , 211 F. 3d 1172 , 11 75 (9 th C i r. 20 00) ( ci ti ng V a lley E ng ’rs v. Ele c. E ng ’g C o. , 15 8 F
. 3d 1051 , 10 57 ( 9th Ci r. 19 98) , cer t. d en i ed, 526 U
. S. 1064 ( 1999 ) )
. This i s not such a case . I n i ts deci si on denyi ng the m oti on t o str i ke, the dist ri ct cour t pointed out that th e argum ent was der i ved fro m A tl an ti c Rese arch an d oth er ca se s w h ich th e p ar tie s d id disc uss a t l ength i n thei r ear l i erfi l i ngs, an d t h at i t was raised prev iously at oralargum en t. I t w as th ere fo re not “new ” to the case at al l

. W e have no re aso n to q uesti on the di str i ct c ourt ’ s re p re senta ti ons, l et al one to fi nd thattheyar e “ beyo nd the pal e o fr eas onabl e j usti fi cat i o n. ” We fi nd n o ab us e o fdi s c r e t i o n o n thi s r e c o r d.

II . C ou n t II I: I n d ian a EL A Claim W e m o ve ne xt t o the Tr us te es ’ c l ai m unde rthe In d ian a E n vir on m e n t al L eg al A c tio n s s ta tu te (“E L A ”). In 1997, the I nd i ana Gener alA sse m bl y e nacted a sta tute provi ding f oran “ envi ro nm entalleg alact i on” to “r eco ver r ea so nabl e co st s o fa r emov al or re m edi ala ct i o n” in vo lvin g ha za rd ou s su b st an c es o r p et ro leu m . See Coope rIn du s., LL C v. Ci ty of So uth Be nd, 89 9 N
. E.2 d 1274, 12 80 ( I nd

. 20 09) ( ci ti ng I ND . C OD E § 13

- 30

- 9-2). The st at u te be c a m e e ffec tiv e o n Fe b ru ar y 2 8, 19 98 . In Cou ntII I o fthe Co m pl aint, the Tr us te es s ue d unde rthe E L A to recover the costs of the r e m oval actions u nd ert a k e n p u r s ua ntt o th e 1 9 9 9 a n d 2 0 0 2 A O C s . A tth e s u mm ar y j ud gm ent s tag e, the B an kerts ar gued that an EL A cl ai m was b ar red by the appli cabl e s tatute o fl i m i ta-50 N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523

T ha t cha ng ed in 20 11 , w h e n th e Ind ian a G en era l A ssem b ly 16 e na c t e d I ND . C ODE § 34 -1 1 -2 -1 1 .5. T h a t se ct io n sta te s, in te r a lia : ( b) S ub j ectto subsec ti ons ( c) , (d), an d ( e) , a pers on m ay se ek to r ecover the f ollow ing i n an act ion brough t on or after the effec t i ve dat e ofthi s s ec t i on underI C 13

- 30

- 9- 2 o r IC 13- 2 3

- 13- 8( b) t o rec over cos ts i ncurred f or a r em oval ac t i on, a re m edi al ac t i on, or a c or re c t i ve ac t i on: ( 1) The cost s incurr ed not m ore than ten ( 10) years bef ore the dat e the ac t i on i s br ought, e veni fth e per s on or any other pers on als o inc u rr ed cost s m ore than ten (1 0 ) y ea rs b efo re th e d a te th e a ct io n is b ro u g h t. (2) T h e c o sts i nc u rred on or a fter the d ate th e actio n is b ro u g h t. I f§ 34

- 11

- 2- 11
. 5 g ove rn ed thi s l i t i gat i on, the r es ol ut i on ofthe EL A i ssu e w ould b e a s im ple aff air
. Bu t this l aw sui t was fil ed on Apri l 1, 20 08 , m or e thanthr ee ye ars pri or t o the s ec t i on’ s e ff ect i ve dat e, an d we m us tappl y the l i m i t at i ons p er io d th a t e xi ste d at th e t im e t h e a ct io n co m m en ce d

. S ee (co n tin u ed ...) t i o n s , a n d th e d i s t r i c t c o u r ta g r e e d

. O n c e a g a i n, we r ev i ew the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s di smi ss alo fthe clai m a nd i ts re solution o facc om panyi ng l ega lquesti ons de novo

. Stori e, 589 F.3d at87 6; Step ney, 39 2 F
. 3d at 239. W e a pp l y the st atute o fl i m i tat i ons of the st ate w h os e s u b st an tiv e la w gov er n s t h e c laim , w h ich in t h is c as e is In d ian a. See G ua ran ty Trust C o . of N .Y . v. Yo rk, 32 6 U. S
. 9 9, 1 10 ( 19 45 ) ( ho l di ngtha t s tatut es o fl i m i ta ti o ns ar e co nsi dered subs tanti ve l aw f orpurposes o fthe E ri e d octrine)
. W hen thi s a cti on was fi l ed, the EL A di d not i ncl ud e i ts own li m i tat i ons provi si on. A ccor dingl y, bo th 16N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 51

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 16 C on n ell v . We lty , 72 5 N. E. 2d 5 02 , 50 6 ( I nd. App. 20 00 ) ( quo t i ng S tat e v. Hensley, 66 1 N. E. 2d 1 24 6, 12 49 ( I nd. Ct
. App. 19 96 ) ( “the per i od ofl i m i t at ion in e ffec tatthe t i m e the s ui ti s br ought g o v er n s in an ac tio n [.]”)). F ou nd at I ND . C ODE § 34- 11- 2- 7: 17 The foll ow ing act ions m ust be com m enced w ithin s ix ( 6) years after the cau se of action accru es: ( 1) Act i ons onac c ount s an d co nt ra c t s no ti n wri t i ng. ( 2) Act i ons f or us e, r en t s , an d pro fi t s ofr ea l pr ope rty. ( 3) Acti ons f or i njuries to prop erty other than pers onal pro per t y, dam age s f or det en t i on ofpe rs ona l pr ope rty a nd f or r ec ove ri ng po s s es s i on ofpe rs ona l pr ope rty. (4) A ction s f or relief aga inst frau d s. par ti es l o o k ed el se where in the Indi an a Code t o fi nd ana p p l i c ab l e s t a t u t e o fl i mi t a t i o n s . T h e T r u s t e e s a r g ue th atIndi an a’ s te n- y ear “ca tch- al l ” st atut e o fl i m i ta ti o ns sh ou ld ap p ly. SeeI ND . C OD E § 3 4- 11-1- 2 ( a ca use o fact i on w hi ch ar i ses o n o r afterS eptem ber1, 19 82, and w hi ch i s no t l im i te d b y a ny o th ers ta tu te mustb e br o ug ht w i thi n ten yea rs )
. The Banker ts’ pos iti on has co nti nued to d ev elo p th ro u gh ou t t h e p en d en c y o f th is a p p ea l, an d the y no w ar g ue t wo r el at ed po i nt s. Fi rst, the B an ke rt s a rg u e t h at th e T ru st ee s’ E L A cla im is a c laim f or proper ty dam age , and s houl d there f or e b e g ov er ned by the s i x-y ea r sta tute ofl i m i tat i ons f oract i ons to re cove r dam age s t o re alpro perty
. S ec ond, wh i chever 17 sta tute appli es, the Bankert s also di spute

— and w e m ust d et er m i ne

— wh e n th e l i mi t a t i o n s p e r i o d b e g a n t o r un.52 N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 S e eDoev . Uni t e d M e t ho dis tCh urch , 673 N
. E.2 d 839, 84 2 ( I nd. Ct
. App
. 1 9 9 6 ) ( “ Th e de t e r mi na t i o n o fwh e n a c a use o fa ct i o n a cc r ue s i s a que st i o n fo rthe c o ur t. ”)
. The an swe rt o tha t que st i o n de pen ds o n whi chl i m i ta ti o ns pr o vi si o n a ppl i es , a s I ndi an a co ur ts ha ve he l d tha t th e ti m e a t w h ich a pla i nti ff’ s ca use o fact i on a ccr ues und erea ch i s di ffer ent. Pfl anz v. Fo ster, 8 88 N. E. 2d 75 9 ( I nd. 2 00 8) , e xpl ains the a pp l i cati on o fthe ten
- yea r catch- al lst atute o fl i m i tat i o ns , a nd Pe n i e l G r o u p , In c . v . Ba nno n , 9 73 N
. E.2 d 575 ( I nd. Ct
. A pp. 2 01 2) , e xpl ains the a ppl i ca ti o n o fthe s i xyea rp r o pe r t y da mag e s t a t ut e o fl i mi t a t i o ns . In c o mbi nati on, they p ro vide the fra m ew or k forthe re soluti on o f thi s c as e. P

fla nz v. Fo sterco ncer ned a di spute be tw een th e se l l er, M er r i l lF o ster, a nd the b uy er s, Ri ch ar d a nd D olo re s Pfla n z, of a p ar c el of lan d th at w a s p re vio u sly occupi ed by a g as sta ti on. W hen Fo ste r sol d the l and to th e Pflanze s in 1984, he ad vised t h e m th at u nd ergr ound p etr ol eum ta nks were pre sent on the pro perty, but we r e no t i n us e a nd ha d b e e n c l o s e d. 8 8 8 N. E. 2d at 7 5 8
. I n f a c t, the t a nk s we r e s t i l l o pe n a nd pa r t i al l y fi l l e d. Id

