## 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 & 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 nt-A pp ellees , AND
A U T O O W NE RS M UTUAL I NSURANCE C OMPAN Y, D efend a nt-A pp ellee/ Cros s -Appe l l ant
.
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, 20122 N os. 11

- 1501 & 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  Dis t ri c tCour tf or th e N or the rnDis t ri c tofI ndi ana , s i t t i ng by 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.  D E G UILIO, D istrict Judge. This ap p ea l is the l ate st chapteri n the sto ryof t h e E nvi ro nm entalChem i cal and C onse rv ati on Com 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 C h em ), an d th eir ins u re rs , no n e o f w h o m h av e p aid i nt o the 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 st ag e, a nd the pl aint i ff s appe al ed
. In r es po ns e, o ne of t h e ins ura nc e com p an ies targeted by the plaintiff s fi l ed a c ondit i onalcr oss -appeal, hopi ng to pre ser ve a f av o r ab l e o ut co m e ev eni n the e ve nto fa r ev er sa lo fthe di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s fi na lj ud g m en t
. Add r e s s i ngb o th a p-N os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 3 p ea ls, w e re ve rs e in p ar t a n d affirm in p ar t
. T h e ca se is re m anded f orfurther proce edi ngs on the re i nstat ed cl ai m s.

B AC KGR OUND The appell ants

— pl a i nt i ff s b el ow

— ar e the trustee s o f th e Thir d S i te Trust Fund ( “Truste es” )
. Thir d S i te i s a CE RC LA si te l oca ted abo ut fi ve m i l es nor th o fZi onsvi l le, I nd i ana. A l ong w i th two o therCE RC LA si tes i n cl ose proxi m i ty

— th e Env i r o - Che m S i te t o th e no r tha nd the N o r th si de S an i ta r y La nd fi ll ( “NSL” ) t o the no r th

eas t

— T hird Si te w as ow ne d and ope rated by the Ba nk ert f am i l y a nd thei r cor pora te en ti ti es at al lti m es re l evantto th i s l i ti g at i o n. U p unti lthe e ar l y 1 98 0s , Env i r o - Che m , o ne o f th o se en ti ti es , was en g ag ed i n br o k er i ng and rec y cl i ng in d u st ria l an d co m m er c ial w as te s a t a l l t h re e s ite s. It is und i sputed that En vi ro - Ch em ’ s o perat i ons extended to T hird Si te; historical aeri al ph otograp hs de p ict Th ird Si te bei ng used f orta nk and drum s torag e, and f or m er Env i r o - Ch e m e mpl o y e e s h a v e i nd i c a t e d tha tT hi r d S i te host ed w ast e handl i ng and dis posalo perat i ons. E n vir o-C h e m 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 gency ( “EPA ”) und er too k an extended eff or t to clean up the m ess i t l eft behi 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 co l 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 ste d
. S i m i l ar l y,4 N os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 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 OCs 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 co l l ecte d in 1 9 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 i n to Fin ley C re ek . In sh o r t, Thi r d S i te was po l l ut ed, and it was t r an sfer r i ng i ts pol l utants to Fi nl ey Creek
. Finl ey Creekfl ows south in to E ag le C re ek R es er vo ir, an d E ag le C re ek R es e r v oir supp l i es a por ti on ofthe dri nki ng waterf orthe City ofInd i anapol i s. The p oll uti on o fFinl ey Creekwas ther ef o r e ca us e f o rr ea lc o nc ern. I n 199 6, the EPA co untere d th e th re at by i ssui ng a Un i l a t e r a lAd mi n i s t r a t i v e O r d e r( “ UAO ” ) o u t l i n i ng a p l a n t o r e a l i g n Fi nl e y C r e e k
. T h e p l a n c a l l e d f o re l i mi nati ng an oxbow, the to p 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 o ut i ngthe cr ee ka way fr o m the si te a nd t o the s o uth. The r ea l i g nm en t pr oj ect w as desi gnate d a ti m e- cri ti calr em ova l p roj ec t, an d th e re sp on d en ts t o th e U A O co m p let ed it i n Se ptem 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 nga v e r t e d a nys i g ni fi c a ntc o r r up t i o n o fthe dr i nki ng watersupply , the EPA tur ned i ts att enti on t o cl ea ni ngup Thi r d S i te i ts el f
. In Octo be r1 99 9, the EPA 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 gna te d 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. T he 19 99 A OC was div i ded i nto two sep ar at e par ts : o ne de al i ngwi th“ N o n- Pr emi umN os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 5 Re spo nde nt s” a nd o ne de al i ngw ith “ Pr emi um Re spo nd en ts.” Th e N on-P rem ium Res p ond en ts agreed to un d erta ke an E n gin ee rin g E va lu at ion an d C os t A n aly sis ( “EE /CA ”) o fr em ova lal ternati ves f orThi rd S i te. They als o agr eed to se ttl e a tr ust

— the Thi rd S i te Trust, o f w hi ch th e appell ants ar e Tr ustee s

— and to fund i t t o th e e xte ntne ce ss ary t o b an k r o l lthe EE/ CA a nd a ny add i ti onalnece ssa rywork. Throug h the Trust, they woul d r ei m bur se the EPA f o rpa st respon se a nd ove r s i g htc o s t s a s we l la s futur e o v e r s i g htc o s t s i nc urr ed i n c o nj unc ti o n wi th th e EE/ CA pr oj ec t. The Pr emi um Respo nd e nt s , o n the o the r ha nd , we r e a l l e g e d t o be de m inim is con tributo rs to the con ta m in ation at T hird Si te. They were enti tl ed to se ttle o u t with a defi ned, o neti m e m onet ar y c ontr ibu tio n to the Trust consi ste nt with 42 U
. S. C
. § 9622(g). The Non- Pr emi um Re spo nde nt s m etthe i ro bl i g ations unde rthe 1 99 9 AO C a nd o btained EPA a ppr o va lo fthe fi na lEE/ CA r epo r t o n Oct ober2 4, 2 00 0. No c o py o fthe EPA no ti ce o fa ppr o va lwas i nc l ude d i n the re co r d, a nd w e o n ly kn ow ofi t thro ugh affi davi ts subm i tte d w i th the par ti es’ sum m ar y j ud gm ent b ri ef s. Bu t, i n any case , th e p a r t i e s d o n o td i s p u t e th a tth e 1 9 9 9 A O C w a s c o mpl i ed wi thful l y t o i ts com pl et i o n. In 2 00 1, s ubs eque nt to a ppr o vingthe wor kdo ne underthe 1 99 9 AO C, the EPA i ss ue d a n Enfo r ce m en t Acti o n Mem o r an dum sel ecting o ne o fthe re m ova lact i ons f orthe 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 r2 00 2, th e pa r ti es e nt er ed i nt o a s ec o nd AO C t o p e r f o r m th e wo r kc a l l e d f o rb y th e E n f o r c e m en t6 N os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523

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. 1 Ban ke rt , both i nd ividually and in hercapaci ty as pers onal repres entat ive ofthe es tat e ofJ onathan W
. Bank ert, Sr. ; J onathan 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. Act i o n M e mor a nd um. F o rthe most part, the 2 0 0 2 AOC t r a c k e d the f o r m o f the 1 9 9 9 AOC. I t i nc l ud e d s epara te pr o vi si o ns a ddr ess i ngthe r es po ns ibi l i ti es o fPr emi um an d Non- Pr emi um R es po nde nt s an d c o nt aine d the sam e r ese rv ati on o fr i ghts and condit i onalco venants not to sue. Fur ther m ore, the N on- Prem i um r espondents m ai ntai ned the s am e res p onsibi l i ti es vis- à-vis the Trust, w hi ch w as onc e a gain 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 unde r th e 2 00 2 AO C was 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 00 2 AO Cs an d the c o r r e s p o n d i n gT r u s tAg r e e me n t, th e T r u s t e e s a r e e mpo wer ed to ho l d a nd mana g e fun d s; t o r et ain e ng i ne er s an d o th er s to ca r r y o ut th e wor k to be per f o r m ed und er the A OC s; to proj ect future cos ts; to o btain additi onal funds a s ne ede d fr o m the sett l o r s ( i
. e. , the Non- Pr emi um Resp ond en ts ) ; a nd, s ubj ec t to pr i o ra ppr o va l, t o b r i ng sui t a gainst those wh o do not m eettheir obl i gat i ons to th e Tr us t. The Ba nk er t appe l l ee s w ere lis te d a s N o n- 1 Prem i um Respondents un d er the 1999 and 200 2 AO Cs, butha ve no t m etthe i ro bl i gatio ns b y pa y i ngi nt o the Trust oro ther w i se. On A pri l1, 20 08, the Truste es fi l ed a Com pla i nt ag ai nst th e B an kerts an d their various insu re r s in th e South ernN os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 7

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 2 a “C o u n t V I.” Di s t r i c to fInd i a na wi th si x cou nt s : Co un tI, a CE RC LA cost reco very act ion pu rsu an t to 42 U
. S. C
. § 96 0 7 (a); C ou nt I I, se eking a decl ar ato ryj ud gm ent under CE RC LA o fthe defe nd ants’ j oi nt and sever all i abi l i ty; Count I I I, a cos t r eco ver y a cti on under the EL A , co difi ed atI
. C. § 13- 30

- 9- 2; Co untI V, ne g l i g en ce ; Co untV, nu isa n ce; and Count VI I, se eking a decl ar ato ryj ud g- 2 m ent o fco ver age ag ai nst the i nsurer s. On M ay 30, 20 08, o ne o fthe B an ker ts’ f or m eri nsurer s, Auto Ow ne r s M utua lIns ur an ce Co m pan y ( “Aut o Owner s”) , m ove d to dism i ss the Tr ustee s’ Com pla i nt ag ai nst i t pu rs uant to Feder al Rules of Civi l Pro cedure 12 ( b) ( 6) and 12( d). The co ver age prov i si ons ofA uto Ow ners ’ p olic ies w ith th e B an ke rt s w er e p re vio u sly litiga te d in connect i on with c l eanup eff or ts at the Envi ro - Ch em S i te inth e 1 98 0s , an d A u to O w n er s a rg u e d t h at th e fa vo ra b le j udg m en t i t o bt ai ne d i n tha t 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 Sep tem be r1 7, 2 00 8, the dist ri ct c ourtco nver ted the por ti on o fA uto Ow ners ’ m otion claim ing p reclusion to a m otion for su m m ary j ud gm en t and perm itt ed the p arties to cond uc t d iscovery and subm i t a dd i ti onalbr i efi ng. On M arc h 1 6, 2010 , th e di st r i ctc o ur t en te r ed ano r derde ny i ngthe mot i o n. O n S e p t e m b e r 2 2 , 2 0 0 9 , th e B a n k e r t s m o v e d f o rs u mm a r y j u d g me n t o n s t a t u t e o f l i mi t a t i o n s g r o u n d s. The T r u s t e e s r e s p o n d e d , a n d th e B a n k e r t s r e p l i e d
. O n D e c e mber10 , 20 09, the T ru st ees m ove d to str i ke a por ti on o f8 N os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 th at rep ly or , in th e a lte rn at ive , for p er m iss ion to file supp l em ental bri efi ng. The dist ri ct cour t hear d oral ar gum en t o n Aug us t 3, 2 01 0. On S ept embe r2 9, 2 01 0 th e di st r i ctc o ur t den i ed th e Tr ustees’ m o ti o n t o s tr i k e an d g r a nt e d s ummar y j ud g men ti n the Ba nk e r t s ’ f a v o r . Fi rs t, th e di st r i ctc o ur t f o und tha t th e Tr us te es c o ul d no t br i ng a C E R C L A cost recove ry clai m un d e r 42 U
. S. C
. § 9607(a), w hi ch i s w h at C ou nt Io fthe Com pla i nt purpor ted to do. Instea d, the d ist ri ct c ourtco nstr ued the Trust ees ’ CE RC L A cl ai m as o ne f orco ntributi on pursuant to 42 U
. S. C. § 9 613( f )
. N ext, the dist rict c ou rt f ound that the s tatute ofl i m i tat i ons appli cabl e t o t hatkind o f CERCLA c l ai m ha d r un. Thi s, i n tur n, i nv al i dat ed th e d ec lar at or y jud gm en t r e q u es t c on ta in ed in C ou n t II. Fi nal l y, the d i str i ct c ourtf ound that the st atute o fl i m i tati ons had run w i th r espectto ea ch ofthe T rustees ’ st ate law clai m s against th e B an kerts. C ou nt s I throu gh V w ere di s mi s s e d. N ext, the dist ri ct c ourtas ked the part ies to r epor t o n the s tatus ofCount VI I, wh i ch so ught a decl ar ato ryj ud gm ent o fco ve ra ge agai nst Au to Ow ners and the othe r i nsurer s. A l lpart i es conceded that it w as m oo t; i nsurance cove ra ge w as a no n-i ssue w i thout a co ntro ver sy ove r th e unde r l y i ngl i ab i l i ty
. On Oct o be r1 3, 2 01 0, the Truste es m ov ed t h e co urt to re consi der the gr ant o f su m m ar y j udg m en t wi thr es pec t to the ELA cl ai m a nd to cer ti fy the questi on t o the Ind i an a Sup re m e Cour t. On F ebr uary 3, 2011 , the dist ri ct cour t d en ied that m o tion and e nt er ed fi na lj udg m en t i n f av o ro fthe de fen dan ts , di smi ss i ngCo untVI I a s m oo t co ns i st en t wi ththe parti es’ posi ti ons. The Trust ees filed a ti m el y no ti ce o fN os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 9

a pp e a lo n M a r c h 3 , 2 0 1 1 , a nd Aut o Own e r s c r o s s - a pp e a l e d. W e ta k e up e ac h a ppea li n tur n.