. T he Pfl an ze s fi r stl ea r ne d a s m uchi n 2 00 1, whenthe I ndi an a Depa r tmentofEnv i r o nm en ta lM an ag ement ( “I DE M ”) i nspected the pro pertyand dis covered that t h e t an ks w er e le ak in g. Id

. I DE M o rder ed the Pfl anzes to cl ean up the proper ty , s e e id. at 759, and the Pfl anzes subsequentl y incurr ed ove r $100 , 000 i n cl eanup costs. Id

. at75 8. In 2004 and 200 6, the Pfl anzes fi l ed com pla i nts see ki ng contributi on fro m Fo ste r. Those com pla i nts wer e di smi ss ed o n s ta tu te o fl i m i ta ti o ns g r o unds , a nd the i ssue m ade i ts w ay up to the Ind i ana S up re m e Cour t.N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 53

The Bank er t s s ee m t o a rg ue thatthe app licab ili t y ofthe t en 18 ye ar l i m i t at i ons pe ri od i n Pf l a nz w as ass um ed, rather than de c i de d, du e t o the ag re e m e nto fthe pa r t i e s . Th a tc a nn otbe (co n tin u ed ...) T he Pflanzes ’ cl aim w as brou gh t p urs ua nt to the U nd ergr ou n d Sto ra ge T an ks A c t (U ST A ), I ND . C OD E 13- 2 3 -1 3 -1 et seq
. The U STA is s im i l arto the EL A i n that i t cr eat es a ca use o fact i on f ora perso n w ho “u n d er takes cor re cti ve acti on r esul ti ng f ro m a re l eas e f ro m an unde r g r o un d s to r ag e ta nk, r eg ar dl es s o fwhethe rthe cor re cti ve acti on i s underta ken v olun tar i l y o r und eran [ adm i ni str ative] o rder [ , ] ” t o re cove r hi s e xpend i ture s b y su in g a p ar ty r es p on sib le for t h e re lea se . I ND . C OD E § 1 3- 23

- 13

- 8(b) ( 2)
. In f ac t, th e two r emedi es a r e so s ubs ta nti vel y s i m i l arthatthe Ind ian a Code g i ves pla i nti ff s a gg r i ev ed bya r el ea se fr o m a n un der grou nd t an kthe op tio n of ch oo sin g bet w ee n th e t w o. SeeI ND . C OD E § 1 3- 30- 9 -6; see also P eniel , 9 7 3 N. E
. 2 d a t5 8 1 n . 5 ( a c k n o wl e dgi ng th e statu tory o p tion). M ost im p ortan tly for our p urpo se s, ho wev er, the t wo a r e iden ti ca lt o the e xt en t that nei theri ncl ud es i ts own exp re ss sta tute ofl i m i tati o ns . In Pf

l anz , b o th p a r t i e s a n d th e In d i a n a S u p r e me Court agr eed thatthe ten- yea r catch

- al lst atute o fl i m i tatio n s t h er efo re ap p lied to th e P f l a n ze s’ U ST A cla im
. See 888 N
. E.2 d a t 758 ( ci ti ng C om m ’r, Ind. D ep’tof Envtl. Mgm t. v. B ourbon M ini-M art, Inc. , 741 N. E. 2 d 3 6 1 ( I nd

. Ct
. App
. 20 00 ), for th e p ro p os itio n th at th e t en -ye ar ca tc h -all, as opposed to the si x-y earlim i tat i ons peri od f or prop er ty dam age s, appli es to an act i on f or“r eco ver y o f en vironm en tal cl ean up costs” ). 1854 N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 18 cor rect. W h i c h s t a t u te of lim itation s ap p lies to a claim is a que s t i on ofl aw, an d i ti s l ong- s et t l ed i n I ndi ana thata “c onc l us i on ofl aw” i s “be yond the power ofag re em en t by the att orneys or parti es . ” A pp v. C ass , 75 N
. E.2d 543, 395 ( Ind. 1947) ( c i t i ng M illerv . S ta te ex re l. Tu th ill, 17 1 N .E
. 3 8 1 , 3 8 4 (In d . 19 3 0 )). Put even m ore bluntly, “[ t] here is no quest ion that th e p art ie s c ann o ta g r e e u p o n th e l a w a n d f o r c e a c o n c l u s i o n a c c o rdi ng to theirund ers tanding or agreem ent. ” Id

. The I ndi ana Sup rem e Court s im ply w ould no t have applie d the te n -y ear cat ch- all i fi t w as le gall y incor rec t to do so, w hetherthe parti es agreed to i t ornot. Their decis ion to h o n o r the partie s’ agreem en tthe ref or e am ount ed t o a dec i s i on thatthe l i m i t at i ons p erio d ag reed to w as leg ally corr ect. N ex t, th e I nd iana Su p rem e C ou rt proc eed ed to det erm i ne whenthe t en - y ea rl i m i ta ti o ns pe r i o d b eg ant o r un. U nd erthe I nd i ana di sc ove ryr ule , “a cause o fact i on accr ues, and the statute ofli m i tat i ons begins to r un, w hen a cl ai m an t kn ow s o r i n exer ci se ofo rdi narydi l i gence sh ou ld h ave kn ow n of the inj ury[,] ” notof th e m ere p os sib ility of an inju ry in t h e fu tu re . Id

. In case s in w hi ch a p ar ty seeks to r eco vercl eanup cost s, “ the dam age [ or i nj ur y ] a t i ss ue i s th e cl ea nup obl i g ati on asses se d b y [ th e c on tr ollin g g ov er n m en t a g e n c y ,] ” not the m er e f act of c on ta m in at ion
. Id

. The l at ter woul d b e th e i nj ur y i n a su i tt o r e c o v e rp r o pe r t y da mag e s , b uts ui t s t o r eco ver c lea n u p co st s a re d iffer en t. Id

. Fo l l owing thi s p ath t o its l og ic al conclu sion, th e I nd iana Su p rem e C ou rt hel d th at in a n envi ro nm entalcl eanup case go ver ned b y th e t e n - y e a rc a t c h

- a l lst a t ut e o fl i mi t a t i o n s , th e l i mi ta ti o ns pe r i o d do es no t be g i n t o r un “ unt i la fter theN os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 55 [ pla i nti ffi s] o rder ed to cle an up the pr oper ty. ” 8 88 N
. E.2 d at 759. S i nce the Pfl anzes br ought theiract i on w i thi n ten yea rs o fthe cl ean u p o rder, thei r acti on w as ti m el y. I n P e ni e l Gr oup, Inc . v. Bannon , the Indi an a Cou rt o fAppea l s co nfr o nt ed a di ffer en t k i nd o fc lai m . The p lai n t iffs w ere the curren t ow ne r and m an ager of a parce lo fr ealpro perty
. A fter d isc ove ring tha t l eve l s o f co n t a mi n a t i o n o n th e p r o p e r t y e x c e e d e d l i mi t s s e tb y the st at e, thus r equiring a cl ea nup, the pl aint i ff s su ed th e pr ev i o us o wner s an d t en an ts o fthe pa r ce l un d erthe EL A
. S i nce th e E L A di d not incl ud e a l i m i tat i ons provision at t h e t im e the su it w as fi led, the Ind iana C ou rt o fApp e a l s wa s t a s k e d wi th de c i di ngwh i c h othe r st atut e o fl i m i ta ti o ns t o a ppl y . 9 73 N. E. 2d at5 81
. F i ndi ng that th e plainti ff s were the o w ners o fthe re alpro perty inqu es tio n an d w er e n otth em se lve s re sp on sib l e in an y wayfor the c o nt ami na ti o n a t th e si te , the c o ur t co ncl ud ed that the P eniel p l ai nt i ff s ’ a c t i o n wa s o ne f o rp r o per ty d am ag e. Id

. a t 58 1- 82
. Tha t be i ngthe c ase, the s i xyea r l i m ita tions peri od go ver ni ng ac ti ons f ordam age s to re alpro pertywas appli ed, and that l i m i tat i ons peri od begins to r un “w h en a cl ai m ant know s, o r i n the exer ci se of or d in ar y d ilige n c e s h ou l d h av e k n ow n of th e inj u ry .” Id

. at58 2 ( quoti ng M arti n O il M k tg, Ltd. v. Ka tzioris , 90 8 N
. E. 2d 11 83 , 1 18 7 ( I nd

. C t. App. 2 00 9)
. UnderIndi an a l a w, “ p a r t i e s a r e u s u a l l y h e l d ac c o u n t ab l e f o rth e t i me w h ich has run ag ai nst thei r predeces sor s in i nter est
. ” Id

. ( ci ti ng C o o per, 8 99 N
. E.2 d at 1 279)
. S i nce the pl ai nti ff s’ pr ede ce ss o r s i n int er es t k ne w ofth e damag e to the si te mor e th ans i x y ea r s be f o r e th e ac ti o n w as fi l ed, the Co ur to fApp e a l s f o un d tha tthe a c t i o n wa s b a r r e d.56 N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 I n li gh t of P eniel , the Bankert s now ar gue that the Tr ustees ’ cl a i m m us tl i k e wi s e b e g o v e r ne d b y the s i x- y ear l i m i tat i ons peri od f orr ealpro pertydam age s, since i t, too , i s b r o ughtp ur s ua ntt o the EL A. Bu tu nd e rthes e ci rcum sta nces, the st atuteu n d er w h i c h th e c laim is b r o ughtdo e s n o tde t e r mi ne th e l i mi t a t i o ns p e r i o d. I nd eed, it c annot do so , bec ause the s tatute under w hi ch the cl ai m was br ought did no t ha ve a l i m i ta ti o ns peri od. That i s the r oot of th e pr obl em . W hat P eniel sh ow s is th at th e u n d er lyin g n at u re of th e c laim is w h at m at te rs , a p rin c ip le w h i c h is w ell-e st ab lish ed in In d ian a l aw . See B o urbo n M ini-M a rt, 741 N. E. 2d 36 1 ( “T he appl i cabl e st atute o f l i m i ta ti o ns i s det er m i ne d b y the

‘ na tu r e o rs ubs ta nc e o fthe c au se o fa ct i o n. ’ ”) ( ci ting Kli ne m an, Ros e& Wol

f , P. C. v. Nor t h Am e r i ca n L ab
. Co. , 65 6 N .E .2d 12 06 , 12 07(Ind . C t. A p p . 199 5), tran s. den ied (19 96 ); M o nsa nto C o . v. M iller, 45 5 N
. E.2 d 392, 39 4 ( I nd

. Ct. A pp . 19 83 )). S peci fi cal l y, the P eniel co urt f ound that a pr o pe r t y da mag e c l a i m br o ughtund e rthe EL A

— at l eas t, ba ckwhenthe ELA ha d no i nde pen den t l i m i ta ti o ns provi si on

— was g o ve r ned by the s ta tu te o fl i m i ta ti o ns f o rpr o per tyda m ages. Thatmake s se ns e, g i ve n the na tu r e o fthe c l ai m . Butn ot every ELA cl ai m i s o ne f o r pr o per ty damag es . I n th i s ca se , f o r ex am p le, the Tr us te es ha ve n o p r o pr i et ary i nt er es t i n Th i r d S i te
. The Bankert s do. There i s no pl ausible lega ltheo ryunder whi chwe m i g htfi nd tha t th e Truste es a r e su i ngthe Bankert s

— w ho are th e only pa rties w ith a prop rietary i nter esti n Thir d Si te

— f orda m ages t o the r ealpro perty at T h ird Site . N eit h er th e “ n at u re or s u b s t a n c e ” o f th is EL A cl ai m sho w s that i t i s a n acti on f orpro pertyN os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 57 dam age s, and the property dam age s l i m i tat i ons peri od ther ef or e doe s no t a pp l y. A ccor dingl y, the Truste es’ E L A cl ai m i s no t l i m i ted bythe s ta tu te un d er whi chi t i s br o ug ht, s i nc e no i nter n al li m i tat i ons provi si on e xi ste d, and i t i s no t l i m i ted bythe sta tute appli cabl e t o proper ty dam age su i ts , sin ce i t i s no t a su i t f o rpr o per tyda m ag es . I fthe acti on “ i s no t l i m i ted byany othe r statute[ , ] ” seeI ND . C OD E § 3 4

- 1 1

- 1

- 2 ( a ) , the n the t e n- y e a rc a t c h- a l ll i mi t ati ons peri od appli es. I t m ake s no differen c e w hether w e ca l lthe Truste es’ ELA cl ai m a contr ibuti on a cti on, o r a c o s t
- r e c o v e r y a c t i o n, o rw h e th e rw e c a l li tb y s o me oth er nam e. B y the term s of th e I nd iana C od e, w he re no o th ers ta tu to r y l i m i t ex i st s, the t en - y ea rl i m i ta ti o ns per i o d a ppl i es . Tha t i s co ns i st en t wi ththe Ind ia na S up r e me Co ur t ’ s de c i s i o n t o a pp l y the t e n- y e a rp er i od to a g ener i c ac ti on for t he r eco ver y o fenvi ro nm ental cl ea nup c o st s i n Pfl anz . See8 8 8 N
. E.2 d a t7 5 8
. And , on c e a g ain , i t m ak es n o d iffer en c e t h at th e c laim in Pfl anz w as n om in ally b ro u gh t un d er th e U ST A w h i le th i s o ne was no m i na l l y b roug ht unde rthe ELA. The “n atu re and sub stan ce” co nt rols, and the tw o c la im s are al i ke i n nature and subst ance. The Trust ees ar e s uing“no t to re cove r f ordam age s t o thei r own pro perty, but, i nstea d, to al l oca te l i abi l i ty f orthe fund s spent [ ] to cl ean up the en vironm en tal conta m ination of the [B an kerts’] proper ty. ” B o urbo n M ini-M a rt, 74 1 N
. E.2 d 361. There f or e,
“ [ t ] he n a t ur e o rs ub s t a nc e o fthei r c l a i m s o un ds [ near er ] co ntributi on or indem ni ty, and the gener al t e n- y e a rs t a t ut e o fl i m i t a t i o ns f o un d a tI C 3 4

- 1 1

- 1

- 2 a ppli es. ” Id

.58 N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523

The Bank er t s r i ght l y no t e thatthe l i m i t at i on s p erio d f or 19 an EL A cl aim c ould no t begin t o run on the date ofthe 1996 A O C b ec a use the EL A w as not yetenact ed. A ccordingly, the y ar gue thati tbe gant o r un o n Fe brua ry 2 8, 199 8, the dat e the E L A w en t into effect, instead

. T his actio n w as no t fi l e d un til after F eb ru ary 28, 200 8, lead ing the B an k erts t o a r g u e tha t it i s the re f or e unt i m el y. Th e t e n- y e a r l i mi t a t i o ns pe r i o d f o r a n a c t i on t o r ec o ve r cl ea nup co st s i nc ur r ed as th e r es ul t of an E PA or der di d not begin t o run “unti lafterthe [ Truste es w er e] o rder ed to cl ean up the proper ty. ” Pfl anz , 8 88 N
. E. 2d at7 59
. Butthe pa r ti es ’ s ec o nd di spu te c o nc erns th e appl i ca ti o n o ftha t r ul e. The r e ar e m ul ti pl e cl ea nup or ders i n thi s ca se, e ach o fwh i ch i nfl i cted an i nj ury on th e Tr us te es i n the f o r m o f a cleanup o bl i g at i o n. The Ba nk e r t s l a t c h o nt o the e a r l i e s tA OC

— i ssued i n 199 6 t o the Tr ustee s’ pre decesso rs - i n-inter est, s ee C o o per, 89 9 N .E .2d at73 4 (“ th ird p ar tie s a re u su ally h eld ac c ou n ta b le for th e tim e run nin g against their pred ec e s s ors i n inte res t[
. ] ”) ( quoti ng M a ckv. A m . Fletch er Na t’l B a nk& Trust Co. , 510 N
. E
. 2d 725, 734 ( I nd

. C t. A p p . 1987))

— an d a r g ue that the l i m i tat i ons peri od f orany EL A cl aim with re sp ec t t o T h ird Site be ga n to ru n as so on as p os sib le afteri ts i ssuance. The Trust ees , o fco urse , di sag re e. 19 They co ncede thatthe lim itati ons peri od, with r espectto ana ct i o n to r ec o ve rc o st s ex pen ded pur su an t to the 19 96 A O C , b egan to r un o n F eb r ua r y 2 8, 1 99 8. The Tr us te es c annotr ec o ve rf o rtho se e xpe ndi tu r es , a nd they ar e no t t ry i ng to do s o. But they d o n ot bel i eve that has a ny effect on the l i m i tat i ons p eri od f orN os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 59

re cove ring the co sts o f the re m ova lact i ons m andated by the 1 9 9 9 o r2 0 0 2 AOC s . We a g r e e wi th the T rust ees . This acti on w as file d on A pri l1, 20 08, and w e fi nd that an y i njury

— m eani ng, i n thi s co n te x t, any c ost s incurr ed unde ra c l ea nup obl i g at i o n i m posed bythe EPA