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 dec lar ato ryj ud gm en t cl ai m a g ains t Auto Owner s. The y a l so a ppea lthe dist ri ct c ou rt ’s deni alo fthei r m oti on t o str i ke a por ti on ofthe Bankert s’ sum m ar y j ud gm ent r epl y. They hav e no t appeal ed the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s di sm i ssa lo ft h ei r sta te l aw ne glig en ce a nd nui sance cl ai m s, and as a r esul t those cl ai m s a re l ost
. W e fi nd thatth e T rustees have , i n f act, ple d a ti m el y CER CL A co st re cove rycl ai m , al though the s c op e ofthei r re cove rywil lbe l i m i ted. A s a r esul t, Cou nt s Ia nd I Imustb e rein st at ed. Co untI I I, c l ai m i ng c on tr ibu tio n u n d er th e In d i a n a E L A , i s t im ely as w ell. Re i ns ta tingtho se c l ai m s m eans th er e i s a l i ve c o ntr o ve r s y o v e rl i ab i l i t y, a n d s o we mu s tr e v e r s e t he 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 W e be gi n w i th the Truste es’ CE RC LA cl ai m s. In Count I o fth e i rC o mp l a i n t, th e T r u s t e e s s o u g h tt o r e c o v e rfu nd s w hi ch the Bankert s al l ege dly owed to the Thi rd S i te Trust pu rs uant to obl i gat i ons cre ate d by the 19 99 and 2002 A O C s. T h e T ru st ee s c h ar ac te riz ed C ou n t I as a c laim f o rc o str ec o ve r y unde r4 2 U. S
. C. § 9 60 7( a) , b utthe d ist ric t c ou rth eld th at a § 9 60 7(a ) cla im w as u n av aila b le to the Tr us te es ; tha t th ei rc l ai m mustthe r efo r e be o ne10 N os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 f o rc o nt r ibut i o n un der§ 9 61 3( f ) ; a nd tha t th e l i m i ta ti o ns per i o d fo ra co nt r ibut i o n cl ai m ha d r un. Co untI I, s ee k i ng a decl ar ato ry j ud gm ent of l i abi l i ty, i s e sse nti al l y a deri vati ve cl ai m ; o nce the di str i ct c ourt c oncluded that Count I w as n ottim ely , 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 lim i t a tio n s d e n ov o. Step ney v. Nape r vi l l eSch. D i s t
. 20 3 , 3 9 2 F .3 d 236, 239 (7th Cir. 2 0 0 4 )
. T o th e e x t e n t we a r e c a l l e d u p o n t o r e v i e w the d istri ct cou rt’s int erp retation oft h e statu te, th e stan d ard of re vie w is like w ise d e n ov o. Stori e v. R an dy’s A uto Sal e s LL C, 589 F.3d 873 , 876 (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 su m m ary j udg m en t no n- m ovan t wi thr es pec t to the r e s o l ut i o n o ff a c t ua li s s ue s , b utn o t e tha tthi s di spute i s a l m ostenti re l y a l ega lo ne, with the u n derl yi ng f acts und i sputed: the Bankert s a rg u e that the Trust ees have ad va n c ed on e t yp e o f C E R C L A cla i m , a n d th at it is ba r r ed by the s ta tu te o fl i m i ta ti o ns ; the Tr us te es a r g ue that they have advanced ano therty pe ofcl ai m , and that i t i s no t. They a re bo th parti 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 spe ct t o Count I
. That, i n turn, i s e nough to r evi ve Cou ntI I
. F i na l l y, we fi nd no abus e of d iscr et i o n in the dist ric t cour t’ s deni alo 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 te d the Co m pr eh en si ve Envi ronm entalResponse , Com p en sat i on, and Liabi l i ty A ct, 42N os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 11 U. S
. C. § § 96 01

- 96 75 , i n r es po ns e to the s er i o us e nv i r o nm en ta la nd he al thr i sk s po se d b y i ndus tr i alpol l ut i o n. B urlin gto n N . a n d S a n t a Fe R y. C o . v. U nited Sta tes , 55 6 U
. S. 59 9, 60 2 ( 2009 ) ( ci ti ng U ni t ed Sta t e s v. Be s t f oods , 52 4 U. S
. 5 1 , 5 5 ( 1 9 9 8 ) )
. To pu t i t mi l dl y, CER CLA i s no t kn ow n for its c lar ity , or for its br ev ity
. Exxon Corp. v. H unt, 475 U. S
. 3 55, 3 63 ( 19 86 ) ( no tingCERCLA pro vi si o ns ar e “n o t
. . . mode l [ s] o fl eg i sl ati ve dr afts m an sh i p, ” an d i ts sta tu tory l anguage i s “ at besti nart ful and at wors t r e du nd a nt ” )
. Bu ti t s p ur po s e , a tl e a s t, i s s t r a i g ht f o r wa r d: the a ct was desi gned to pro m ote the ti m el y c l ean u p o f hazar dous w ast e si tes and to ensur e that the co sts o f su c h cle an u p effo r t s w er e b or n e b y t h os e re sp on sib le for th e c on ta m in at ion
. B u r l i n g t o n N. , 5 56 U. S
. a t 60 2 ( ci ting C onsol. Ed is on C o. of N
. Y
. v. U G I U ti l. , Inc. , 4 2 3 F. 3d 90, 94 (2d C ir. 20 05 )); Key Tron i c C o rp. v. U nited Sta tes , 51 1 U. S
. 8 0 9 , 8 1 9 n . 1 3 ( 1 9 9 4 ) ( “ C E R C L A i s d e s i g n e d to e nc ou ra ge p riv at e p ar tie s t o a ss u m e t h e fin an c ial re sp on sibil ity ofcleanu p by all ow ing the m to seek recovery f r o m o th e r s . ” )
. R e l e v a n tt o th i s c a s e , t wo C E R C LA se ct i o ns

— 42 U
. S. C
. §§ 9607(a) and 96 1 3 (f )

— aff or d ri ghts ofact i on t o p riv ate part i es see ki ng to r eco verexpenses as so ci at ed wi thc l ean ing up c o nt ami na te d s i te s. Act i o ns unde r§ 9 60 7( a) a nd § 9 61 3( f ) a r e g o verned b y di ffer en t statutes ofl i m i tat i on, and w e m ust deci de und erwh i ch sect ion the Tru stees ’ C E R L C A clai m f all s before de termi ningwh e the ri ti s t i me-b a r r e d. Se c t i o n 9 6 0 7 ( a ) , the fi r s to fthe t wo s e c t i o ns i n qu e stio n, i s t h e “ c os t re c ov er y” p ro vis ion of C E R C L A . I t id en tifie s f ou r c at eg or ies of p ot en tia lly re sp on sib le p ar ties r el ati ve to any instance o fco ntam i nati on ba sed12 N os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523

The te rm s “re m ovalact i on” and “r em edi al ac t i on” r epr es en t 3 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 r em ovalofr el ea s ed h az ar dous s u b s t anc es fro m the envi ro nm en t, s uc h ac t i ons as m ay be ne c es s ar y t ake n in the event ofthe thr eat ofrel eas e o f hazardou s subst ances into 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 to m oni t or, as s es s , an d eva l uate the r el ea s e or thr ea tof rel eas e ofhazardou s subst ances , the disposal ofrem oved m a t e r i a l , o r the tak i ngo fs uc h othe r a c t i on s a s m a y be ne c es s ar y t o pre ven t, m i ni m i ze , or m i t i gat e dam age t o the p u b lic health or w el f are or to the environm ent, w hich m ay otherwise res ult f rom a re le ase or threatofrel eas e. * * * ( 24 ) The t er m s “r em edy” or “r em edi al a ction” m ea ns thos e ac tio n s consi st ent w ith perm anent r em edy taken i n s t e a d o f o r i n a dd i t i o n t o r e mov a l a c t i o n s i n th e eve nt of a rel eas e or thre atene d rele ase ofa hazar d o u s substanc e into the en v iron m en t, to p rev en t or m inim ize th e relea se of ha za rdou s s ubs t anc es s o that the y do not m i gr at e to cau se sub stan tial d an g er to p r e sent o r futu re p u b 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 ta k en to c ou 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 ore p erm anent r es pon se s. ’ ” M or riso n E nte rs . , LLC v. (co n tin u ed ...) 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 tly l i ab l e f o r“ a l lc o s t s o fr e mov a lo rr e med i a la c ti on 3N os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 13

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 3 D ra vo Corp. , 63 8 F. 3d 594 , 608 ( 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. , 155 F. 3d 1019, 1024 ( 8th Cir
. 1 9 9 8 )). “The na t i ona l c ont i nge nc y pl an s pec i fi es pr oc edur es f or 4 p rep arin g an d resp on d ing to con tam ina tion s an d w as p ro m u lgated by the Env ir onm ental Protec ti on A gency[
. ] ” U n i te d Sta t es v. A t l
. R es ea rc h C orp. , 55 1 U. S. 12 8, 135 n. 3 (20 07 ) ( c i t i ng C oope r Indus. , Inc. v. A vi al l Ser vs. , Inc. , 54 3 U .S. 1 5 7, 16 1 n . 2 (2 0 0 4 )); se e al so 40 C. F. R
. §§ 300. 1 etseq . i ncurr ed by the Unite d Sta tes Governm ent o r a S tat e o r an I ndi an tr ibe no t i nc o ns i st en t wi th th e na ti o na l con ting en cypl an [, ]” § 9 60 7( a) ( 4) ( A), a s wel la s f o r“ an y 4 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 pers on consi ste nt with the nat i onalco nti ngency pla n .” § 9607( a) ( 4) ( B). The phras e “ any o therper son, ” a s used i n § 9 607( a) ( 4) ( B), h as been r ead l i ter al l y t o m ean anyp e r s o n o the rtha n the Uni t e d S t a t e s , a S t a t e , o ran I nd i an tr ibe

— i n o th erwor ds, a ny p erson o th ertha n the en tit ies lis t e d in s u b p ar t (A ). SeeU nite d States v. A tl
. Res e ar ch Corp. , 55 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 r i ghts as an i nnocent p arty to sue a notherPRP f orcl eanup cost s incurr ed i n a r em ova l or rem ed ial a c tio n . Id
. In su ch case s , t h e d efend an t’s liabil i ty

— al though s tr i ct

— n ee d n otbe j oin t a n d se ve ra l. See B u r l i n g t o n N. , 5 56 U. S. a t 6 13

- 14
. Judi ci ala ppo r ti o nm ent i s pr o pers o l o nga s th e defen dan t ca n de m o nst r at e th atthe r e i s a r ea so nabl e ba si s f o rde te r m i ni ng th e c on tr ibu tio n o fe a c h ca u se to a sin gle h ar m . Id
.14 N os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 ( ci tingU ni t e d S t at e s v. Che m - D yneCorp. , 57 2 F
. Supp. 80 2, 810 ( S. D. Ohio 1983 ) ; Rest ate m ent ( Se cond) ofTor ts § 433A (1)(b), p. 434 (1963-1964)). S ec ti o n 9 61 3( f ) , o n the o th erha nd, i s t he “ co nt r ibuti o n ” p r o v i s i o n o fC E R C L A. Ad d e d t o th e s t a t u t e b y the Su p er fu n d A m en d m en ts a n d R ea u th or iza ti on Act o f1 98 6 ( “S ARA ”) , i t creat es t wo di st i nc 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 n y per son m ay see k c ontr ibuti on fro m any othe r perso n w ho i s l i abl e or potenti al l y l i abl e under sect i on 96 07 (a) o f th is t itle , dur i ng orf ol l owin g any civi l ac t i on und e rs e ct i on 9606 of

thi s t i t l eorun de r section 9607 ( a) of this ti tl e . ( emphas i s a dded)
. In C oop er Indus. , Inc. v. A viall Servs. , Inc. , 54 3 U. S
. 1 57( 20 04 ) , the S upr eme Co ur t h eld thatthe 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 ofthi s s entence i s that the co ntributi on m ay only be s ought subj ect to the speci fi ed condi ti ons[
. ] ” Id
. at1 66 ( emphas i s adde d)
. To r ea d the clause mor e ex p an sively w ou ld rend 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
. ( ci ting H i bbs v . Wi nn , 542 U
. S. 88, 101 (2004 ))
. In sh ort, “[t]here is n o re as on w h y c on gr es s w ou ld b ot h er t o s p ec ify c on d iti ons und erwh i ch a person m ay bring a contr ibuti on cl ai m , a nd a t the s am e ti m e al l o w co nt r ibut i o n a ct i o ns abse nt tho se condi ti ons. ” Id
. A fter C o o per, a contr ibuti on a ction u nd er 42 U
. S. C
. § 9613(f) (1) m ust b e pr e - dat ed by th e fi ling of a civilaction p urs ua nt to § 9606 or § 9607(a).N os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 15

O ne could reas onab ly concl ud e, based s olel y on the physi cal 5 str u ct u re of § 9613( f ) , that § 9613( f ) ( 3) ( B) do es not cre ate a d istinct, s eco nd cau se of actio n f or con trib u tion , instea d sim p ly m odi fyi ng o r fur the r des c ribing the c ondi t i ons unde r whic h a § 9 61 3( f ) ( 1) c ont ribut i on actio n m i ghtbe ava i l abl e. Butthe S u p re m e C o u rt h a s fo re cl o s e d t h a t r ea d in g . S ee Co oper, 543 U. S. at16 3 ( “S AR A al s o c re at ed a s epa ra t e ex pre s s r i g ht o f co n tr ib u tio n, § 1 1 3 (f)(3)(B ) .
. . .”). Par agr aph ( 2) i s CERC LA’ s “c ont rib u t i on bar ” pr ovi s i on, 6 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). The seco nd co ntributi on righ t ofact i on i s co difi ed at 42 U
. S. C
. § 9613(f) (3)( B ): 5 A per so n w ho ha s resolv ed its lia bility to th e U nited Sta tes ora St at ef

ors om eoral l of

a r e s pons e ac t i on or f

or s om eor all of the c osts of s uch acti on in an adm in is trativeor judicially approved se tt le m ent m ay see k c ontr ibution fr om any per son w ho i s no t par ty to a s et tlem ent r efer re d to in pa ragrap h (2). 6 ( em phasi s a dd ed). A s the S up re m e C ourtd i d w i th r espect to § 96 13 (f)(1 ), sup ra , we re ad the i tal i ci zed p h ra se as a lim itin g p ro vis ion : a § 96 13 (f)(3 )(B ) co n tr ibu tio n c laim is onlyav aila b le to a p er so n w h o h as “re so lve d its liab ility
. . .16 N os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 inan ad m in ist ra tiv e o r j u d icia lly a p p r ov ed se tt lem en t.” Se e a l s o Cons ol
. Edi s on Co. , 42 3 F
. 3d at 95 ( hol ding that the r eso l uti on o fC E RC LA l i abi l i ty i s a pre re quis i te to a § 9 613( f ) ( 3) ( B) c ontr ibuti on a ction ). To r ead the sect i on as aff or d in g th e s am e r em edy to o ne wh o has not re so lve d h i s liab ility w ou ld be n on se n sic al, an d it w ou ld r e n d e rth e l i mi t i n gl a n g u a g e s u p e r fl u o u s . T h e S u p r e me Court has l ong i nsi ste d that re su l t s houl d be a voi ded w h er ev er p os sib le. See C o o per, 54 3 U .S . a t 16 6; U nited State s v. N ordic Vill age, Inc. , 50 3 U.S
. 30 , 35

- 36 ( 1992 ) (re fer en c in g t h e “ se tt led ru le th at a st at u te m u st, i f p os sibl e, be const rued in su c h f ashi on that e ver y word has so m e o p er at ive effe c t” ); Lou i svil l e& Nas hvi l l eR. R. Co. v. M o ttley, 219 U
. S. 467, 475 (1911 ) (“W e m us t hav e regard to all th e w or d s u se d by C on gr es s, an d a s fa r as p os sib le give effect to th em . ”). Furtherm or e, th e phra se “r eso l ved i ts l i abi l i ty
. . . i n an ad m in ist ra ti v e . . . set tle m en t,” u se d as a tr igg er in § 96 13 ( f ) ( 3) ( B) , ha s a spe ci fi c m ea ni ngwi th i n the CE RC LA fra m ew or k. A ny ti m e the U ni ted S ta te s s ett l es w ith a PR P un d er CE R C L A , i t d oes so throu gh the au th ori tyc o nfer r ed by4 2 U. S
. C. § 9 62 2. The effecto fa ny su c h se t t l e m en t o n th e s et tlin g p ar tie s’ lia b ility is govern ed by § 9622(c)(1): W henevert h e P re si dent has enter ed i nto an ag re em ent und er thi s sect i on, the l i abi l i ty to th e U ni ted St at es under thi s chapte r ofea ch party t o the a gr eem ent, i ncl ud i ng anyfuture l i abi l i ty to th e Un i ted St ate s, ar i si ng fro m the re l ea se orthr eat ened r el eas e that i s the subj ect ofthe agr eem ent s hal lbe l i m i ted as pr o vi ded i n the a g r ee m en t pur su an t to a cove na ntN os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 17 not to sue in acco rdance w i th subs ec tion ( f ) o f th i s se ct i o n. The “subse cti on ( f ) ” t o w hi c h the quotat i on r efer s pro vi des: ( 1) Disc re ti onar y c ove nants The Pr es i den t m ay, in hi s di sc r et i o n, pr o vi de an y per so n wi tha c o ve na ntno t to s ue c o nc erni ngany l i ab i l i tyt o the Uni te d S ta te s unde rth is cha pte r, i nc luding future l i abi l i ty, r esul ti ng fro m a re l eas e o rthr e a t e ne d r e l e a s e o fa h azar do us s ub s t a nc e a ddress ed by a r em edi alact i on, wh etherthatac tio n i s o ns i te o ro ff si te , i fe ac h o fthe f o l l o wi ngc o ndi ti o ns is m et : (A ) T he coven an t not to su e is in the p u b lic i nt eres t. ( B) Th e cove nant notto sue w oul d exped i te re spo ns e ac ti o n co ns i st en t wi th th e N at i o na lCo nt i nge n c y P lan u n d er se c tio n 96 05 of th is t itle
. ( C) The pe r so n i s i n ful lc om p li an ce wi tha c on s e n t d ec re e u n d er se c tio n 96 06 of th is t itle ( i ncl ud i ng a conse nt decr ee enter ed i nto i n acco r dan ce wi ththi s se ct i o n) forr es po ns e to the re lea se or th re at en ed rele as e c on c er n ed
. ( D) The r esponse act i on has bee n approve d by the Pr esi dent. * * * ( 3 ) R e qu i r e men ttha tr e med i a la c t i o n b e c o mpl e t e d A co ve na ntno t to s ue c o nc erni ngfutur e l i ab i l i tyt o the U nited S ta te s sh al lno t ta k e effec t unt i lthe Pr es i den t18 N os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523

cer ti fies thatr em edi alact i on has bee n com ple ted i n acco rdance w ith t he r equi re m ents ofthi s chapte r at the f aci l i ty that i s the subj ect ofsuch co venant. 42 U
. S. C
. § 9622(f)
. T h u s , r e a d i n gt he s t a t u t o r y s c h e me a s a wh o l e , a s we ar e b ou n d to d o, s e eKi ng v. St
. Vi nc e nt ’s Hos p. , 50 2 U.S
. 21 5, 22 1 ( 19 91 ) , we see tha t ana dm i ni st r at i ve s et tl ement between the U ni ted St ate s and PRP does not, an d ca n not, autom atical lyres olv e t h at P R P ’s lia b ility . I t d oe s s o on ly thro ugh the oper ati on of a subsect i on ( f ) cove na n t not to sue. A nd , u n d er the pla i n ter m s o fthe sta tute, a subsect i on ( f ) co venant not to sue ca nnot possibl y t ake effect, ther eby actual l y r el eas i ng the se ttl i ng PRP fro m l i abi l i ty, unti lthe PRP has sat i sf ac tori l y di schar ged i ts obl i gat i on u n der the ag re em ent a nd the Pres i dent has c er t i fied its co m p let ion
. See§ 9 62 2( f ) ( 1) , ( 3)
. The e nd re su lt is t h at a § 9 61 3(f) (3) (B ) co n tr ibu tio n ac tio n, pr ed ic at ed as it is on th e re so lu tio n of lia b i lity , i s n otav aila b le si m plybec ause a s ett l em ent has o ccurr ed. The tr i gge r is the r eso l uti on o fl i abi l i ty thro ugh thatse ttl em ent, w hi ch, pursuant to the s tatute, does noto ccur unti lsa ti sf a c t o r y p e r f o r man c e h a s b e e n c e r t i fi e d. In sum m ar y, ea ch CE RC LA r i ght o fact i on ca rr i es w i th i t i ts own st atuto rytr i gge r, and eac h i s a di stinct re m edy av ai l ab le to perso ns i n differ ent pr oce du ra l c irc u m s t an c es . SeeAtl. Rese arch , 5 51 U. S
. a t 13 9 ( ci ting C o ns ol
. Edi s on Co. , 423 F.3d at99 ); s e e a l s o Ni ag a r a M oh awk P ow erCo rp. v. Ch evron U SA , Inc. , 596 F.3d 112 , 122 (2d Cir. 2 0 1 0 )
. Whe r e a p e r s o n ha s b e e n s ubj e c t e d t o a c i v i la c t i on und er 4 2 U.S
. C. §§ 9606 o r 9607 ( a) , he m ay att em pt toN os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 19

re c ov er h is e x p en d itu re s t h ro u gh a c on tr ibu tio n su it und er42 U
. S. C. § 9 613( f ) ( 1)
. W here a perso n has re sol ved hi s l i abi l i ty to the Unite d Sta tes , o r to a s tat e, f or som e o r al lo fa re sponse acti on or f orso m e o r al lo f th e c os ts of su c h ac tio n in a n ad m in ist ra tiv e o r ju d i c ially ap p ro ve d se tt lem en t, h e m a y a tt em p t t o re c ov er h is e xp e nd i t ur e s i n a co ntr ib ut i o n s ui tp ur s ua ntt o 4 2 U. S
. C. § 9 6 1 3 ( f ) ( 3 ) ( B)
. I fn e i the ro ftho s e t r i g g e r s h a s o c c ur r e d, a pl ai nti ffdoes nothave a cl ai m f orco ntributi on und erCE RC LA
. That doe s no t m ean he has no r em edy, how ever. A ny tim e a pers on h as incu rred “nec essary co st s o fr es po ns e . . . c o ns i st en t with th e nat i o na lc o nt i ng e nc y p l a n[ , ] ” CE RC LA p r o v i de s f o r a § 9 6 0 7 ( a ) ( 4 ) ( B) co str ec o ve r y a ct i o n. The se a re the pl ain t er 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 tor y s ch eme t o the f ac ts t o de term ine whi chs o r t o fc l ai m , o rc l ai m s, the Truste es have advanced, and wh etheri t i s ba rr ed by th e appl i cabl e st atute o fl i m i ta ti o ns . In Co untIo fthe Com pla i nt, the Truste es s ee k to re cove r the c ost s they i ncurr ed pursuant t o the 1 999 and 2002 A OC s. In o rder to deter m i ne wh i ch kind o f C ER CL A cl ai m Count I sta tes , we m ust t ake a cl ose r l oo k a t the und i sputed do c umen t a r y e v i de nc e p r e s e nt e d, p a r t i c ul a r l y the AOC s them sel ves. In doi ng so , we fi nd t hat the Trust ees ha ve s ta te d a c o str ec o ve r y c l ai m unde r§ 9 607(a) , b ut onl y with re spect to cos ts i ncurr ed pursuant t o th e 2 002 AOC. A t thi s poin t, cos ts i ncurr ed pursuant t o the 1 99920 N os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523

An EE/ CA i s c l a s s ifie d as a “ r e m ov a l a c t i on ” by the EP A. 7 S ee40 C .F .R . § 3 0 0 .41 5 (b )(4)(i). A OC co uld o nl y b e r eco ver ed thr ough a co ntributi on 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 O C, the Non-Pr em i um Respondents took on signifi can t res p ons ibi li ties. Th ey agreed to un d ertake th e E E /C A stud y of rem oval a ltern atives for T hird 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, 7 and to set tl e a nd fu n d t h e Thi rd S i te Trust. They a l so 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 oversight cos ts , f o r any futu re o v e r s i g htc o s t s i nc ur r e d in conj un c t i o n wi th the EE / CA proj ec t, and fo r an am ount ce rt ai n to be expend ed by the Depart m ent o fthe I nter i or in a dd re ssing natural r es o ur ce da m ag es atThi 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 obl i gat i ons, and m ad e c lear that no r el eas e fro m CERCLA l i ab i l i tywoul d o ccur unt i ltho se o bl i g at i o ns w er e m et: Exce pt as e xpr es sly pro vi ded i n S ec ti o n XI I I( Cov en an t N ot to Sue), nothi ng i n thi s Orderco nsti tutes a sat i sf acti on o fo r re l eas e fro m any cl ai m o r cause ofact i on aga i nst th e Respond ents orany perso n not a par ty to thi s Order, f or a n y li abi l i ty such pers on m ay have u nd erCE RC LA , o therst atute s, o r the c om m on l aw, i n c l u d i n g b u t n o t l i mi t e d t o a n y c l a i ms o ft he U ni ted S tat es f orco sts , d am ages a nd i nter estunderN os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 21

B oth the ca se law an d the a d m in i st rativ e m ater ials 8 add res si ng C ER CL A frequentl y switc h back and f orth bet w een referri ng to s ec ti ons ofthe actby theirs ect ion num ber as en a cted and the irs ect ion num ber as codifie d. “Se ct ion 107( a)” 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 11 3( f) ” cor re s ponds t o § 96 13 ( f ) , e t c . Fore as e of re fer en c e, we refe r t o CERCL A s ec t i ons by the i r des i gna t i on w ith in th e U n ite d St a te s C o d e. S e ct i o ns 1 0 6 ( a ) o r1 0 7 ( a ) o fCE RC LA, 4 2 U. S
. C. §§ 960 6(a), 9607(a). 8 The cove n an ts n ot to sue re fer re d to i n the disc l ai m er ab ov e w er e e x p re ss ly c on d itio n ed on res p on d en ts ’ fu lfi 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 r der, upo n i ss ua nc e o fthe [ N o ti ce o fCo m pl et ion], U
. S. EPA co venants notto sue Respondents f or j ud i ci alim p os iti on o fdam age s o r ci vi lpenal ti es orto tak e a dm in i 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 ati o n a nd upo n Re spo nde nt s’ pa y m en t of[ the EPA ’ s r esponse co sts ] , U
. S EPA co ve n an ts not to su e o rt ake admi ni st r at i ve a ct i o n a g ains t Re spo nd en ts u n d er Sec tio n 10 7(a ) of C E R C L A [.] A nd, mo s te xp l i c i t l y, a s mo di fi e d b y the a t t a ched er ra ta sheet : These co vena nts a re co nd i ti oned upon the com ple te and sati sf acto ryper f or m ance b y Res pond en ts of th eir obligati ons un d er this O rd er.22 N os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 The se c o ndi ti o na lc o ve na nt s ar e co ns i st en t wi ththe sta tutory r equi re m ents f ora re l eas e o fCE RC LA l i ability th r o ug h s et tlem en t, i n tha t su cha r el ea se c anno t o cc ur un til a ny obli gations i m p osed by the settlem en t are c er tifie d co m p let e. See42 U
. S. C
. § 9622(f)
. For the N on-P rem ium R e s p ond en ts, th en, the E PA ’s co ve na nts no t to s ue

— and accom panyi ng r el eas e fro m CE RC LA l i abi l i ty

— w oul d take effect w he n t hey ha d se enthe EE/AC p roj ec t th r o ug h t o i ts c o m pl et i o n a nd provi ded the Trust w i th suffi ci ent fund s t o m eeti ts m o ne ta r y c o m m i tment s pur su an t to the AOC, an d no so o ne r . I t is undi spu te d tha t th e N o n- Pr emi um Re spo ndents di d m eettho se obl i gat i ons, as the EPA approv ed thei r perf or m ance ofthe 1999 A OC o n Octobe r 24, 20 00.

a. Th e Trustee s have a § 9613( 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 rm s o fthe sta tute and ofthe A OC i tse l f, wh en the Non-Pr em i um Respondents c om ple ted per f or m ance ofthei r obl i gat i ons und er t h e 1999 A OC and obt ai ned a no ti ce o fapprov al fro m the EPA , the condi ti onalco ven a n t s n o tt o s u e c o n t a i n ed t h e r e i n we n ti n t o e ffe c t
. At th atp o i nt, the Non- Pr emi um Re spo nde nt s, a nd b y e xte ns i o n the Tr us t, had “ reso l ve d [ th ei r ] l i ab i l i tyt o the U n ited Stat es . . . f orso m e o r al lo fa re sponse acti on o r f orso m e o r al lo fthe cos ts ofsuch a cti on” th ro u gh an ad m in is t r at ive se tt lem en t, th u s s at isfy in g t h e p re re q u is i t e s f o ra c o nt r ib ut i o n a c t i o n pu r s ua ntt o 4 2 U. S
. C. § 9 613( f ) ( 3) ( B). S peci fi cal l y, the Trust had res ol ved i ts l i ab i l i ty t o the Uni te d S ta te s wi thr es pec t to the e xe cuti on of the EE /CA and with re spect to th e re i m burse