— w hi ch oc c u rre d s u b se q u en t t o A p ril 1, 19 98 , i s a c tio n ab le unde rthe ELA and i s no t ti m e-ba r r ed. Thi s p lai nly i ncl ud es the dam age s s uffer ed thr ough co m pli ance with bo th the 1 9 9 9 a nd 2 0 0 2 AOC s , wh i c h i s a l lthe da m age s th e Tru stees hop e to recover. The Bankert s’ ar gum ent f ai l s to persuade us f or se ve r alr ea so ns . F i r st, the c l ea nup obl i g at i o ns th at th e Tr us t e e s i nc ur r e d b y e xe c ut i ngthe 1 9 9 9 a nd 2 0 0 2 AOC s si m plywere not i ncurr ed, ei therexpl i citlyo r i m pli ci tl y, w hen the re spondents to the 1996 A O C a gr eed to re al i gn F i nl ey Creek

. N ei therthe T ru st ees , wh o did not y ete xi sti n tha t ca pac i ty, no rthe 1 99 6 r es po nd en ts , i nc ur r e d anyo bl i gat ion a t that t i m e t o engag e in re m ova l or re m edi al eff or ts at Thir d S i te i tse l f

. General l y, part i es b rin gin g a c tio n s t o re c ov er cl e an u p co st s “ m u st w ait un tilafter the obli gation to p ay is inc urred , f or oth erw ise th e c laim w ou ld lac k th e ess en tia l d am ag e e lem en t.” Pfl anz , 888 N .E .2d at75 9 (in te rn al c ita tio n s o m itt ed ). I t i s t rue, as the Bankert s a nd the d ist ri ct c ourto bser ve, th a t “ i t i s n o t n e c e s s a r y th a t th e fu l l e x t e n t o ft he dam age be known o r eve n asce rt ai nabl e but onlythat som e a scer tainabl e dam age h as o ccurr ed” f orthe sta tute of lim ita tio n s t o b e t rig ge re d

. D o e v. U nited M e t h o d ist C hurch , 6 73 N. E. 2d 83 9, 8 42 ( I nd. Ct
. App. 1 99 6)
. But that j ust m eans an o bl i gat i on t o pay m ay be c onsi dered a n “ i nj ur y ” f o rs t a t ut e o fl i mi t a t i o ns p ur po s e s e v en60 N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 bef or e i t g i ves ri se to an actual m on et ar y l oss . I t doe s not, how eve r, supp or t confl ating one obl i gat i on w ith anothe r as though they c re ate the sam e inj ury, wh i ch i s what the Bankert s ho pe to do. Furtherm or e, the Banker ts’ ar gum ent that the st atute ofl i m i tat i ons bega n t o run with re spect to the Tr uste e s ’ o b l i g a t i o ns u nd e rthe 1 9 9 9 a nd 2 0 0 2 AOC s bef or e they incurr ed thos e obl i gat i on s w oul d, i fappli ed to o th e r c a s e s , l e a d t o i mpr a c t i c a l r e s u l t s . Wha t i ft he EPA’s pr o ce ss ha d b ee n mor e dr awn o ut( as i s o ften the ca se ) , a nd th e A O Cs g o ve r ni ngthe Thi r d S i te c l ea nup wer e no t issu ed unt i l2 01 0, o r2 01 2? Acco r di ngt o the ar gum en t ad van ce d b y the Ba nk er ts , i n tha t ca se , the statut e o fl i m i ta ti o ns woul d ha ve r un e nt i r ely o n the Truste es’ r equests f orr el i efbefore th ey had even suffer ed the dam age s fro m w hi ch r el i efm i ght b e r equested. They woul d have be en l ega l l y r equ i re d to bring the i r acti on ba sed o n nothi ng but specul ati on ab out w ha ts o r to fc l e a nu p m ightb e o r der ed i n the future at T h ird Si te, wh at i t m ightc o st, whatthe pr es en t disc ounted value o ftho se potenti alfu tu re co sts m ightbe, et c. , o r el se they w oul d los e th ei r ri ght t o bring an action at all

. T he law d oes not requ ire su ch clai rvoy ance. Fur ther m or e, any ac tio n that was fi l ed und er su c h c i r c ums t a nc e s wo ul d r a i s e s e r i o us j us t i c i ab i l i ty concerns, thereb y putting pl ai nti ff s who have expend ed th e i ro wnr e s o u r c e s i n r e d r e s s i n ge n v i r o n me n t a lh a r ms in be tw ee n a ro ck and a hard pla ce. That i s not a des i r ab l e o ut co m e, b utunde rthe Ba nk er ts ’ unde r st an di ng ofthe l aw i t co uld be a com m on o ne.N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 61 Fi nal l y, befor e m oving o n , we note thatthe Truste es su g g e s t e d we mi g h tc e r t i fy th i s i s s u e t o th e In di an a Su p re m e C ou rt . In d ec id in g w h et h er ce rt ifica tio n is appropri ate , “t he m ost i m port ant co nsid er at ion g u i d i n gth e e x e r c i se o fo u rd i s c r e t i o n i s wh e th e rwe fi nd o urse l ves genui ne ly u ncer tain abo ut a questi on o f st at e la w th at is v i t a l t o a co rre c t d isp os itio n of th e c as e.” C raig v. Fe dE x Groun d P a ck a g e Sys. , Inc. , 68 6 F
. 3d 423, 42 9- 430 ( 7th Ci r. 20 12) ( ci ti ng Ced arFa r m , Har r i s on Cnty. , Inc . v. L o u i s v i l l eG a s & E l e c . Co. , 658 F. 3d 807, 81 2- 13 ( 7th Cir
. 2011) )
. “Cer ti fi cati on i s a pp ro pri ate wh en the cas e co nc erns a matt ero fv i ta lpub l i c co nc ern, wher e th e i ssue w i l ll i kel y r ecu r i n other case s, wh er e r eso l uti on ofthe questi on t o be c er ti fi ed i s o ut c om e d ete rm i nati ve of th e c ase, and w here the sta te suprem e co urt has y et to have an o pp or tuni ty to i l l um i nate a clearpath o n the i ssue. ” Id

. W he n con side ring certifi catio n , w e are m in d fu l of th e st at e c ou rt s’ a lre ad y b u sy d oc ke ts
. Id

. W e a l so consi der s eve ra lf acto rs wh en deci ding w hether to ce r t i fy a qu e s t i o n, i nc l ud i ng whe the r the i s s ue “ i s o f i nt er es t to the s ta te sup re m e co ur t i n i ts de ve l o pm en t ofst ate l aw . ” Id

. ( ci ti ng St at eFa r m M ut
. Aut o. Ins . Co. v. P ate, 275 F.3d 666 , 671 (7th C ir. 2001 ))
. We s e e n o r e a s o n t o c e r t i fy th i s qu e s t i o n . F i r s t, we ar e n otge n u in ely u n c er ta inab ou t it . W h ile it is n otat all a fr i vo l o us i ss ue , we ar e confi den t i n pr o ce edingunde rthe g ui dan ce pr o vi ded bye xi st i ngIndi an a l aw . Be twe enthe set tl ed ru l e that the natur e o r substa nce o fan a cti on gov er ns wh i ch st atute o f lim itati ons appli es; the f act that thi s par ti cul aract i on pl ai nl y i s no t o ne f orpro perty d am age s; a nd the Indi an a S upr eme Co ur t’ s pr ev i o us62 N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 ap p lica tio n of th e ten -ye ar c at c h -all u n d er su b st an tia lly si m i l ar ci rcum sta nces, the appropri ate re soluti on is cl ear . S eco nd , we cannot saythi s i ssue concerns a m att er ofvi tal pu bl i c concern. The re m edi ati on o fenvi ro nm ental ha za r ds i s ce r ta i nl y a n i ss ue o fpub l i c co nc ern, b ut th e lim ita tio n s is su es d isc u ss ed h er ein h av e b y t h is tim e b ee n res olv ed co n c lu siv ely by legis lat ive ac tio n in I nd i ana. The l i m i tat i ons peri od i n effect at t he ti m e a n ac tio n is br ou gh t g ov er n s t h at ac tio n, C onnell, 72 5 N
. E.2 d at 5 06, and any fu tu re EL A act i ons w i l lbe go ver ned by the i nd ependent l i m i tat i ons peri od l egi sl ati vel y a dd ed to the EL A
. A ccor dingl y, we can sa y with cer tainty that th is i ssue w i l lnotr eappear i n any case s n ot a l re ad y p en d in g. T h ird , th e In d ian a la w qu es tio n is at m os t o n l y p a rt ially ou tc om e-d et er m in at ive in t h is ca s e . T o th e e x t e n tth a tth e E L A c l a i m wi l la l l o w the Tr us te es t o s ee kr ec o ve r y o fc o st s i nc ur r ed unde rthe 2 0 0 2 AOC, i t i s mer e l y du pl i c a t i v e o f the CERCLA co st r ec o ve ry c lai m we ha ve a l r ea dy r eins ta te d. To the e xt en t th ati t w il l al l o w re co ve r y o fc o st s i nc ur r ed unde rthe 19 99 AOC, i t ex te nds f ar th ertha n the CE RCLA c l ai m , b ut th att wi sti s no t en o ug h t o o ff se t th e lack ofg enui ne c on c er n w e h av e ab ou t its res olu tio n, or to ind ep en d en tly w ar ra n t c er tific at ion . W e m ov e o n to C ou n t V III
.
I I I . Coun tV I I : Seeking a D ecl ar at ory J ud gmen tA gai nst th e B an k erts ’ In s u rers I n Count VI Iof t h e C om pla i nt, the Truste es see k a decl ar ato ryj ud gm ent that e ach o fthe i nsurerd efend ants ar e obl i gat ed to pro vi de i nsurance cove ra ge, subj ect toN os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 63 thei r re specti ve pol i cy l i m i ts, f orany l i abi l i ti es owed by th ei rpo l i cyho l der s to the Tr us te es . Af te rdi sm i ss i ng Cou nt s Ithr o ug h V on st atut e o fl i m i ta ti o ns g r o unds , the dist ri ct c ourtas ked the Trust ees and th e insurer s t o re p or t o n th e s ta tu s o f C ou n t V II. A ll p ar tie s a g re ed it w as m oo t. Obvi ousl y, i n l i ght o f o u r re i nstat em ent o f th e CERCLA a nd ELA cl ai m s, tha t co nc l us i o n i s no l o n g e rwa r r a n t e d. Cou n tV I Ii s n o tmo o t, a n d we p ro c ee d to a c o n sid er at ion of A u to O w n er s’s co n d itio n al c ro ss -ap p ea l.