-N os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 23

m ent of g ove rnm ent r esponse and ove rs i ght c ost s i ncurr e d p r i o rt o a nd i n c o nj un c t i o n wi th the EE / CA pr oj ec t. As a re su l t, the y wer e en ti tl ed to r ec o ve rthe cos ts they i ncurr ed i n acco m plis h in g those ta sks thr ough a co nt r ibut i o n a ct i o n. Of c ours e, the Truste es al so in c u rr ed neces sar y c ost s ofr esponse co n sis tent w i th the nati onalco nti ngency p lan. T h e y d id not sim p ly reim bu rse the EP A f or a re m ova lact i on ithad al re ady per f or m ed; theyfund ed and executed t h e r em ova lact i on them sel ves. In that sense , the tr i gge r f or a § 9607 ( a) cos t re cove ryac tion was a l so met. Thi s br i ng s us t o o ne of the que st i o ns ra i sed i n the bri ef s: ar e there a n y c irc um sta nces und er w hi ch a pla i nti ffm ay brin g b oth a co st re cove ry anda con tribution clai m un d er CE R C L A ? T he S u p r em e C ou rt l eft th atpo ss ibi l i tyo peni n A tl antic R es earch : W e do not sugge st that §§ 107( a) ( 4) ( B) and 1 13( f ) have n o o ve rla p atall. Key Tron ic C o rp. v. U nited Sta tes , 511 U
. S. 80 9, 81 6, 11 4 S .C t. 1960, 12 8 L. Ed
. 2d 797 ( 19 94 ) ( st at i ngth e sta tu te s pr o vi de “s i m i l ara nd som ew hat o ver l app in g r em ed[i es] ”)
. Fo r i nstance , we r ec o g ni ze tha t a PRP may su st ain e xpe ns es pur su ant t o a co nsen t d ec re e fo l l owing a s uitunder § 106 or § 10 7(a ). Se e, e . g. , U ni t e d Te ch nol ogi es C orp. v. B rown ing-Fe rr is Industr ie s, Inc. , 33 F. 3d 96, 97 (1st C ir. 1994 )
. In s u c h a case, the PRP does noti ncur co sts vol untari l y b ut does n ot re i m burse the cos ts of a n o th e rp a r t y . We d o n o td e c i d e w h e th e rth e s e c o mp ell ed costs of respon se are recove rable un d er § 113(f) , § 10 7( a) , o rb o th
. 551 U
. S. at13 9 n. 6.24 N os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 M ost circu its, after At l an t i cRe s e ar ch , h ave not al l owed a pl aint 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. , 67 2 F.3d 12 30 , 12 36 -37 (11 th C i r . 2 0 1 2); M or r i s on E nte rs . , LL C v. D r avo Corp
. , 6 38 F
. 3d 59 4, 6 03 ( 8th Ci r. 20 11 ); Lyon de l l Ch e m . Co. v. O cc i de nt al Che m . Corp. , 60 8 F
. 3d 28 4, 2 91 n. 1 9 ( 5th Ci r . 2 01 0) ( ac k no w ledg i ng, a nd not dist u rbi ng, di str i ct c ourt ’ s i m pli ci t deci si on that p lain tiff c ou ld n otp u rs u e b ot h rem ed ies ); A gere Sys. , Inc. v. Advan ce d E nvt l
. Te ch
. Corp. , 602 F.3d 204 , 229 (3d Cir. 20 10 ); N iagara M oha w k P ow erCo rp. v. Ch evron U
. S.A., Inc. , 596 F. 3d 112, 12 8 ( 2d Cir
. 201 0); ITTIndu s . , Inc . v. B orgWarner, Inc. , 506 F.3d 452 , 4 5 8 ( 6th Cir. 2007). Tw o j usti fi cati ons ar e usual l y gi ven f or re achi n g t h at concl usi on. Fi rs t, co urts have not ed that, despi te i ts p as sin g a c kn ow led gm en t o f a p os sib l e o ve rla p in A tl antic R es earch , t h e S u p re m e C ou rth as rep ea te d ly e mpha s i z e d the p r o c e du r a l“ di s t i nc tne s s ” o fthe CE RC LA rig h ts of ac tio n . Se e, e . g. , 551 U .S. at 1 38 ; Niaga r a M oh awk, 59 6 F .3 d a t 1 2 8; IT TInd us. , Inc . , 5 0 6 F
. 3 d a t4 5 8
. S e c o nd , so m e co ur ts ha ve c o nc l ude d tha t per m i ttinga pa r tywho ha s al r ea dy r es o l ve d hi s o wn l i ab i l i tythr o ug h a s et tl ement to pu rs ue a § 9607 ( a) ( 4) ( B) acti on w oul d a llow h im to explo it C ER CL A ’ s “ contr ibuti on ba r” pro vi si on t o sh ift fu ll lia b i l i t y o n to th e t ar ge t o f h is s u it, a re su lt a n tith et ica l to t h e p u rp os e o f th e s ta tu te
. See, e . g., Soluti a , 67 2 F .3d at12 37 ; A gere Sys. , Inc. , 60 2 F
. 3d at 228- 29. The “co n tributi on ba r” ar gum ent, al though c om 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 § 9 60 7( a) c o str ec o ve r y s ui t im p oses j o i nt and sever all i abi l i ty on i ts tar get, wh er eas a contr ibuti onN os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 25 defen dan t o nl y f ac es e qui tabl e appo r ti o nm en t. At the s a me t i me, pu r s ua nt t o § 9 6 1 3 ( f ) ( 2 ) , a pa r t y who has “r es olv ed its liab ilit y t o th e U n ite d Sta te s o r a St at e in anadm i ni 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 add re sse d in the set tl em ent. ” Se ver al c ou rt 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 li ty th r o ug h s et tl ement

— and w ho thus m eet s th e pr er equi si te s f o ra § 9 61 3( 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 under § 96 13( f ) ( 2)

— t o p u r su e a co st re cove ryact i on instea d w oul d al l ow thatparty 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 fear of a counter cl ai m , due to the oper ati on of § 96 13 (f)(2 ). S ee, e .g . , Soluti a , 672 F.3d at12 37 ; A gere Sys. , Inc. , 6 0 2 F
. 3 d a t2 2 8

- 2 9
. T h e o r e t i c a l l y, o n e P RP c o ul d s hi ftful ll i abi l i t y o nt o a no the rP RP a nd e s c a pe al ll i abi l ity h im sel f
. Giv en thatCE RC LA i s intended to dist ribute the co sts o fenv ironm entalco rr ecti on am ong all of t hose wh o bearr esponsibi l i ty f oran in st an c e o f co n ta m in at ion, s e eB u r l i n g t o n N. , 5 5 6 U
. S. at 602, such g am esm anshi p seem s inapp ro pri ate
. The probl em , o fco urse , i s that § 96 07( a) does n ot have to i m po se j o i nta nd s ev er all i ab i l i ty
. Ins te ad, ap p o r ti o nm ent i s pro per w here ther e i s a r ea so n able basi s for d et er m in in g th e con tr ibu tio n of eac h c au se to a s i n gle h ar m . Bu r l i n g t o n N. , 55 6 U.S
. at61 4. S how i ng a re aso nabl e ba si s forapport i onm ent i s arg u abl y easierf or a d efenda nttha n mee tingthe pr epo nde r an ce o fthe evi de n c e stand ar d that woul d app l y t o a co ntributi on cou nt erclaim
. A s a result, cou nt erclaim or no co u n terc laim , th er e is little to n o d an ge r th at a d e f e n d an t c ou ld26 N os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 be g am ed i nto shoul deri ng ful ll i abi l i ty, o r m or e than hi s f ai r shar e, bya pla i nti ffwith a § 96 07 (a) act i on. A fter B urlin gto n No r thern , th e “ c on tr ibu tio n ba r” arg u m en t is not persuas i ve. T h e othe r j usti fi cati on usual l y offer ed f or l i m i ti ng a pla i nti ff to one f or m of CE RC LA ac tio n

— the pr oce du ra l dist i nctness o fthe re m edi es

— is m or e co m pel l i ng . As the S ec o nd Circui t ha s o bs er ve d, “ [ t] o a l l o w [ a qua l i fy i ng c ontr ibuti on pl ai nti ff ] to pro ceed under § 96 07( a) would i n effect null i fy the SA R A a m endm ent a nd abr oga te the r equi re m ents Congre ss pla ced on c ontribu ti on cl ai m s under § 9 613. ” Niaga r a M oh awk, 596 F .3d at12 8.

“ ‘ W hen Congre ss acts to am end a statute, [ cour ts] presum e i t intends i ts am end m en t t o have re aland 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 w ith the s en ti 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 gr es s in te n tio n ally amende d CERCLA t o i nc l ude e xpr es s r i g ht s to c ontr ibut i o n, s u bj e c tt o c e r t a i n p r e r e q u 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 empl at ed bythe S ARA amendment s, the n the a m end m en ts wer e j us t so many superfl uous words. The cano ns o fst atuto ryco nstr uction counselag ai nst a ny i nter preta ti on that l eads t o th at res u lt. SeeH ibb s , 54 2 U.S
. at10 1. I n sh ort, with r espectto the 1999 A OC , the Truste es ha ve a c o nt r ibut ion a ct i o n un der§ 9 61 3( f ) ( 3) ( B)
. And alt hough, gi vi ng the words thei r pla i n m eani ng, they have al so i n c u rred “nec ess ar y c ost s o fr esponse , ” see § 960 7 (a )( 4)(B), as i s requ ired to su stain a cos t recovery ac ti o n, we ag r ee wi tho urs i ster ci r cui ts tha t a pl ain-N os. 11

- 1501 & 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 9 c a n als o be m a de tha tthe 1 9 9 9 AOC 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 Non- Pr em i um (co n tin u ed ...) ti ffi s l i m i te d t o a c o nt r ibut i o n re m edywheno ne i s a v 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 er t 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 i ons f orC E R CL A co ntributi on action s can be foun d at 42 U
. S. C
. § 9613(g)(3) : N o acti on f orco ntributi on f oran y re sp onse co sts o r dam age s m ay be c om m enced m or e than 3 y ear s a fter

— (A ) th e d at e o f j u d gm en t in an y a c tio n u n d er th is ch ap ter for recove ry of su ch costs or d am ages, or ( B) the da t e o fa n a dmi ni s t r a t i v e o r der und erse cti on 96 22( g) o fthi s t i tl e ( re l ating to d e m inim is se tt lem en ts ) or 9 62 2(h ) of th is t itle ( re l ating to co st re cove ryse ttl em ents) o r en try o fa j udi ci al l y a ppr o ve d s et tl em ent w i th r espectto such co sts o r dam age s. The Bankert s ar gue that becaus e t h e de m inim is parti es, al so kno wn as th e Pr emi um Re spo nde nt s, s et tl ed o ut pu rs uant to § 9622(g), the thre e- yea r l i m i tat i ons peri od be g an t o r un o n the da te the AOC w as e xe cut ed. The 928 N os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 9 R esp o n dents agre ed to re im bu rs e re sponse cos ts i ncurred by the federal gov ernm ent pu rs uant to that s ect ion. That w ould p rovide an ad diti onal basis f or s tar ti ng the three- year c l oc k onthe da y the AOC wa s e x e c ut e d. Truste es ar gue in re spon se that i t ce rt ai nl y di d w i th re spect to any c l ai m s that the de m inim is par ti es might advance, but th at n one ofthe § 9 613( g) ( 3) tr i gge rs have occur re d w i th r espectto thei r ow n cl ai m s. The Trust ees argu e tha t the ir claim s fal l w ithin a “gap ” in the sta tu tory co ve r ag e, an d th at th e g ap sh o ul d be fi l l ed with the l i mi t a t i o ns p e r i o d a pp l i c ab l e t o a c t i o ns u nd e rU. S
. C. § 9 607( a)
. A n “i ni ti alact i on f orthe re covery o f co sts ” un de r§ 9 6 0 7 ( a ) mus tb e fi l e d: ( A ) f ora re m ova lact i on, withi n 3 y ear s a fterco m p leti o n o f the r e mov a l a c t i o n, e xc e pt tha t s uc h c o s t r ecove ry action m us t b e brou gh t w ithin 6 years aft e ra de t e r mi na t i o n t o g r a nta wa i v e ru nd e rse ctio n 960 4( 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, within 6 ye ar s a fteri ni ti ati on o fphysi calo n-s i te c onst ructi on o fthe re m edi al acti on, exce pt that, i fthe re m edialact i on i s ini ti ate d w i thi n 3 y ear s a fterthe com ple ti on o fthe re m ova l acti on, co sts i ncurr ed i n the re m ova lact i on m ay be re cove re d i n the cos t reco ver y a cti on br ought und er th i s su bpa r ag r aph
. 42 U
. S. C
. § 9613(g)(2) (A )- (B).N os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 29 W e nee d not r eso l ve the “ cove ra ge gap” di spute with r e s pe c tt o the wor k perf 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 ort h e m om ent that we ag re e with the Truste es that th e lim ita tio n s p er iod for a co st rec ov er y a c ti o 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 that § 9 613( g) ( 2) ( A ) would apply to anyat tem pt to r eco ver the c ost s incurr ed i n exec uti ng the EE/CA
. U nd er th ats ta nda r d, the l i m i ta ti o ns pe r i o d b eg anr unning w hen the EE /CA proj ect w as com p leted i n Octobe r 2000
. The Com pla i nt i n thi s ca se w as fi l ed on A pri l1, 200 8, s i g ni fi ca nt l y mor e th anthr ee y ea r s l at er . Re co very i s t i me -b a r r e d
. As s u mi n g, o n th e o th e r hand, th a twe agr ee w i th the Banker ts and app l y the st atute o fl im itati o ns f o rc o nt r ibut i o n a ct i o ns , we woul d m ar ka s ta rt date fo r 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 had thre e y ear s fro m thatdate

— i n 199 9

— inw h ich to file an ac tio n . Th ey m iss ed th e d ea d l in e b y a p p ro x im at ely six years; recovery is tim e-barred
. U nd er e it h er pa rty’s th eo r y, i t i s to o l at e f o rthe Tr us te es t o r ec o ve rthe c o s t s the y i nc ur r e d in c a r r y i ngo utthe 1 9 9 9 AOC
.
2 . T h e 2 0 0 2 AOC Aft e ra pp r o v i ngthe wo r kdo ne under the 1 9 9 9 AOC , th e EPA i ss ue d a n Enfo r ce m en t Acti on M emor an dum s e l e c tin g a rem ov al a c tio n an d cle an u p ob j ec tiv es . In No v e mbe r2002, th e p a r t i e s e nt e r e d int o the s e c o nd AOC to i m ple m ent thos e soluti ons. The 2002 A OC i ncl ud ed30 N os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 i denti calco nd i ti onalco venants notto sue, and i ts st ructu r e wa s l a r g e l y p a r a l l e l t o th a t o f th e 1 9 9 9 AOC. To the e xtent that the Trust ees’ s uitse eks to r eco ver expenses ar i si ng o ut o fthei r perf or m an c e of the 20 02 A OC , i t i s no t a co ntributi on a cti on. The Trus tee s have been subj ecte d to no ci vi lact i on under §§ 9606 or 96 07, so a co n tr ibu tio n ac tio n u n d er § 96 13 (f)(1 ) is unav a i l ab l e . Add i t i o na l l y, the y c o ul d n o tp o s s ib l y have