AUT O OWNE RS ’ S C ROS S - AP PE AL Auto Owner s M utua lIns ur an ce C om p an y i s o ne o fthe B an ke rt s’ fo rm er i n s u re rs , tar ge te d by th e T ru st ee s in Cou ntVI Io fthe Com p lai nt
. Ea r l y i n thi s l i ti g at i o n, A uto O w ners fi l ed a m oti on t o dism i ss Count VI Io n re s j ud icata an d /or issu e prec lusion grou nd s. A ut o Ow ne rs previ ousl y l i ti gat ed seve ra l of the i nsurance p oli ci es i n que st i o n dur i ngthe Env i r o - Che m S i te c l ea nup in the 19 80 s an d o bt aine d r el i efin the form o fa c o ns en t d ecree an d a d efault j ud gm en t. A s a result, A ut o Ow ne rs be l i ev es the pr es en t cl ai m ag ains t i t i s pr ec l ude d. The d is tr i ctc o ur t tr ea te d the mot i o n a s o ne f o rs um m ary j ud gm en t a nd de nied i t. T o the ex ten t tha t A ut o Ow ne rs preva i l ed re gar dle ss w hen Count VI Iwas dis m iss ed as m oo t, th e fin al jud gm en t in th e c as e w as a fav or ab le one. But they file d a condi ti onalcr oss - appeal to hedge aga i ns ta p o s s ib l e r e v e r s a l, c ha l l e ng i ngthe di s t r i ct co ur t’ s adv er se fi ndi ngo n the pr ec l us i o n i ss ue . The T ru st ee s re sp on d ed b y c h alle n gin g t h e p ro c ed u ra l p ro p ri-64 N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 etyo fthe cro ss- appeal an d , in the al ternati ve, by ar guing tha t the di str i ct c ourtr eached the co rr ect re sul t. Bec au se we ha ve r eins ta te d the CERCLA, ELA, a nd d ec l a ra to ry j u d gm en t c laim s o rig in ally d ism iss ed in th e d istri ct c ourt ’ s fi nalj ud gm ent, we now r each Auto O w n er s’s co n d itio n al c ro ss -ap p ea l.

B a c kg r o und A uto Ow ners is a partyto the case because ofits rol e a s a Banker t insurerduri ng the l astye ar s o fEnvi ro - Ch em oper ation . F rom 19 77 unti li ts cl osur e in M ay of19 82, En vi ro - Ch em was l oca ted pri m ar i ly at 865 So uth St ate Ro ad 43 1, Zi o ns vi l l e, Indi an a

— r e f e r re d to ea rlier in t h is op in ion as th e “ E n vir o-C h em Site .” T h e B an ke rtfam ily own ed t h e s i te, and J onathan Bankert, S r. , se rv ed as p reside nt of E nv iro- C he m . H is offi cers an d directors w er e Roy St ro ng and Davi d Fi nton. Tw o com panie s

— Prat t & Lam ber t, Inc. , and U ni on Carbi de Cor pora ti on

— tr ansport ed i nd ustr ial and com m er ci alwastes to the Envi ro Ch em S i te, wh er e they were hel d i n tanks o w n ed by W ast ex Rese ar ch, Inc. O n M ay 5, 19 82, Envi ro - Ch em c e a s e d o p e r a t i o n s , l e a v i n ga p p r o x i ma t e l y 2 5 , 0 0 0 d r u ms an d 5 6 bul ks to r ag e ta nk s atthe Env i r o - Chem Site. The drum s a nd tanks were l oca ted o utsi de and, unfo rtunatel y, w er e per m itted to deter i or ate and re l eas e the waste they c on ta ined. In J ulyo f19 83, the EPA r esponded by author i zi ng a $3 m i l l i on cl eanup proj ect. O n S e p t e mb e r2 1 , 1 9 8 3 , th e U n i t e d S t a t e s fi l e d a c o mpla i nt i n the So uthern Dist ri ct o fInd i ana a gainst m or e than 25 0 defen dan ts , i nc l udi ngEnv i r o - Che m , Jon atha n a ndN os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 65

Gary W atso n s er ved a s c our t
- appoi nt ed r ec ei verf or Envi ro 20 C h em b eg in n in g o n Ju ly 1, 1 9 8 1
. Pa tr i ci a Ban k er t, Ro y St r o ng, Davi d Fi nt o n, Gar y W at so n, 20 Wa s t e x , P r a t t& L a mb e r t, a n d U n i o n C a rb i d e . T h e c o mpla i nt so ught t o re cove r EPA r esponse c os ts and to obt ai n a decl ar ato ryj ud gm ent ho l ding the defen dants j oi ntl y a nd se ver al l y l i abl e forfuture cos ts in c u rr ed by the Unite d State s as i t co nti nued to address co ntam i nat i o n a tth e E n v i r o - C h e m S i t e . O n th e s a me da y th e c o mpla i nt wa s fi l e d, Uni o n Ca rb i de a nd 133 othe r defe nd ants enter ed i nto a co nsen t d ec re e with the gov ernm ent, a g r ee i ngt o c l ea n up th e su r f ac e o fthe Env i r o - Che m S i te i n o r dert o r es o l ve a port i o n o fthe gov er nm ent’s c lai m ag ai nst them

. Then, o n N ove m ber8, 19 8 3 , the s e t t l i ngde fe nd a nt s fi l e d a c r o s s - c l a i m a gai nst the no n-s ett l i ng defe n d ants, a gr oup w hi ch i ncl ud ed En vi ro - Ch em , J onathan and Patr i ci a Banker t, Roy St ro ng, Davi d Fi nt on, GaryW ats on, and W ast ex. The cr oss cl ai m so u ght t o re cove r the a pp ro xi m ate l y $ 3 m i l l i on the s ett l i ng defendants w ou l d expend o n the surf ace cl eanup, as wellas a decl ar ato ryj ud gm ent that they w er e n ot li abl e forany add i ti onalfuture cos ts re l ate d to cl eanup eff or ts at the Envi ro - Ch em S i te. W hi l e th e 19 83 l aws ui t pr ogresse d, a no th erwas i n the w or ks. A uto Ow ners had i ssued se ver ali nsurance po l i ci es to Envi r o - C h e m, th e B a n k e r t s , a n d t wo o th erc o m pan i es kno wn as Tec hno so l ve a nd Haz ar do us M ate ri al s M an age m ent, Inc. , duri ng Envi ro - Ch em ’ s l ast yea rs o fo perat i on. On A p ril 5 , 19 84, A uto Ow ners fi l ed66 N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 i ts own co m pla i nt i n the So u th er n Dis tr i ct o fInd i ana, n am in g th e pa rt ies on b ot h sid es of th e cro ss - c l a i m in the s i m ult aneo usl y pendi ng ac ti on a s defendants. A uto- Ow ners so ught a decl ar ato ryr uling tha t i t o w ed no cove ra ge f or the potenti al l i abi l i ty of i ts in su reds, pu rs uant to an e xcl usi on conta i ned i n the pol i ci es at i ssue: N o cove ra ge i s pro vi ded bythi s pol i cy f orcl ai m s, sui ts, actio ns o rpr o ce eding s ag ains t th e i ns ur ed ar i sing out ofthe disc harg e, di sposal, r el eas e o r esca pe of sm ok e, va p or s, so ot, fum es , ac id s, alk alis , tox ic c h em ical s, l i quids o r gas es, waste m ate ri alo r othe r i rr i tants , cont a mi na nt s o rp o l l ut a nt s i nt o a nd u po n l a nd , th e atm osp he re or any w ater cou rse or bod y of w ater. Au t o Ow n e r s ’ s s u i twa s r e s o l v e d p i e c e me a l