“ 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 f[ the workper f or m ed und erthe 2002 A OC ] o r f orso m e o r al lo fthe cos ts of[ the work per f or m ed und erthe 2002 A OC ] i n an adm i ni str ati ve . . . se ttl em ent” at any t i m e be f or e s ati sf acto rydi scharge ofthei r obl i gatio n s u n d er t h e 2 00 2 A O C
. See§ 9622(f) (1), ( 3). Th e w ork to b e per f o r m ed unde rthe 2 00 2 AO C w as o ng o i ng w he n thi s a c t i o n wa s fi l e d, a nd n o n o t i c e o fa pp r o v al had i ssued wh i ch w oul d tri gge r the c ondit i onalco venants no tt o s ue . A c o nt r ib ut i on act i o n un de r§ 9 6 1 3 ( f ) ( 3 ) ( B) i s there f or e l i kewis e unavai l abl e. W hat the Trust ees havedon e, w ith res p e c t t o the w ork cal l ed f orby the 2002 A OC , i s incur co sts o fr esponse consi ste nt with the nat i onalco nti ngency pla n, as i s requi r ed to fi l e a co str ec o ve r y a ct i o n un der§ 96 07(a)
. The Bankert s o fferno p er su asiv e r eas on wh y s uch an acti on ca nnot b e m ai ntai ned. Thei r ar gum ent focuse s p r i ma r i l y o n a di s t i n c t i o nb e t we e n v o l u n t a r y a n d c o mp e l l e d c o s t s : th e y c l a i m th a tt he Supr e me C o u r td r e w a ne w l i ne i n the s an d i n A tl antic R es earch a nd tha t, g o i ng f o r war d, a c o strec ove r y a ct i o n i s av ai l ab l e o nl y t o pl ainti ff s who i ncurr ed cos ts vol untari l y. Com pel l ed cos ts, o n th e o th erha nd, may o nl y b e r ec o ve r ed th r o ug h a con-N os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 31 tr ibuti on a cti on. S i nce the Trust ees w er e “ com pel l ed” to cl ea n up t he s i te b y the a dm i ni st r at i ve s et tl ement proce ss, the Banker ts ar gue that they a re l i m i ted to a c o n t r ib u t i o n a c t i o n . T h e r e a r e t h r e e s i g n i fi c a n tp r o b l e ms w i th thi s a rgum ent. The fi rs t pr obl em with the Ba n ke rt s’ ar gum ent i s that i t ha s n o b asi s i n the t ex t o fthe s o ur ce c as e. In A tl antic R es earch , th e C our t was a sk ed to de ci de whethe rthe phr a s e “ a nyo the rp e r s o n” i n § 9 6 0 7 ( a ) ( 4 ) ( B) p r o vi des PRP s, i n additi on t o “in n oce nt” par ti es, with a r i ght t o r e c ov er res p on se co st s fro m oth er P R P s. See55 1 U.S
. at 13 1
. Ar g uinga g a i ns ttha tr e s ul t, the Uni t e d S t a t e s s ugg es te d t o the Co ur t th ata l l o wi ngo ne PRP t o mai nt ain a § 96 07 ( a) c o str ec o ve r y a ct i o n a g ains t an o th erPRP w oul d gi ve i t l i cense to “ca use s hop” betw een a n acti on f o rc o str ec o ve r y a nd an a ct i o n fo rc o nt r ibut i o n, choos i ng whi c he v e r s e c ti on o f f er ed a per cei ved advantage under the ci rcum sta nces ofthe case . I n resp o ns e to the gove rnm en t’s conc ern, the C ou rt em p h asi zed the proce du ra ldi stinctness o fthe re m edi es. The Co u rt contra ste d a pl ai nti ffwh o see ks to re cove r expend i ture s he, hi m sel f, i ncurr ed i n cl eani ng up a s i te wi t h a p l a i n t i ffw h 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 ture s p u rsuant to a se tt l ementa g r ee m en t o rj udg m en t. 5 51 U. S. a t 13 9. The f o r m eri s a ty pi ca lc o strecovery cl ai m , wher ea s th e latter i s a typ ical con tribution c la im un d er § 9613(f) (1). Id
. Und e rthe c i r c ums t a nc e s a s h y po the t i c a l l y de fi ne d, the Cour t s aw no ro om fo r c hoos i ng be tw een the two: “[ B] y r ei m bur singc o st s pai d t o o th erparti es , the PRP32 N os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 ha s not inc urred i ts ow n cos ts of resp ons e and therefore c an n ot re c ov er u n d er § 10 7(a ). A s a re su lt, th ou gh eligib le to see k c ontributi on under § 11 3( f ) ( 1) , the PRP cannot si m ult aneously s eekto r eco verthe sam e e xpenses under § 1 07( a)
. ” Id
. The Co ur t co nc l uded th at th e g o ve r nmen t ’ s c a us e - s ho pp i ngwo r ri es we r e thu s u nfo un de d. Bu t bef or e m oving on, the Court re cogni zed th e li m i tati ons ofi ts own co nceptual i l l ustr ati on in a foo tnot e, w hi ch w e hav e quot ed once al re ady: 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. 80 9, 81 6, 11 4 S
. Ct. 1960, 128 L
. Ed
. 2d 797 ( 1994 ) ( sta ti ng th e statutes provi de “si m i l arand so m ew hat o v e r l a pp i ngr e med [ i e s ] ” )
. F o ri ns t a nc e , we r e c o g ni ze that a PRP m ay susta i n expenses pu rs u an t 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 ut d o e s n o tr 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 hetherthes e co m pel led c ost s o fr esp on se ar e r eco ver abl e under § 1 13( f ) , § 107( a) , o r both. Fo r our pu rpos es, i t s uffi ces to dem on st ra te th at c os ts in c u rre d vo lu n ta rily are re c ov er a b l e on ly bywayo f§ 1 07 ( a)( 4) ( B) , a nd c o st s o fr ei m bur se m en t to anoth er p erson pursuant to a l ega lj ud gm ent o r set tl em ent a re r eco ver abl e o nl y under § 1 13( f )
. Thus, at a m inim u m , n either rem ed y sw all ow s the other, c on tr ar y t o th e G ov er n m en t’s arg u m en t. 551 U
. S. at13 9 n. 6.N os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 33 The Bankert s co ncl ud e, bas ed o n the quoted f oo tnot e, that onl y par ti es w ho vol untari l y i ncur r esponse co sts can br i nga n a ct i o n for costr ec o ve r y unde r§ 9 60 7( a) , a nd that parti es w ho a re “co m pel l ed” to incur r esponse co sts because of an enf or cem ent acti on or a gov er nm ent set tlem en t m us t pr o ce ed unde r§ 9 613 ( f ) i ns te ad. Butthe C ou rt s a i d “ co s t s incu r r e d v ol unt ar i l y ar e r eco ver abl e only by w ay of[ § 9 607( a) ( 4) ( B). ] ” Id
. ( em phasi s add ed ). That i s no t the s am e as s aying tha t o nly vo lun ta rily in cu rred c o s ts a r e r e c o v e r ab l e b y wa y o f§ 9 6 0 7 ( a ) ( 4 ) ( B)
. T he l a tte r i mpl i e s th e e x c l u s i o n o fc o s t s o fa n y o th e rty p e ; t he f or m erdoes not
. The S upre m e Court sai d, and m eant, th e f o r m er . I n f ac t, th e Cou r t ex pl i ci tly l eft op en the 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 t o g o v e rnme nts e t t l e ments

— m igh t p ro c ee d u n d er § 9607 ( 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 h av e pr oduced no l ega lautho ri ty i n supp or t o f i t. The c as es the y c i te whi chdi d ho l d tha t PRPs who i ncurr ed cl eanu p costs under g ove rnm ent s ett l em ents w er e bo und to pursue a co ntrib u ti on cl ai m di d so b e c a u s e t he st a t u t o r y t r 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 ( hol ding that the pl ai nti ffhad a c on tr ibuti on cl ai m under § 9 613( f ) ( 3) ( B) b ecause the pla i nti ffhad r es ol ved i ts CE RC LA l i abi l i ty thro ugh an ad m i ni str ati ve set tl em en t); Appl e t on Pape rs Inc. v. Ge orgeA. W hi t i ng Pape rCo. , 572 F. Supp.2d 1 034, 10 43 ( E.D. W i s. 20 08) (dism i ssing a § 96 07(a) c o str ec o ve r y c l ai m wher e a § 96 13 ( f ) ( 1) c o n-34 N os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 tribution clai m w as ava il able to plaintiff s by virtue o f a pr ev i o us EPA l aws ui t, an d no ting th at “[ d] es pi te the cour ts’ use of the t er m s ‘ voluntary ’ and ‘ i nvol untary ’ to dist i ngui sh be tw een pay m ents re cove rabl e under § 107( a) and those re cove rabl e und er § 113( f ) , th e opera tive p rin c i ple appears to be that § 1 07( a) i s a vai l abl e t o recove r pay m en ts only in c a s e s w he re § 113(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 th e s tr ai g ht 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 statu toril y nec essary t o 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. 2010 ) (dism issi ng a § 9607(a) cl aim becau se, in t h e cou rt’s eyes, the pl aint i ffne ve r“ i nc ur r ed” c o st s, a s i s ne ce ss ary f ora c os t re cove ryact i on)
. Final l y, atl eas t o ne cas e dir ectly refutes the Bankert s’ argum ent that c ost s incurr ed pu rs u an t t o a s ett l em ent c annot be r eco ver ed und er § 96 07 ( a)
. In W
. R. Gr ac e& C o. - C onn. v. Zo tos Int’ l, Inc. , 55 9 F. 3d 85 ( 2d Cir
. 2009) , a l andfi l low ner bro ught an acti on t o re cove r cos ts i t i nc u rre d in t h e in ve st igat i on an d r emedi at i o n o fa c ont ami na te d l an dfi l ls i te pur su an t to a g ove rnm ent s ett l em ent a gr eem ent. Despi te the e xi st e n c e o f th e s et tle m en t a gr ee m en t, th e c ou rth eld that the pl ai nti ff c ou ld r eco veri ts cl eanup cost s under § 9 607( a) bec ause nei therco ntributi on t ri gge r had occ u rr e d . Th e s et tle m en t h ad n otres olv ed C E R C L A liab ili ty ( § 9 6 1 3 ( f ) ( 3 ) ( B) ) a nd n o c i v i la c t i o n ha d b een fi l ed ( § 9 613( f ) ( 1) )
. In shor t, nota si ngl e o ne o fthes e c a s e s t r e a t e d th e v o l u n t a r y / c o mp e l l e d c o s t s d i c h o t o my as dispos i ti ve.N os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 35 The thi r d, a nd mos t o bv i o us , pr o bl em w i ththe B an ke rt s’ ar gum ent i s that they a re as ki ng us to i m pose a re quir em ent t hat a pp ear s no w here i n the sta tutory t ext. I m po singa r equi r ementno t ev i den t o n the f ac e o fthe statu te argu ably viol ates fun d am en tal rules of st a tu tory c on s t r u c t i on . See E .I. D uP o nt d e Nem o urs a nd C o . v. U nited Sta tes , 508 F.3d 12 6 , 1 33 n . 5 (3d C ir. 20 07 ). A s o u tlin ed in detai labo ve, CE RC LA does notas k wh ether a per son incu rs c osts volun taril y or involun taril y. I t a sks w he th er a per so n inc ur r ed co st s o fr es po ns e co ns i st en t wi ththe n at ion al c on tin ge n c y p l a n, w h et h er a p er so n h as p re viousl y b een s ubj ecte d to a ci vi lact i on under § 96 06 or § 96 0 7 ( a ) , a n d s o o n . T h e B a n k e r t s h a v e a d v a n c ed no re as on, and w e ca n thi nk o fnone, wh y we w ou ld fl atl y di sr ega rd the te rm s o fth e statute a nd r epl ace them w i th a new schem e of the Bankert s’ choo sin g, espec i a l l y o n e wi th s o l i t t l e t o r e c o mme n d i ti n th e c a s e l a w. B eyon d t h eir ch aract erization of A tl antic R es earch a nd subsequent case l aw , the Ba n ker ts see m to sugg estthat th e m er e f ac t th atthe Tr us te es e nt er ed i nto a s et tl ement i s e nough to gi ve ri se to a cl ai m f orcontributi on under § 9 613( f ) ( 3) ( B), ther eby precl ud i ng the Trust ees fro m adv an cing a c o str ec o ve r y c l ai m i ns te ad. Butthe st a t u to ry trig ge r for a § 9 61 3(f) (3)( B ) co n tr ibu tio n cla im i s no t the f act ofse ttl em ent. I t i s the r eso l uti on o f l i abi l i ty th ro u gh se ttl em ent. Giv en the expre ss ter m s o f the s tatute a nd o fthe A OC s in this c as e, ther e ca n be no m eani ngful ar gum ent that the l i abi l i ty to the U n ited St ate s o fthe N on- Prem i um Respondents, and by extensi on t h e Trust, was re sol ved on the day they si g ne d the s et tl ementa g r ee m en t. To the e xt en t th at th e36 N os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 Tr us te es s ee kt o r ec o ve rf o rc o st s incu r r ed i n e xe cut i ng th e 20 02 AO C, th ei r ac ti o n i s a co st r ec o ve r y a ct i o n. Be c a us e the r e mov a la c t i o n c a l l e d fo rb y the 2 0 0 2 AOC wa s o n g o i n gw h e n th i s s u i tw a s f i l e d , th e th r e e - y e a rl i mitations p eriod u nd er 42 U
. S. C
. § 9613(g)(2) (A ), quoted infu ll sup ra , ha d no t yet begun t o r un, l eta l o ne e xpir ed. The Trust ees ’ co st re cove ryact i on f or expenses i ncurr ed und erthe 2002 A OC i s t i m el y.
3. Conclusi on ofCER CLA I ssues I n sum m ary, the Tr ustee s ca nnot r eco verf orexpenses i nc urred i n c ar r y i ngo utthe wor kpe r f o r m ed unde rthe 19 99 AOC. At thi s po i nt, tha t r el i efc ano nl y b e so ug ht thro ugh a c ontr ibuti on a cti on, and a c ontr ibuti on a cti on i s ti m e-barred, no matt erwhi chs i de i s co r r ec t as t o the tr i gge ring ev ent. Bu t the Trust ees can re cove r f or expenses i ncurr ed i n car ry i ng o ut the 2002 A O C . In that re spect, Count Ii s a cl ai m f orco st re cove ryand i s t i m el y. W e r e c o g n i z e th a tn e i th e rp a r t y a p p e a r s t o h a v e c o nsi der e d s p l i t t i n gth e T r u s t e e s ’ c l a i m i n th e wa y th a twe d o n o w. Butthe r emov ala ct i o ns c al l ed f o rb y the A OC s w er e te m p or ally d iscr ete proj ects
. I fthat w er e n o t t h e c as e, th e E P A w ou ld n oth av e b ee n ab le to c er ti fy the fi r sta ct i o n’ s com pl et i o n b efo r e th e seco nd act i on had ev en be en se lec te d. They need notbe tr ea te d a s ani ndi vi sibl e whol e. The r emov alact i o n c o ntem pla ted bythe 1999 A OC was com ple te d ye ar s a go, and supp or ts a co ntributi on a cti on. Th e re m ova lact i on co nt empl at ed bythe 2 00 2 AO C was o ng o i nga t th e tim e this su it w as fi led, a n d s u p p orts a cost recov eryN os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 37 acti on. Each i s g ove rned bya differ ent s tatute o fl im i tat i o n s , a n d th e f a c t th a t r e c o v e r y wi th r e s p e c t to t he f or m eri s t i m e-bar re d does no t l ega l l y precl ud e the Tr ustees from pu rsu ing recovery w ith resp ect to th e latter, w h ich is n ot . Fu rt h er m or e, re so l v i n g th e d isp u te in th is m an n er d oe s n otreq u ire co n s t r u c tin g a n ew cla im th at th e p lain tiff d id n otp lea d . C ou n t I, as w rit te n, i s ana ct i o n fo rc o str ec o ve r y, a nd w e h o l d tha t i t ca n s ta nd as an act i on f orco st re cove ry . Functi onal l y s peaki ng, thi s r uling si m plyl i m i ts the dam age s th e plainti ffcan re c o v e r . T he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s j ud g men ti s r e v e r s e d wi th re spect to Count Ito the extent that th e T ru stees m ay se ekt o r ec o ve rf o rc o st s incurr ed pur su an t to the 2 0 0 2 AOC
. Fi nal l y, we add re ss the d istr i ct c ourt ’ s di sm i ssa lo f Count I I, se eking a decl ar ato ryj ud gm ent o fthe Bankert s’ j o i nta n d s e v e r a ll i ab i l i t y . C o u n tI Ii s b a s e d o n 4 2 U
. S
. C. § 9 613( g) ( 2) , wh i ch pro vid es that i n any acti on f or recove ry of costs “th e c o u rt sha llente r a dec laratory j ud gm ent o n l i abi l i ty f orresponse co sts o r dam age s th atwi l lb e bindi ngo n a ny s ubs eq ue nt act 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 istr i ct c ourt ’ s dete rm i nati on that the Trust ees cou ld not bring a cos t r eco ver y a cti on o b viousl y r endered § 9613( g) ( 2) i napp l i cabl e. But si nce we have re vi ved p art of Cou n t I, we m ust r evi ve Count I Ias well
. W e do note , how eve r, thatthe m er e f act that th e Tr ustee s s eekto i m pose j oi nt and se ver all i abi l i ty does not m ean they wi l lb e su cc es sful
. As we hav e r epe at edly s ta te d, the Bankert s wil lbe given an o pp or tuni ty to show a r easonab l e ba si s forapport i onm ent.38 N os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 C. Th e D i s tric tCourt ’ s D enia l oft he Trust ees’ M o t i o n t o St r i ke Acco r ding to th e Tr us te es , the Ba nk er ts r ai se d a n a r g um ent in thei r sum m ar y j ud gm ent r epl y b ri efwh i ch th ey d id n otrais e in th eir orig in al m o t i o n . M or e s p ec ifica l l y, the Ba nk er ts r ai se d the “ co nt r ibut i o n b ar ” ar g um ent, wh i ch w e hav e pr evi ousl y di scussed . T h e Tr ustee s w anted t h e argum ent s tr uck, 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 ltha td e c i s i o n . We re vi ew the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s g ra n t or d eni alo fa m oti on to str i ke f orabuse o fdi scr eti on. St i nne tv. Ir on Works G ym / E xecut ive Health Spa, Inc. , 30 1 F
. 3d 610, 61 3 ( 7th C ir. 20 02 ); Winfrey v. City of C hi. , 259 F. 3d 610, 61 8-19 (7th C ir. 2 0 0 1). “N orm all y, th e d ecision of a trialcou rt is re ve rs ed u n d er th e a b u se of d isc re tio n st an d 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 e re vie w ed d ec isio n lies b ey on d th e p ale of re as on ab le j usti fi cati on under the ci rcum sta nces .” Ha rm a n v . A pfel , 211 F. 3d 1172 , 1175 ( 9th Cir
. 20 00 ) ( ci ti ng V a lley E ng ’rs v. Ele c. Eng’g Co. , 158 F .3d 10 51, 10 57 ( 9th Ci r. 19 98) , cer t. d en ied , 526 U .S. 10 64 (19 99 ) )
. T h is is n otsu c h a c as e. In i ts deci si on denyi ng the m oti on t o str i ke, the dist ri ct cour t point ed out thatthe ar gum ent was der i ved fro m A tl antic R es earch 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 in gs , a n d thati t was ra i sed pre vi ousl y a t or al ar gum ent. I t was the re f or e no t “new ” t o the c ase atal l
. W e hav e no r ea so n t o questi on the di str i ct c ourt ’ s r epresentat i ons, l et al one to fi nd that th ey are “b ey on d th e p ale of re as on ab le jus tific at ion .” W e 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.N os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 39