. O n D e c e mb er 21 , 199 0, th e c ou r t en te re d a d efa u lt jud gm en t in A uto Ow ners ’ s f avo r aga i nst En vir o-Chem , Roy St ro ng, Dav i d F i nt o n, Ga r y W at so n, Te chno so l ve , a nd Haz ar do us M aterials M an agem en t. O n A ug us t 29, 1991 , the cou rt en t e r e d a n a g r e e d j u d g me n tb e t we e n Au t o O wn e r s , the Ban k er ts , Uni o n Ca rbi de, Pr at t & La m be r t, a nd W as te x. The de faul t j udg m en t si m pl y inc o r po r at ed th e co m pl aint byr efer en ce a nd g r an te d the r el i efr eque st ed th er ein, an d th e ag r ee d j udg m en t st i pul at ed a di smi ss alw ithou t p rej ud ice. In an y case, i t is un d ispu ted that A ut o Ow ne rs w as succes sful i n avo i ding any duty ofi nd em ni fi cati on att en da ntt o the En v i r o - Ch e m S i t e l i t i g a t i o n. No w, Aut o Owner s ho p es to us e th e 19 90 de f au l t j udg m en t an d the 1991 agr eed j ud gm ent to precl ud e the Tr ustee s fro m o btaini ng a decl ar ati on o fco ver age f orThi rd S i te.N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 67 D i scussi on The fi rs t dispute concerns the propri ety of t h e cro ssappeal

. The Trust ees a rgue thatA uto Ow ners ’ s cr oss app ea lsho uld be di sm i sse d because A uto Ow ners pre vai l ed i n the fi nalj ud gm ent i ssued byt h e dist ri ct c ourt
. A u to O w ners ar gues i n re sponse that a co nd i ti onalcr oss appeal i s a per m i ssibl e way t o h ed ge aga i nst a n ad verse find ing on th e m ain ap p eal. N either p arty referen ce s th e ac tu als ta nda r d i n o urCi r cui t f o rr es o l ving th is sort ofdi spute. The di sposi ti ve questi on i s whether the r el i efso ught i n the cro ss- appeal i s di ffer en t fro m the r el i efal re ady o btained by the cr oss - appeal in g party i n the dis tr ict court’ s fi nalj ud gm ent. I fi t i s no t d iffer en t, th en th e c ro ss -ap p ea l m u st be d ism iss ed

. See We i tz e n k a m p v . U n u m L i f eIn s . C o . o

f A m. , 66 1 F
. 3d 323, 33 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11) (rei ter ating the r ule that “cr oss - appeal s a re notap propri ate i n ro uti ne cas es l i ke ours thatr ai se onl y a l ternate gr ounds f or a ffi rm ance o f th e j udg m en t an d no t ani nd ep en den t i ss ue [
. ] ”)
. On th e othe r hand , “[ a] n ap p ell ee w ho wants, notthatthe j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourtbe affi rm ed o n an al ternati ve gr ound, but thatthe j u d gm ent b e chang ed, ” for ex am ple , fro m a dism i ssa lwitho ut to a dism i ssa lwith p rej u d ice , no t o n ly sh ou ld bu t m u st file a c ro ss -ap p ea l. Am
. Bot t om Cons e r vancy v . U ni t ed S t at e s Ar m y Corps o f E ng ’rs , 650 F.3d 652 , 661 (7th C ir. 2011). Inth is c as e, th e d ist ric t c ou rtd id n otsp ec i fy , e i th er in i ts separ ate o rderdi sm i ssing co unt si x as m oot o r i n i ts fi nalj ud gm ent, wh et h erthe dism i ssa lo fco unt si x w as a di sm i ssa lwith o r w i thout p re j ud i ce. Pursuant to68 N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 Feder alRule o fCi vi lPro cedure 41(b) , “[ u]n less the dism iss al or d er st at es oth er w ise , a d ism iss al u n d e r th is su b d ivis ion (b) a n d an y d ism iss al n otu n d er th is ru le

— except o ne f orl ack ofj uri sdictio n, i m properve nue, o r f ai l ure to j oin a party under Rule 19

— oper ate s a s an adj ud i cati on o n th e m er i ts. ” A d i sm i ssa lo n m o o tn es s g r o unds i s a di smi ss alf o rl ac ko fj ur i sdi ct i o n. St. John’s U nite d C hurch o f C h ri stv. City of C hi. , 50 2 F
. 3d 616, 626 (7th C ir. 2007) (“ ‘w he n th e issue s p r e s en ted are n o lon ge r live or th e p ar tie s la c k a l e g a l l y c og n iza b le i nter esti n the outco m e,’ th e c ase i s ( orthe cl ai m s a re ) m oo t a n d m u st b e d ism iss ed for lac k of ju ris d ict ion .” (q u oti ng P ow el l v. M cCo rm ack, 3 95 U. S
. 4 86 , 4 96 ( 19 69 ) ) ). The case l aw hol ds, co nsi ste nt w i th Rul e 4 1( b) , thata dism i ssa lf orl ack ofsubj ect m att erj uri sdic ti on ca nnot b e a d ism iss al w ith p rej u d ice
. M urray v. Conseco, Inc. , 467 F.3d 6 02, 60 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) ( ci ti ng Fre de r i cks e n v . C ityof Lo ckpo rt, 3 84 F. 3d 4 37, 4 38 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 4) )
. The re l i efA uto Ow ners o btain ed i n the dist ri ct c ourtwas ther ef or e a di sm i ssa lwitho ut prej ud i ce. The re l i efA uto Ow ners r equest s in i ts cro ss- appeal, o n th e o th erha nd

— a di s mi s s a lo n r e s j ud i c a t a g r o un ds

— i s a d ism iss al w ith prejud ice. A ut o Ow ne rs seeks a d eterm i nati on that the cl ai m s be f ore th e cour t in thi s ca se have previ ousl y b een adj ud i cate d on the m er i ts; r es j udi ca ta o nl y b ar s ana ct i o n i fthe r e was a fi na lj udg m en t on the m er i ts i n an e ar l i ercas e a nd bo th the p arti es an d c laim s in th e t w o law su its are th e s am e. S e eM at r ix I V, Inc . v. Am
. Nat ’ l B a nk & Tr us tCo. , 64 9 F
. 3d 539, 54 7 ( 7th C ir.20 11 ); Johnson v. Cypres s H il l , 64 1 F
. 3d 867, 874 ( 7th Ci r. 2011 )
. Obvi ousl y, i n contr astt o a d i sm i ssa lN os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 69

w i thout prej ud i ce, any su ch deter m i nati on di spose s o f th e cl ai m s be f or e the co urt perm anentl y. I fthe Truste es’ d e c laratory j ud gm en t clai m against A ut o Ow ne rs can not be brou gh t in this i ns tan ce d ue to an earli er, bi nd i ng dete rm i nati on o fthe cl ai m o r ofthe dis p osi ti ve i ssues , t h en i t ca nnot be br ought i n any future i nstance w ith ou t ru n n in g in to th e s am e p ro b lem

. Se eWal l i s e rv. Hannig, 3 58 F ed. Appx. 7 15 , 7 17(7th Ci r . 2 00 9) ( r efer r i ng to a di sm i ssa lo n re s j ud i cata gr ounds as a “ fi nalj ud gm en t o n th e m er its ”). T h e r elie f A u to O w n er s s ee ks in its cross-ap p eal, a dism issal w ith p rej ud ice, i s the refore d if fe rent from the reli ef i t w on in th e d istri ct cou rt’s d isp os itio n o ft h e c as e, w h ich w as a d ism iss al without p r ej u d i c e . A c r o s s - a p p e a li s p r o p e ru n d e rth e c i r c u mst an c es , se e A m . Bo tt om Co nse rvan cy, 6 50 F
. 3d at6 61 , a nd w e pr oce ed to the m er i ts. Bec au se the pr i o rde ci si o ns

— th e 19 90 de f au l t j udg m en t an d the 1 99 1 ag r ee d j udg m en t

— wer e en tered bythe U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Cour t fo r th e S outher n Dis tr i ct o f I nd i ana, we app l y federa ll aw to deter m i n e th eirpre c lu siv e e ffec t. E
. E
. O
. C
. v. Harris C her nin, Inc. , 10 F. 3d 1286 , 12 90 n . 4 (7t h C ir. 19 93 ) (“W h er e t h e e ar lier a c t i o n is bro ught i n fed er al c ourt, the federa lr ule s o fr es j ud i cata ap p ly.” ) (int er n al c ita tio n s o m itt ed ); s e eal s o Hav o co of Am e r i ca, Ltd. v. Fre e m an, At ki ns & Col e m an, Lt d. , 58 F. 3d 303, 30 7 n. 6 ( 7th Ci r. 19 95 ). A uto Ow ners ar gues both i ssue and cl ai m pre cl usi on, wh i ch ar e doct rin al l y r el ate d but ar e s ubj ec t to di ffer ent t est s. Cl ai m pre cl usi on, wh i ch oper ate s t o conse rv e j ud i ci al resourc es and prom ote fi nal i ty, appli es w hen a case i nvol ves the sam e par ti es an d the s ame s eto fo per at i ve f ac ts as an e ar l i ero ne70 N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 th at w as d ec id ed on th e m er its
. See M a tr ix IV , Inc. , 64 9 F
. 3d at5 47. I ss ue pr ec l us i o n, a na r r o werdo ct r i ne than cl ai m pre cl usi on, pre vents l i ti gants fro m r el i ti g at i nga n i ss ue tha t ha s al r ea dy be ende ci ded i n a p r ev iou s jud gm en t. Hayes v. C ity of Chi. , 6 7 0 F
. 3 d 8 1 0, 81 4 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 1 2 ) ( c i ti ng M a tr ix IV, Inc. , 6 49 F
. 3d at5 47 )
. The dist ri ct c ourtf ound th at nei therdoctr i ne pre cl ud ed thi s l aw sui t. W e r evi ew the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s di sp osi ti on of th es e q u e s t i o n s d e n ov o, see Johnson v. Cypres s H il l , 64 1 F
. 3d 86 7, 8 74 ( 7th Ci r . 2 011) ( “We r ev i ew the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s di sm i ssa lo fa l aw sui t o n re s j ud i cata gr ou n d s d e n ov o.” ); Tow ns e nd v. Val l as , 256 F. 3d 66 1, 668 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01) ( “W e r evi ew a dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deci si on t o g r an t o rde ny s um m ary j udg m en t de no vo . ”) , a nd w e a gr ee.

I . I ssue Pre cl usio n W e be gi n b y add re ssing Au to Ow ners ’ s i ssue preclusion argum en t. T he doc trine of issue p reclusion “b a rs ‘su c c es siv e litig at ion of an iss u e o f fac t o r law ac tu ally l i ti gated a n d res ol ved i n a v al i d courtdeter m i nati on es se n tia l t o th e p rior ju d gm en t,’ ev en if th e is su e re c u rs in the c onte xt o fa differ ent c l ai m . ” Ta y lo r v . Sturgell, 55 3 U
. S. 88 0, 89 2 ( 2008 ) ( quoti ng Ne w Ham ps hi r ev. M ai ne, 53 2 U
. S. 74 2, 74 8 ( 2001 ) ). Issue precl usi on r equi re s a n i denti ty ofi ssues : “the doctr i n e ‘a pp l i es onl y when ( amongo th erthi ng s) the s ame i ssue i s i nv o l ve d i n the tw o proce edi ngs[
. ] ’ ” Cole m an v. D onah oe, 667 F. 3d 835, 85 3- 54 (7t h Ci r. 20 12) ( quoti ng K ing v. Bu rl ington N
. & Santa FeRy. Co. , 53 8 F
. 3d 814, 81 8 ( 7th Cir
. 2008 ) )
. A dd i ti onal l y,N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 71 i t i s wel l

- se tt l ed tha t i ss ue pr ec l us i o n, l i k e cl ai m pr ec l usio n , onl y a pp l i es i fthe i ssue w as previ ousl y dete rm i ned by a “ val i d and fi nalj ud gm ent. ” B o bby v. B ies , 556 U
. S. 825, 834 (2009). W e nee d not decid e w h etherthe re l i efo btained by A uto Ow ners i n the 1984 act i on

— a def au l t j udg m en t an d a c onsented dis m i ssa lwitho ut prej ud i ce

— const i tutes a
“ v a l i d a nd fi na lj ud g men t, ” a nd we ne e d n o tde c i de whethe rthe c o ve r ag e i s s u e wa s “ a c tu a l lyl i t i g at ed” the r ein. T he i ssu e in this c a se an d the issu e in that case are not i denti cal

. They a re noti denti calbec ause the e ffects o fthe po l l ut i o n e xc l us i o n a nd personali nj ur y pr o vi si o ns ofthe A uto Ow ners pol i ci es on co ver age f orco ntam i nati on a t the Envi ro - Ch em S i te and fo r conta m i nati on a t Thir d Si te necess ar ily d ep end on di ffer ent s ets o ff acts
. True, nobo dy d i sputes that Thi rd S i te w as conta m i nated as a r esul t o fEnvi ro - Ch em o perat i ons. But that does not m ean that Envi ro - Ch em ’ s o perat i ons at the Envi ro Ch em S i te and En vi ro - Ch em ’ s o perat i ons at Thir d Si te w er e id enti cali n al lm ate ri alas pects. A s the di str i ct cour t r i ghtl y obser ved, ther e i s s ubstanti al

— eve n und i spu ted

— evi dence i n the re cor d that c ontam i nati on a t Thi r d S i t e wa s c a us e d b y the r e l e a s e o f po l l ut a nt s at Thir d Si te, and that cont am i nati on a t the Envi ro - Ch em Si te w as caused by the re l eas e ofpol l utants at the Envi ro Che m Si te. I t m ayy ettur n o uttha t th e ab so l ut e po l l uti on e xcl usi on

— to the e xtent that m osto fthe pol i ci es at iss u e in c or p or at e it

— wi l l pr e v e nt the Tr us t e e s f ro m re cove ring ag ai nst Au to Ow ners f orco sts theyi ncurr ed i n cl eani ng up Thir d S i te. But i fso , thatwil lbe because the con tam i nati on pro cess atThi rd S i te quali fi ed as a72 N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 “dis charg e, di sposal, r el eas e o r esca pe ofsm oke , vapor s, soo t, fum es, aci ds, al kal i s, to xi c chem i cal s, l i quid s o r gas es, waste m ate ri alo r othe r i rr i tants , co ntam i nants o r p o l l u t a n t s i n t o a n d u p o n l a n d , th e a t mo s p h e r e o r a ny w at e r co u rs e o r b od y of w at er .” It w ill notbe because th e c on ta m i n a tio n p ro c es s a t t h e E n vir o-C h em Site qu alifi ed as the s am e, and that i s what A uto Ow ners as ks us to co ncl ud e byfi nd i ng tha t the c ove ra ge i ssues in vo lve d in t h e p re se n t s u it a n d th e p r ior s u it a re id en tica l

. The y a r e di ffer en t f ac tu alque s t i o ns , r equi r i ngdi ffer en t di sc o ve r y, e tc
. , a nd Auto Owner s i s no t en ti tl ed to i ss ue pr ec l us i o n.

I I . Cl ai m Pre cl usio n N ex t, we tu r n t o Auto Owner s’ s cl ai m pr ec l us i o n a r g um ent. The doctr i ne o fcl ai m pre cl usi on, al so k n ow n as re s j ud i cata, “a pp l i es to b ar a second sui t in federa l c o ur t whe n the r e e xi s t s : ( 1 ) a n i de nt i t y o f the cause s ofact i ons; ( 2) an i denti ty ofthe part i es orthei r pri vi es; and ( 3) a fi nalj ud gm ent o n the m er i ts. ” Krat vi l l ev. Runy on , 90 F
. 3d 19 5, 1 97( 7th Ci r . 1 99 6)
. W i thr es pec t to the fi rs t e l em ent, “[ a] cl ai m i s deem ed to h ave ‘ i denti ty’ with a pre vi ousl y l itig at ed m att eri fi t i s ba sed o n the sam e, ornear l y the sa m e, f actu al al l ega ti ons ar i si ng fro m the s am e t ra nsacti on o r occur re nce. ” Id

. at 19 8. W i th re spect to th e seco nd , “[ w ] hetherther e i s pri vi ty b et w ee n a p ar ty ag ain st w h om cla im p re c lu sio n is ass er ted and a partyto pri orl i tigati on i s a functi onal i nquir y i n whi c h the f o r mal i t i e s o fl e g a lr e l a t i o ns hi ps provi de cl ues but not soluti on s.” Ticev. Am
. Airl ine s, Inc. ,N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 73 162 F. 3d 966, 97 1 ( 7th Ci r. 19 98) ( quoti ng C ha se M anha t t an Bank, N
. A. v . Cel ot ex Corp. , 56 F. 3d 343, 34 6 ( 2d Ci r . 1 99 5) )
. I t i s a f ac t- spe ci fi c an aly si s, a nd s ho r t- ha nd ter m s l i ke “vi rtual r epres entat i on” ar e o flit tle to no use i n ou r c irc u it. Id