T ha t cha ng e d in 20 11 , w he n th e Ind ian a G en era l A ssem b ly 10 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 : (co n tin u ed ...) II . C ou n t II I: I n d ian a EL A Claim W e m o ve ne xt to th e Tr us te es ’ cl ai m unde r th e I nd i an a Env i r o nm en ta lLe g alAct i o ns s ta tu te ( “ELA”)
. I n 19 97, the I ndi an a Gen er alAss embl y e na ct ed a st atut e p rovi di ng f oran “ envi ro nm en tall ega lact i on” to “r eco verr easo nabl e co st s o fa r emov alo rr emedi ala ct i o n” i nv o l ving h az ar d ou s s u b st an c es or p et ro leu m . Se eC oope rInd us . , LL C v. Ci ty of

So uth Be nd, 89 9 N
. E.2 d 1274, 1 28 0 ( I nd
. 20 09) ( ci ti ng I ND . C OD E § 13- 30- 9- 2)
. The sta tute bec am e e ffecti ve on F ebr uary28 , 19 98. In Count I I Io fthe Com pla i nt, the Tr ustee s s ued und erthe EL A to r eco verthe cos ts of the r em ova lact i ons u n d er tak en pursuant to the 1 999 an d 2 00 2 AO Cs. At the sum m ary j udg m en t st ag e, the Bankert s a rgued that a n EL A cl ai m was bar re d by the a pp l i cabl e s tatu te ofl i m i tat i ons, and the dist ri ct cou rt ag r eed
. On ce again, w e review the d istri ct cou rt’s di smi ss alofthe cl ai m and i ts r es o l ut i o n o fa cc o m pan y i ng leg al q u es tio n s d e n ov o. Stori e, 58 9 F.3 d a t 8 7 6; Step ney, 392 F. 3d at 239. W e apply the sta tute of l i m i tat i ons of the st at e w h ose su b st an tiv e la w gov er n s t h e c laim , w h i c h 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
. 99 , 11 0 ( 19 45 ) ( ho l di ngtha t st atut es o fl i m i ta ti o ns a r e co nsi dered subs tanti ve l aw f or p urpose s o fthe E ri edoctr i ne)
. W hen thi s a c tio n was fi l ed, the EL A di d not i ncl ud e i ts own l i m itat i ons provi si on. A ccor dingl y, 1040 N os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 10 ( b) S ub j ectto subsec ti ons (c ) , ( d), and (e ) , a pers on m ay se ek t o r ec ove r the f ol l owin g i n an ac t i on bro ughtonor aft erthe effect ive date o f t h is s ect ion und er I C 13-30- 9- 2 or I C 13

- 23

- 13

- 8(b) t o r ec ove r c os t s i nc ur re d f or a re m ovalac t i on, a r em 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 d at e the ac t i on i s br ought, e veni fthe pe rs on or an y other p er so n als o inc urred cost s m ore than ten ( 10) years b efo re th e d a te th e a ct io n is b ro u g h t. (2) T he costs incu rred on or a fter the d ate th e ac t i o 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 ELA i s s ue would be a s i m pl e aff ai r. Butthi s l aws ui twas fi l ed o n A p r i l 1 , 2 0 0 8 , m o r e th a n th r e e y e a r s p r i o r to th e se c t i o n ’s effect ive date, and w e m ust app ly the l im it atio n s p eri od that ex ist ed a t the tim e th e ac t i o n c o m m en ce d
. S ee C on n ellv. Welty, 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 pe ri od of li m it ati on in e ffectat the ti m e the sui t i s brou ght gov erns i n an a ct io n [.]”)). both part i es l oo ked el se w h er e in the I nd i ana co de to fi nd an a pp l i cabl e s tatute o fl i m i tat i ons. The T ru stees ar gue that Ind i ana’ s t en- yea r “cat ch-a ll ” s tatute o fl i m i tatio n s s h ou ld ap p ly. SeeI ND . C OD E § 3 4- 11- 1- 2 ( a ca use o f ac ti o n whi cha r i se s o n o ra fte rS ept embe r1 , 1 98 2, a nd w hi ch i s no t l i m i ted byany othe r sta tute m us t be bro u gh t withi n ten yea rs )
. The Banker ts’ posi ti on has c on tin u ed to d ev elo p th ro u gh ou t t h e p en d en c y of t h is appe al, a nd the y no w ar g ue t wo r el at ed po i nt s. F i r st, th e 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 laimN os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 41

F ou nd at I ND . C ODE § 34- 11- 2- 7: 11 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 ct io n s fo r r el ie f ag a in st fr a u d s. f orpro pertydam age , and s h ou l d ther ef or e be go ver ned by the s i x-y earst atute o fl i m i tat i ons f oractions to re cove r dam age s t o re alpro perty
. S eco nd , wh i chever 11 sta tute appli es, the Bankert s al so d isp ute

— and w e m ust det er m i ne

— when th e l i m i ta ti o ns p eri o d b eg ant o r un. SeeD oe v. U nited M et hod is t C hurch , 67 3 N
. E.2 d 839, 84 2 ( I nd. C t. A pp. 1 99 6) ( “T he de te r m i na ti o n o fwhena ca us e o fa ct i o n a cc r ue s i s a q ue sti 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 at w hi ch a pla i nti ff’ s cause of acti on ac crues und erea ch i s di ffer ent. P fla nz v . F o s ter, 8 88 N. E. 2d 75 6 ( I nd. 2 00 8) , e xpl ains the a pp l i c atio n ofthe ten- yea r catch- al lst atute o fl i m i tat i o ns , a nd Pen i e l Gr oup, Inc . v. Bannon , 9 7 3 N. E. 2 d 5 7 5 ( I nd
. Ct. A pp . 20 12), expl ai ns the appli cati on o fthe si x-y ear pr o p erty damag e st atut e o fl i m i ta ti o ns . In c o m bina ti o n, th ey p ro vid e t h e fra m ew or k for th e re so lu tio n o fth is c as e. P fla nz v. Fo sterc o nc er ne d a di spu te b etwee n the se l l er, M er r i l lF o st er, a nd the b uyers, Ri ch ar d a nd42 N os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 D olo re s P flan z, of a p ar c el o fl an d th at w as 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 P fl an ze s i n 1 98 4, he a dvi se d the m tha t unde rgr ound p etr ol eum ta nks were pre sent on the pro perty, b u t w er e not in use a nd had bee n cl ose d. 888 N
. E.2 d at 7 5 8
. In f act, the t a nk s we r e s t i l lo pe n a nd p a r t i a l l y fi l l e d. Id
. The Pfl an ze s fi r stl ea rned a s m uchi n 2 00 1, whenthe I ndia na De par tmento fEnv i r o nm en ta lM an ag ement ( “I DEM ”) i ns pec te d the pr o per tya nd di sc o ve r ed th atthe ta n ks w er e le ak in g. Id
. I DE M o rder ed the Pfl an zes to c lea n u p t h e p ro p er ty , see id. at 759, and the Pfl anzes su b se q u en tly in c u rre d ov er $1 00 ,00 0 in c lea n u p co st s. Id
. at 758. I n 2004 and 2 006, the Pfl anzes fi l ed com pla i nts see ki ng co ntrib uti 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 I nd i ana S up re m e Cour t. T he Pflanzes ’ cl aim w as brou gh t p urs ua nt to th e U nd ergr ou n d Sto ra ge T an ks A c t (“ U ST A ”), I ND . C OD E §§13 -23- 13- 1 et seq
. T he U STA is si m i l arto the E LA in that itcr eat es a cause of acti on f or a perso n w ho “und er tak es cor re cti ve ac ti o n r es ul ting fr o m a r el ea se fr o m a n un der g r o und sto ra ge tank, r ega rd less o fwh etherthe cor re cti ve acti on i s unde rt aken voluntari l y o r und eran [ adm i ni str ati ve] or der[ , ] ” t o re cove r hi s e xp en ditures bysui ng a party re sp on sib le for th e rele as e. I ND . C OD E § 13-23-13-8(b)(2)
. I n f act, the tw o re m edi es ar e s o substa nti vel y s i m i l ar that the Ind i ana Code g i ves pla i nti ff s a ggr i ev ed by a r el e a s e fr o m a n u n d e r g r o u n d t a n kth e o p t i o n o fc h o o si ng b et w ee n th e t w o. SeeI ND . C OD E § 1 3-3 0-9 -6; see also P eniel , 9 73 N. E. 2d at5 81 n. 5 ( ackn ow l edg i ngthe s ta tu
tory o pti on)
. M osti m port antl y foro ur pu rp os es,N os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 43

The Bank er t s s ee m t o arg u e tha tthe appl i c abi l i t y ofthe t en 12 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 a gr e e m e nto fthe pa rt ie s. Th a tc a nn otbe cor rect. W h i ch statu te of lim itation s ap p lies to a claim is a qu esti o n o f law , an d it i s long -settl ed in Ind ian a th at a
“ c on c l us i on ofl a w” i s “ be yo nd the po we r o fa gr e e m e ntby the att orneys or parti es . ” A pp v. C ass , 75 N
. E.2d 5 4 3 , 3 9 5 ( I nd
. 19 47 ) ( c i t i ng M iller v . S ta te ex r e l
. Tu th ill, 171 N
. E. 381, 384 ( I nd. 19 30 ) )
. Pute venm or e blu ntly , “[ t ] he re i s no que s t i on thatthe par t ies c ann otag re e upon the l aw and for c e a c onc l usi on according to thei r und ers tanding or ag reem ent. ” Id
. The I ndi ana Supr em e Cour t s i m pl y would notha ve appl i ed the ten- year cat ch- all i fi t was l egall y incorr ectt o d o so, w hether the p arties ag reed to i t or n ot. Th eir dec i s i on t o h ono r the parti es ’ ag re em ent ther ef ore am ounted to a decis ion that the lim itation s pe riod ag reed to w as leg ally corr ect. how eve r, the tw o ar e i denti calto the extent t h at nei ther i nc l ude s i ts o wn exp r es s st atut e o fl i m i ta ti o ns . In Pfl anz , both part i es and the Ind i ana S up re m e Cour t a gr eed th a t th e t e n - y e a rc at ch

- al l s ta tu te o fl i m i ta ti o ns th er e f o r e a p p lied to th e P flan ze s’ U ST A cla im
. See88 8 N
. E.2 d a t 758 ( ci ti ng Com m ’ r, Ind. D ep’ tof Envt l
. Mgm t
. v. B o urbon M ini-M art, Inc. , 74 1 N
. E
. 2 d 3 6 1 ( I n d
. C t
. App
. 2000 ) , f orthe propos i ti on that the t en - yea r catch- al l, as opposed to the si x-y earlim itat i ons peri od f orpro perty damag es , a ppl i es t o a n a ct i o n fo r“ r ec o ve r y o fe nv i r o nm en tal cl ean up costs” ). 12 N ex t, th e I nd iana Su p re m e Cou rt proc eed ed to det erm i ne wh en the te n-y earl i m i tat i ons p er i od beg an to run. U nd erthe In d ian a di sco ver y rule , “a cause o f44 N os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 acti on a ccr ues, and the sta tute oflim ita ti ons begins to run , w he n a claim an t know s or in ex ercise of o r d inary di l i g en ce s hould ha ve kno wn o fthe i nj ur y [ , ] ” no t o fthe m er e p os sib ility of an inju ry in t h e fu tu re . Id
. In case s i n w hi ch a pa rt y se eks to r eco vercl eanup cost s, “ th e dam age [ ori nj ury] ati ssue i s the cle an u p o bl i gat i on as se ss ed b y [th e c on tr ollin g g ov er n m en t a ge n c y,] ” no t th e m er e fa c t o f co n ta m i n a t ion
. Id
. The l att erwould be th e inj ury i n a s ui t to r ec o ve rpr o per tyda m ag es , b ut s u i t s t o re c ov er cle an u p co st s a re d iffer en t. Id
. F o l l o wi ng th i s p a th t o i t s l o g i c a l c o n c l u s i o n, th e I n d i a na S up r e me Court hel d that in an e n vir onm entalcl eanup case go ver ned by the te n-y earcat ch- al lst atute o fl i m i tat i ons, the l i m i tat i ons period d oes notbeg i n to r un “unti lafter the [ pla i nti ffi s] o rder ed to cl ean u p the proper ty. ” 8 88 N
. E.2 d at 759. S i nce the Pfl anzes br ought thei r acti on w i thi n ten years o fthe cl eanup or der, thei r acti on was ti m el y. I n Pen i e l Gr o up , In c. v. Bannon , the Ind iana C ou rt o fAppea l s co nfr o nt ed a di ffer en t k i nd ofc l ai m . The p lai nt iffs w ere the c u r rent ow ne r and m an ager of a parce lo fr ealpro pert y. A fterdi sco ver i ng tha t l eve l s o f conta m i nation o n the proper ty exceeded l i m i ts setby the s tat e, thus r equi ring a cl eanup, the p lain ti ff s s ued the pr evi ous o w ners an d t enants ofthe parce lunder th e ELA
. S i nc e th e ELA di d no t i ncl ude a l i m i ta ti o ns pr o vi si o n a t th e ti m e th e su i t was fi l ed, the I nd iana Court ofA pp eal s was ta sked w i th deci ding w hi ch othe r sta tute of l i m i tat i ons to apply. 97 3 N
. E.2 d at 5 81. Fi nd i ng tha t the pl ai nti ff s were the ow ners o fthe re al prope r t y i n qu e s t i o n a nd were not them sel vesN os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 45

re sponsibl e in any w ay f orthe conta m i nati on at the si te, the c ourtco ncl ud ed that the P eniel pla i nti ff s’ ac ti on w as on e for p ro p e r t y d am ag e. Id
. a t 58 1- 82
. Tha t be i ng th e ca se, the s i x- y ea rl i m i ta ti o ns pe r i o d g o ve r ni ng ac ti o ns f o rda m ages t o r ea lpr o per tywas a ppl i ed, a nd th atl i m i ta ti o ns pe r i o d b eg i ns t o r un “ when a cl ai m an t kn ow s, or in t h e e x er c ise of ord in ar y d ilige n c e sh ou ld have known o fthe i nj ury. ” Id
. a t 58 2 (quoting M arti n O il M ktg, Ltd. v. Ka tzioris , 90 8 N
. E.2 d 1183, 11 87 ( I nd
. Ct. A p p . 200 9). U n d er Ind i a n a la w , “p ar tie s a re u su ally he l d a c c o un t ab l e f o rthe t i me whi c h ha s r una g a i nst thei r pr edecess or s in i nter est
. ” Id
. ( ci ti ng C o o per, 89 9 N .E .2d at12 79 ). Sin c e t h e p lain tiffs ’ p re d ec es so rs in in te re st kn ew o ft h e d am ag e t o th e s ite m or e t h an six ye ar s b efo re th e a c tio n w as fil e d , t h e C ou rtof A p p ea ls f o un d tha tthe a c t i o n wa s b a r r e d. I n li gh t of P eniel , the Banke rt s no w ar gue that the Trust

ees ’ cl ai m m ust l i kewis e be gov er ned by th e s ix -yea r l i m i tat i ons peri od f orr ealpro pertydam age s, since i t, too , i s bro ught pu rs uant to the EL A
. Bu t u n d er thes e c i r c ums t a nc e s , the st atuteu n d er w h ich th e c laim is br o ug htdo es no t det er m i ne the l i m i ta ti o ns per i o d. Indee d, i t ca nno t do s o , b ec au se the s ta tu te unde rwhi chthe cl ai m was br ought did no t ha ve a l i mi t a t i o ns p e r i o d. T hat i s the r oo t o ft h e p robl em . W hat P eniel s ho ws i s th atthe u nd er l yi ng nature of the cl ai m i s w hat m att ers, a p rin c ip le w h ich is w ell-e st ab lish ed in In d i an a la w . See B o urbo n M ini-M a rt, 741 N .E .2d 36 1 (“ T h e a p p lica b le sta tute ofl i m i tat i ons i s dete rm i ned b y the ‘ nature o r su bsta nce o fthe cause ofact i on. ’ ”) ( ci ti ng Kli ne m an, R o se & Wol f , P. C. v. Nor t h Am e r i ca n L ab
. Co. , 6 5 6 N. E. 2 d 1 2 0 6,46 N os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 12 07(Ind . C t. A p p . 199 5), t r ans . de ni e d (19 9 6 ); M onsanto C o . v . M iller, 455 N
. E
. 2d 392, 394 (I nd
. Ct
. A p p . 1983)). Speci fi cal l y, the P eniel co urt f ound that a pro perty da mag e c l a i m br o ughtu nd e rthe EL A

— at l eas t, bac k w h e n t h e E L A h ad n o in d ep en d en t lim ita tio n s p ro visi on

— w as gov er ned by the st atute o fl i m i tat i ons f or p rop erty d am ages. Th at m akes sen se, given th e nat ure o f the c l a i m. Bu t no t e v e r y ELA c l a i m i s o ne f or pr o pe r t y da mag e s . In thi s c a s e , f o re xa mpl e , the T r us t ees have no pro pri eta ryi nter es t in Thir d Si te. The Banker ts d o . T h e r e i s n o p l a u s ib l e l e g a lth e o r y u n d e rwh i chwe m i ght fi nd that the Tr ustee s a re sui ng the Banker ts

— who a r e the only parties w ith a prop rietary int erest in T hird Si te

— f ordam age s t o the r ealpro pertyatT h ird S i te. N e i t h er th e “ n at u re or s u b st an c e” of th is E L A cla im sh o ws tha t i t i s an a ct i o n fo rpr o per tyda m ag es , a nd the pro pe r t y da mag e s l i mi t a t i o ns p e r i o d the r e f o r e do es n otap p ly. A ccor d in gly, the Truste es’ ELA cl ai m i s no t l i m i ted bythe s ta tu te unde rwhi chi t i s br ou gh t, s i nc e no i nter nallim itat 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 to proper ty dam age sui ts, si nce i t i s no t a sui t forpro pertydam age s. I f t h e acti on “i s no t l i m i ted byany othe r sta tute[ , ] ” see I ND . C OD E § 3 4- 11- 1-2(a ), then the t en- yea r catch- al ll i m i tat i ons peri od appli es. I t m ake s no differ ence w hetherwe cal lthe Trustees’ EL A clai m a contribu tion action, or a cost-recov ery a c t i o n, o rwh e the r we c a l li t by som e o the rn a me. By th e term s of t h e In d ian a C od e, w he re no oth er statu tory l i m i t e xi sts , the ten- yea r l i m i tat i ons peri od appli es. That i s co nsi ste nt with the Ind i ana S up re m e Cour t’ s deci si onN os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 47 to apply the t en- yea r p er iod to a gener i c ac ti on f or th e r ec o ve r y o fe nv i r o nm en ta lc l ea nup c o st s i n P f l anz . See888 N
. E
. 2d at 7 5 8. A nd , once again, it m akes n o differ en ce tha t th e cl ai m i n Pfl anz was no m i na l l y b r o ug ht u n d er th e U ST A w h ile th is on e w as n om in ally b rought under the ELA
. The “nature and substance ” co nt r o l s, a nd the t wo cl aim s ar e al i k e i n n atur e an d substa nce. The Trust ees ar e s uing“no t t o re cove r f or dam age s t o th ei r own pro perty, but, i nstea d, to al loca te l i ab i l i tyf o rthe funds s pen t [ ] t o c l ea n up th e e nv i r o nme nt a lc o nt am i na t i o n o fthe [ Ba nk e r t s ’ ] p r o per ty. ” B o urbo n M ini-M a rt, 741 N. E. 2d 36 1. The r efo r e, “ [ t] he na tu r e o rs ubs ta nc e o fthe i rc l ai m s o unds [ near er ] c o ntr ibuti on o r i nd em ni ty, and the gener alt en- yea r sta tute ofl i m i tat i ons f ound at I C 34- 11- 1- 2 a pp l i es. ” Id
. The ten- yea r lim i tat i ons peri od f oran a cti on t o re cove r cl eanup cost s inc urr ed as the r esul t o fan EPA o rder did notbeg i n to r un “unti lafterthe [ Truste es w er e] or dered to cl ean up th e p roperty. ” Pfl anz , 88 8 N
. E.2 d at7 59
. But the p a r t i e s ’ s e co nd di s pu t e c o nc e r ns the a pp li cat io n of tha t rule. Th ere are m ultiple clean up orders i n thi s ca se , e ac h o fwhi chi nfl i ct ed ani njury o n the Tr us te es i n the f o r m o fa c l ea nup obl 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 estAOC

— i ssued i n 199 6 t o t h e T ru st ee s’ p re d ec es so rs -in -in te re st, see Co o per, 8 99 N .E .2d at12 79 (“ 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 (Ind
. Ct
. 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 ai m with re sp ec t t o T h ird Site be ga n to ru n as so on as p os sib le48 N os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523

The B ankerts ri ghtly note that th e lim it ati ons peri od f or an 13 EL A c l a i m c o u l d n o tb e g i n t o r u no n th e d a t e o fth e 1 9 9 6 AO C bec aus e the ELA w as no tye te nac t ed. Acc or di ngl y, the y a rg ue tha ti tbe gan to r uno n Fe br ua r y 2 8 , 1 9 9 8 , the da t e the ELA w ent int o effect, i nst ead. This ac ti o n w a s n ot fil ed un ti l after F eb ru ary 28 , 2 0 0 8 , lead ing the B an k erts to ar g u e tha t it i s the re f or e unt i m el y. afteri ts i ssuance. The Trust ees , o fco urse , di sag re e. 13 T h ey c onced e that the l i m i tat i ons peri od, with r espectto ana ct i o n t o r ec o ve rc o st s ex p en ded pur su an t to the 19 96 A O C , b e g a n t o r u n o n F e b r u a r y 2 8 , 1 9 9 8
. The Tr us te es c anno t r ec o ve rf o rthose e xpe ndi tu r es , a nd they ar e no t t ry i ng to do s o. Bu t th ey do notbel i eve th at has a ny effect on the l i m i tat i ons peri od f orr ecove ring the co sts o fthe re m ova lact i ons m andated by th e 1 99 9 o r 20 02 A O C s . W e a gr ee w ith th e T ru st ee s. T h is ac ti o n was fi l ed o n Apr i l1 , 2 00 8, and we fi nd tha t an y inj ury

— m eani ng, i n thi s co ntext, any cos ts i ncurr ed unde ra c l ea nup obl i g at i o n i m po se d b y the EPA

— w hi ch oc c u rre d su b se q u en t t o A p ril 1, 19 98 , i s a c t i o n ab le unde rthe ELA and i s no t ti m e-barred. Thi s pl ainl y i ncl ud es the dam age s s uffer ed thr ough co m pli ance with bot h the 1 9 9 9 a nd 2 0 0 2 AOC s , wh i c h i s a l lthe da mages th e Tru stees hop e to recover. The Bankert s’ ar gum ent f ai l s t o persuade us f or se ve r a lr e a s o n s . F i r s t, th e c l e a n u p o b l i g a t i o n s th a tthe 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 ci tl y o r i m pli ci tl y, w hen the re sponden ts t o the 1 996 A OC ag re ed to realig n Finl ey Creek
. N ei therthe Truste es, wh o did notN os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 49 y ete xi sti n tha t ca pac i ty, no rthe 1 99 6 r esp o nde nt s, i nc ur r e d anyo bl i gat i on a t that t i m e t o engag e in rem ova l orr em edi aleff or ts at Thir d Si te i tse lf
. Genera l l y, part i es b rin gin g ac tio n s to re c ov er c lea n u p c os ts “m u st w ait unti la ft e rthe o b l i g a t i o n t o p a y i s i nc ur r e d, f o ro the r w i se th e c laim w ou ld lac k t h e e ss en tia l d am ag e e lem en t.” Pfl anz , 888 N .E .2d a t 7 59 (int er n al c ita tio n s o m itt ed ). I t i s tr ue, as the Bankert s and the dist ri ct court o b serve, th at“i ti s n o tn e c e s s a r y th a tth e fu l le x t e n to fthe dam age be known or eve n asce rt ai nabl e but onl y that som e as cer tainabl e dam age has occur re d” f orthe sta tute of lim ita tio n s to be trig ge re d
. D oe, 6 73 N. E. 2d at8 42
. But that j ust m eans an o bl i gat i on t o pay m ay be c onsi dered an “inj ury” f orst atute o fl i m i tat i ons pu rp ose s e ven bef or e i tg i v e s r i s e t o a n a c t ua lmo ne t a r y l o s s . I tdo es not, however, support confl ating o ne o bligati on with 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 ore, the Bankert s’ ar gum ent that the st atute ofl i m i tat i ons bega n to r un w i th r espectto the Truste es’ obl i gations und erthe 1999 and 200 2 AO Cs bef or e they i ncurr ed thos e obl i gat i ons w oul d, i fappli ed to o ther ca s e s , lead to i m p ractical results. W ha t ifthe E PA ’s p rocess had been m ore dra w n o u t ( a s is often th e case), an d the A O C s govern ing the Th ird Si te clean up w ere no t i ss ue d un til 2 01 0, o r2 01 2? Acco r di ngt o the a r g um en t a d v a n c e d b y th e B a n k e r t s , i n th a t c a s e , t he st atut e o fli m i ta ti o ns woul d ha ve r un e nt i r ely o n the Tr us t e e s ’ r e qu e s t s f o rr e l i e fb e f o r e the y h a d e ven suf fe r e d the da mag e s fr o m wh i c h r e l i e f mi g ht b e r e-50 N os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 quested. They woul d have be en l ega ll y r equi re d to b ring thei r acti on ba sed o n nothi ng but specul ati on ab o utwh a ts o r to fc l e a nu p m ightb e o r d ered i n the future at Thir d Si te, wh at i t m ightc ost, w ha t the pr es en t disc oun te d value o ftho se potenti alfuture cos ts m ight be , e tc
. , o re l se the y woul d lose th ei rr i g htt o b r i ng an act i on a t a l l
. The l aw does notr equi re such cl ai rv oyance. Fur ther m or e, any acti on that was filed un der su c h ci rcum sta nces w oul d rai se ser i ous j usti ci abi l i ty conce rns, ther eby pu tting 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 l h a r ms i n b e t we e n a r o c k a nd a ha r d pl a c e . Th at i s no t a d esirable outc om e, bu t un d er the B an kerts’ un d ersta nd i ng o fthe l aw i t co uld be a com m on o ne. Fi nal l y, befor e m oving o n, we note that the Tr ustee s su g g es te d we mi g htc er ti fy thi s i ss ue to th e I ndi 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 appr o p riat e, “ th e m o sti m po r ta ntc o ns i der at i o n gui di ng th e ex er ci se of o urdi sc r et i o n i s whethe rwe fi nd ours elve s g enui nel y uncer tain abo ut a questi on o fst ate law th at is vit al 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 ack a g e Sys. , Inc. , 68 6 F
. 3d 423, 42 9- 30 ( 7th Cir
. 20 12 ) ( ci ti ng C edar Farm , Harrison Cnty., Inc. v. Lo ui s vi l l eGas & Ele c. Co. , 65 8 F
. 3d 80 7, 81 2- 13 ( 7th C ir. 2 011) )
. “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 ecur i n other cas es, wh er e r eso l uti on ofthe questi on t o be c er ti fi ed i s o utcom e- deter m i na ti ve ofthe case , and w here the st at e su prem e co urt has y et to have an o pp or tuni ty to i l l u m i nate a cl earpath o n the i ssue. ” Id
. W h e n c ons idering ce rtification, w e areN os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 51