. W i th r e s pe c t t o the fi na l e l e men t, f or th e p u rp os e o fcla im p re c lu sio n, th e t ra d itio n al ru le is that “a jud gm en t o n the m er i ts i s o ne wh i ch ‘ i s ba sed on l ega lr i ghts as dist i ngui shed fr om m er e m att er s o f prac tice , pro cedure, j uri sdic ti on, o r f or m . ’ ” Ha rper Plas t i cs, Inc . v. Am oc o Che m s . Corp. , 65 7 F
. 2d 939, 94 4 ( 7th Ci r. 19 81) ( quoti ng Fairm ont Alum inum Co
. v. Co m m ’r, 222 F.2d 622, 625 (4th Cir. 1955)). Regar dle ss ofwh etherthe parti es ar e ide n ti calo r w hethert h e pie cem ealr eso l uti on o fthe 1984 l i ti gat i on q u alifie d as a “fin a l j u d gm en t o n th e m er its ,” c laim precl usi on i s i napp ro pri ate because ther e i s no “identi ty ofthe cause s o fact i on. ” F edera ll aw defi nes a “ca use o f acti on” as “a cor e o fo perat i ve f acts wh i ch give ri se to a re m edy[

. ] ” Shav e rv. F. W
. Wool worth Co. , 840 F. 2d 13 61, 1 3 6 5 ( 7 th Ci r . 19 8 8 ) ( i nt e r na lc i t a t i o ns o mi t t e d)

. Ac c o r din gly , th e t es t fo r an “ i d e n tit y of t h e c au se s o f ac tio n ” is “w hetherthe cl ai m s a ri se out ofthe sam e s et ofo perat i ve f acts o r the s am e t ra nsacti on. ” M atrix IV , Inc. , 64 9 F
. 3d at 547 ( ci ti ng In re E nergy C oop . , Inc. , 814 F. 2d 1226, 1230 ( 7th C ir. 19 87) )
. “Even i fthe tw o cl ai m s a re bas ed on d ifferent legal theories, the ‘tw o clai m s a r e one for pu rposes o fr es j ud i cata i ftheyar e ba sed on the sam e, o r near l y the sa m e, f actualal l ega ti ons. ’ ” Id

. ( quo ting Herm a nn v. C enco m C a ble A sso cs. , 99 9 F
. 3d 223, 22 6 ( 7th Cir
. 19 93) )
. The te st i s a n outg ro w th o f t h e ru le that a partym ust a l l ege i n one proce edi ng al lcl aim s a nd /o r74 N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523

cou nt erclaim s for reli ef ari s in g out of a si ng le occurre n c e, or b e p re c lu d ed from p u rs u in g t h os e c laim s in th e fu tu re . Id. , 8 40 F
. 2d at1 36 5; F ed. R. Ci v. P. 1 3(a)
. But despit e the fre quency with which pr ecl usi on defenses ar e r ai se d, “ th er e i s no f o r m al i st i c te stf o rdeterm i ni ng w he th e r s uits arise out of the sam e trans action or occu rre nce. ” Ross ex rel. R o s s v. Bd. of Educ
. of

Tp. H igh Sc hool D i s t
. 21 1 , 4 8 6 F
. 3 d 2 7 9 , 2 8 4 ( 7 th Ci r . 20 07 )
. “ I n s t e a d , we have hel d that c ourt s ‘ shoul d consi de r the t ota l i ty of the c l ai m s, includingthe nature o fthe cl ai m s, the l ega l basi s f or re cove ry, the l aw i nvol ved, and th e respecti ve f actualbac kgr ounds. ’ ” Id

. ( quoti ng Bur l i ngton N
. R. Co. v. St r ong, 907 F.2d 707, 711 (7th C ir. 1990). A ut o Ow n ers’s 1984 com p lai nt sough t a de claratory j ud gm ent that i t o w ed no co ver age to the Bankert s o r an y o fthe i ri ns ur ed corp or at e en ti ti es unde rthe pol i ci es l i ste d t h erei n f orenvi ro nm entaldam age s a t th e E n vir o-C h em Site
. Su pra , n. 14
. The o perat i ve f acts und er l yi ng the l aw sui t w ere that the Envi ro - Ch em S i te w as pol l uted; thatthe EPA was engag ed i n a c ol l abor ati ve proce ss to re m ed y that pol l uti on; thatl i ti gat i on w as und er w ay to dist ribute l i abi l i ty f or t h e cl eanup cost s be twe enc o o per at i ve a nd un co o per at i ve PRPs; a nd th at A u to O w n er s in su re d th e B an ke rt s a n d th eir co r po r at e en ti ti es , w ho h ad no t pai d f o ra ny o fthe cl ea nup de spi te th eir PRP st atus , dur i ngs ev er alo fthe y e a r s i n whi c h the p o l l ut i o n o c c ur r e d. Tho s e f a c t s do o v e r l a p, t o s o me e xt e nt, wi th the o perati ve f acts underl yi ng Count VI Ii n thi s ca se. The Trust ees s e e ka de c l a r a t i o n o fc o v e r ag e f o rthe s a me i ns ur e dsN os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 75 unde rthe s ame ins ur an ce po l i ci es , a l th o ug h the y f o cus on a di ffer ent c ove ra ge provi si on withi n the p olici es. Bu t there ar e a l so fund am entaldi fferen ces between the f actualbac kgr ound ofthi s s uitand the f actualbac kgr ound un derl yi ng Au to Ow ners ’ s 19 84 com pla i nt. Fo r exam ple , the sam e f actualco nsi d er atio ns wh i ch bar re d a fin d in g of is su e p re c lu sio n co m e in to p lay h er e. T h is cove ra ge dispute c on c er n s w h et h er the pol l uti on activities at Th ird Site w ere c o v e r e d by A ut o Ow ne rs’s pol i c i e s , wh i l e the p r e v i o us di s pu t e c o nc e r ne d wh e ther th e po ll ut ion activities at the E nv iro- C h e m S ite w ere cove re d by A u to Ow ners ’ s pol i ci es. W e nee d not re i ter ate wh y that di stincti on i s i m port ant. I t i s enough to n ot e t h at it m ea n s t h e c laim s a re n otid en tic al; the s uccess o fea ch depend s o n fi tting the f acts thatl ed to th at co n ta m in at ion to th e t ex t o f th e e x c lu sio n p ro visi on in the i nsurance pol i ci es. A fter e ngaging i n such ana na l y si s, the di st r ictc o ur t co ul d c o m e to the concl us ion that A uto Ow ners do es o we c o ve r ag e to the Ba nk e r t s f o rthe p o l l ut i o n a tT hi r d S i t e , f o re xam ple , w i th out i n any w ay contr adic ti ng the ea rl i erfi nd i ng tha t i t doe s notow e c ov er ag e a t t h e E n v i r o - C h em Site
. See HarperP last ics, Inc. , 65 7 F
. 2d at 944 ( cour t l oo ks to “w h et h er th e jud gm en t in a se c on d su it w o u l d im p air r ig h t s established un d er the fir st j ud gm en t” w he n d eterm i ni ngwhethe rc au se s o fa ct i o n a r e i den ti ca l )
. Aga i n, th e di st r i ct co ur t m ay wel l fi nd th at th e po l l ut ion exc l usi o n in Auto Owner s’ s co nt r ac ts b ar s co ve r ag e f o rthe po l l ut i o n a ct i vi ti es a t Thi r d S i te , bu t noto n c l ai m pr ec l usi on g ro und s. W e a ffi rm with r espect t o both preclusi on i ssues .76 N os. 11

- 1501 and 11- 1523 C ONC L US I ON For the reas ons stated , w e reverse th e d istr ict cou rt’s di smi ssal of Cou nt s I, I I, I I I, a nd VI I
. In Co untI, the Truste es have m ade a ti m el y CER CL A cl ai m , under 42 U
. S. C. § 9 607(a)(4 )( B), to r eco verco sts i ncurr ed p u r s u a n tt o th e 2 0 0 2 A O C
. T h e T r u s t e e s ’ C o u n tI I“ c o mpa ni onc l a i m” f o ra de c l a r a t o r y j ud g men to fCE RC LA l i ab i l i tyi s th er efo r e al so r eins ta ted

. W e fi nd tha t th e I nd i ana ELA cl ai m co ntai ned i n Count III i s t i m el y, an d th at th e d ec lar at or y jud gm en t c lai m c on ta in ed in Cou ntVI Ii s notmoo t. The di st r i ctc o ur t co m m i tt ed no abuse of disc re ti on i n i ts hand l i ng of the sum m ar y jud gm en t b rie fi ng pro cess . Final l y, we affi rm the dist ri ct cou rt’s den ialof A ut o Ow ne rs’s m otion for su m m ary j u d gm en t o n p re c lu sio n g r o u n d s. T h e T ru st ee s’ s u it is r eins ta te d a nd r emande d f o rfur th er pro ce eding s co nsi st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

7- 31- 13