m in d fu l of th e s ta te co u rt s ’ alre 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 rt ify a qu e s tio n, in c lu d in g w h et h er th e is su e “ is o fi nt er es t to the s ta te s upr eme cou rt 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)). W e see no reas on to certi fy th is que stion. Fi rst, w e are n otge n u in ely u n c er ta inab o u t it . W h ile it is n otatall a f ri v o l o us i s s ue , we a r e c o nfi de nti n pr o c e e di ngu nder the guidance provi ded byexi sting Ind i ana l aw . Between the s ett led r ule thatthe nature o r substa nce o fan a cti on gov er ns wh i ch st atute o fl i m i tat i ons applies ; the f act that thi s par ti cu lar acti on pl ai nl y i s no t o ne f orpro perty damag es; an d the Indi an a S upr eme Co ur t’ s pr ev i o us ap p lica tio n of th e t en -y e ar ca tc h -all u n d er su b st an tia lly sim ilar circ u m st an c es , th e a p p ro p ria te r e so lu tio n is cl ear . S eco nd , we cannot saythi s i ssue concerns a m att er o fv i ta lpub l i c co nc ern. The r emedi ation o fe nv i r o nm en ta lha za r ds i s ce r ta i nl y a n i ss ue o fpub li c co nc ern, but the l i m i tat i ons i ssues di scuss ed her ei n have by thi s t i m e be en r eso l ve d concl usi vel y b y l egi sl ati ve acti on i n I nd i a n a . T h e l i mi t a t i o n s p e r i o d i n e ffe c ta tth e t i me an ac t i o 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 gov er ned by the i nd ependent l i m i tat i ons peri od legi sl ati vel y a dd ed to the EL A
. A ccor dingl y, we can sa y with cer tainty that thi s i ssue w i l ln ot re appear in any case s n ot alr ea d y pe n d in g. T h ird , th e In d ian a law q u es ti o n is a t m o st on ly p ar tia lly ou tc om e-d et er m in at ive in t h is ca se . T o the e xt en t th atthe ELA cl ai 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 rthe52 N os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 2002 A OC , i t i s m er el y d u p lica ti ve ofthe CE RC LA co st r ec o v e r y c l a i m we h a v e a l r e a d y r e i n s t a t e d
. T o th e e xt en t th ati t wi l l all ow re co ve r y o fc o st s i nc ur r ed unde rthe 1 9 9 9 A OC , i te x t e n d s f a r th e rth a n th e C E R C L A c l a i m, buttha t twi sti s no t en o ug h t o o ff se t th e l ac k ofg enui ne c on c er n w e h av e a b ou t it s re so lu tio n, or t o in d 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 . Co untVI I : Se e ki ng a De c l a r a t o ryJ udg me nt A ga in s t th e B an k erts ’ In s u rers I n Count VI Io fthe C om p laint, the Truste es see k a decl ar ato ryj ud gm ent that e ach o fthe insur erdefendants ar e obl i gat ed to pro vi de i nsurance cove ra ge, subj ect to their respect i 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 cy ho l der s to the Tr us te es . Af te rdi smi ss i ng Cou nt s Ithr o ug h V on statut e o fl i m i ta ti o ns g r o unds , the dist ri ct c ou rtas ked the Trust ees and the i nsurer s t o re porto n the sta tus o fCount VI I
. A l lpart i es agr eed i t was m o o t. O bvio us l y, i n l i g hto fo urr eins ta te m en t o fthe CE RC LA and EL A cl ai m s, tha t concl usi on i s no l onge r w ar ra nt e d. Co un t VI I i s no t moo t, a nd we pr o c e e d to a c on sid er at ion of A u to O w n er s’ c on d itio n al c ro ss -ap p ea l.

AUT O OWNE RS ’ C ROS S - AP PE AL Auto Owner s M utua lIns ur an ce C om pan y i s o ne o fthe B an ke rt s’ fo rm er ins u re rs , tar ge te d by t h e T r u st ee s in Cou nt VI I o f the Co mpl a i nt
. Ea r l y i n thi s l i t i g a t i o n, A uto Own e r s fi l e d a mot i o n t o di s mi s s Co un t VI I o n re s j ud icata an d /o r i ssu e prec lusion grou nd s. A ut o Ow ne rsN os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 53 p re vio u sly litiga te d se ve ra l of th e in su ra n c e p olic ies in qu est 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 ef i n th e f o r m of a con se nt d ecree an d a defau lt 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 a g ains t i t i s pr ec l ude d
. The d istri ct court treated th e m otion as one for s u m m a ry j ud gm ent a nd deni ed 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 issed 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 theyfi l ed a c ondit i onalcr os s-a pp ealto hedge aga i nst a possibl e re ver sal, chal l engi ng th e d i str 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 Truste es re sponded bychal l engi ng t h e proceduralpro pri etyo fthe cro ss- appeal an d , i n the al ternati ve, by ar guing tha t the di str i ct c ourtr eached the co rr ect re sul t. B e c a u s e we ha ve r eins ta te d the CERCLA, ELA, a nd decl ar ato ry j ud gm ent cl ai m s or i gi nal l y dism i sse d in the d ist rict co urt’ s fi nalj ud gm ent, we now r each Auto O w n er s’ c on d itio n al c ro ss -ap p ea l.

B a c kg r o und A u to O w n er s is a p ar ty t o t h e c as e b ec au se of its role as a Bankert i nsurer du ring the l ast yea rs of E n vi ro Ch e m o pe r a t i o n. F r o m 1 9 7 7 un t i l i t s c l o s ur e i n M ay 1982 , Envi ro - Ch em was l oca ted pri m ar i l y a t 8 65 So uth S ta te Ro ad 43 1, Zi o ns vi l l e, Indi an a

— re fer re d to earl i er in th is op inion as th e E nv iro- C he m Site. T h e Ba nk ert f am i l y o w ned the s i te, and Jonathan Banker t, S r. , se rv ed as pr es i den t o fEnv i r o - Che m . Hi s o ffi ce r s an d di r ectors w er e RoyS tr ong and D avi d Finton. Tw o com pa-54 N os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523

Gary W atso n s er ved a s c our t
- appoi nt ed r ec ei verf or Envi ro 14 C h em b eg in n in g o n Ju ly 1, 1 9 8 1
. ni es

— Prat t & Lam ber t, Inc ., and U ni on Carbi de Corpor ati on

— tr anspor ted i nd ustr i al and c om m er ci al w ast es to the Envi ro - Ch em S i te, wh er e t h ey w er e hel d i n tank s own ed by W ast ex Rese ar ch, Inc. On M ay 5, 19 82, Envi ro Ch em cea sed o perat i ons, l eaving appro xi m ate l y 2 5, 000 drum s a nd 56 bul k s tor age ta nks a t the Envi ro - Ch em S i t e . T he drums a nd t a nk s we r e l o ca t e d o ut s i de a nd , unfo rtunatel y, were perm i tte d to deter i or at e and r el ea s e th e wa s t e th e y c o n t a i n e d
. I n J u l y 1 9 8 3 , the EPA re sponded byautho ri 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 mp lai nt i n th e S ou th ern D istri ct of Ind iana aga inst m ore than 25 0 d efendants, i ncl ud i ng Envi ro - Ch em , J onathan an d Patricia Ba nk ert, R oy Strong, D avid Fi nt on, Ga ry W ats on, W ast ex, Pra tt & L am ber t, and U ni on Carbi de.

14 The c o m pl aints o ug htt o r ec o ve rEPA r es po ns e co st s an d to obt ai n a decl ar ato ryj ud gm ent ho l ding the defendants j oi ntly an d seve ra l l y l i abl e forfuture cos ts i ncurr ed by the Unite d Sta tes as i t co nti nued to a d d re ss conta m 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 w as fi l ed, U ni on C arbi de and 133 other defe nd ants enter ed i nto a conse nt decree w i th the g overnm ent, agr eeing to cl ean up the surf ace ofthe En vi ro - Ch em S i te inord er to res olv e a p or tio n of th e g ov er n m en t’s cla im ag ains t th em. The n, o n Nov embe r8 , 1 98 3, the s et tl i ng defen dan ts fi l ed a cr o ss - cl ai m a g ains t th e no n- se tt l i ng defe nd ants, a gr oup w hi ch i ncl ud ed E n viro- Ch em , J ona-N os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 55 th ana nd Pa tr i ci a Ban k er t, Ro y S tr o ng, Da vi d F i nt o n, Gary W ats on , a nd W ast ex. The cr oss - cl ai m so ught t o r ec o ve rthe ap p roxi m at ely $ 3 m i l l i o n the s et tl i ngde fen dants would expend on the surf ac e c leanup, as wellas a d ecl ar at o r y j udg m en t th atthe y wer e no t l i ab l e f o ra ny addi tio na lfutur e co st s r el at ed to c l ea nup e ff o r ts a t th e En vi ro - Ch em S i te. W h ile th e 1 9 8 3 la w su it p ro gr es se d , an ot h er w as in the work s. A uto Ow ners had i ssued seve ral i nsurance p o l i c i e s t o E n v i 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 known a s Te chno so l ve a nd Haz ar do us M ate ri als M anage m ent, Inc. , duri ng Envi ro - Ch em ’ s l ast yea rs o fo perat i on. On A pri l5, 1 98 4, A uto Ow ners fi l ed 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 t h e p ar tie s o n bo th sid es of th e c ro ss - c l a i m in the s i m ult an eousl 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 co ver age f orthe potenti all i abi l i ty o f its i nsureds, pu rs uant to an excl usi on conta i ned i n the pol i ci es at i ssue: N o cove ra ge i s provi ded by thi s pol i cy f or cl ai m s, sui ts, ac ti o ns o r pr o ce eding s ag ains t th e i ns ur ed ar i singo ut ofthe disc harg e, dispos al, r el eas e o r esca pe ofsm oke , vap ors, so ot, fum es, aci ds, al kal i s, to xi c chem i cal s, l i quids o r gas es, waste m ate ri alor othe r i rr i tants , co nt ami na nt s o rpo l l ut an ts i nt o a nd upo n l and, the atm osp he re or any w ater cou rse or bod y of w ater. Aut o Own e r s ’ s ui twa s r e s o l v e d p i e cem e a l
. On Dec embe r2 1, 1 99 0, the c o ur t en te r ed a def au l t j udg m en t i n A uto O w n er s’ f avo r aga i nst Envi ro - Ch em , Roy S tr o ng, Da vi d F i nt o n, Ga r y W at so n, Te chnos o l ve, a nd56 N os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 H azar dous M ate ri al s M anage m ent. On A ugust 2 9, 19 91, the c ourtente re d an a gr eed j ud gm ent b etween A uto Ow ners , the Bank er ts, U ni on Carbi de, Pra tt & Lam ber t, and W ast ex. The def aul t j ud gm ent s i m plyi ncor p or ated the c om pla i nt byr efer ence and gra nted the re l i ef re quested the re i n, and the agr eed ju dgm ent s ti pu l ate d a d ism iss al w ith ou t p rej u d ice . In an y c as e, it is u n d isp u te d th at A u to O w n er s w as su c c e s s fu l in av o i di ng an y duty o f i nde m ni fi ca ti o n at te nda nt to the Env i r o - Che m S i te l i ti g at i o n. No w, Aut o Own e r s ho pe s to us e the 1 9 9 0 de f a ul tj ud g men ta nd the 1 9 9 1 a g r e e d j ud gm ent t o precl ud e the Trust ees fro m o btaini ng a decl ar ati on o fco ver age f orThi rd S i te.

D i scussi on The firs t dispute concerns the pro pri etyo fthe cro ssappeal
. The Trust ees ar gue that Aut o Own e r s’ cr oss - appeal sh ou ld be d ism iss ed be c au s e A u to O w n er s p re va iled in the fin alj ud gm ent i ssued bythe dist ri ct c ourt
. A uto Ow ners ar gues i n re sponse that a co nd i ti onalcr oss - appeal i s a per m i ss ibl e way t o he dge a g ains t ana dve r se fi ndi ng on the m ai n appeal
. N ei therp ar ty r efer ences the a ctual sta nd ar d i n ourci rcui t forr eso l vi ng thi s sor t of dispute. T h e d isp os itiv e q u e s t ion is w h et h er th e re lief so u gh t in the c ro ss- appeal i s di ffer ent fro m the re lief al re ady obtained by the cros s -ap p ealing pa rty i n th e d istri ct cou rt’s fi nalj ud gm ent. I fi t i s no t di ffer ent, then the c ro ss- appeal m u st be d ism iss ed
. Se eWe i tze nk a m p v. U num Li f eIns . Co. o f A m. , 6 61 F
. 3d 32 3, 3 32 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 1) ( r ei te rating th e r ul e th at“ cr o ss - app eal s ar e no t appr o pr i at e i n r o ut i neN os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 57

case s l i ke ours thatr ais e onl y a l ternate gr ounds f or affi r m an ce o fthe j udg m en t an d no t ani nde pen den t i ssue[
. ] ”)
. O n the other hand , “[ a] n appell ee w ho wants, not that the j ud gm ent o fthe distri ct c ourtbe affi rm ed on a n al ternati ve gr ound, but thatthe j ud gm en t be changed, ” forexam ple , fro m a dism i ssa lwitho u t to a d ism iss al w ith p rej u d ice , no t o n l y s h ou ld bu t m u st file a cr os s-a p p ea l. Am
. Bot t om Cons e r vancy v . U ni t e d S t at es A rm y C o rps 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 ots p e c i fy, eit h er in i ts separ ate o rderd ism i ssing co unt si x as m oo t o r i n i ts fi nalj ud gm ent, wh etherthe dism i ssa lo f c ount s i x w as a di smi ss al w i tho rwi th o utpr ej udi ce . Pur su an t to F ede r alRul e o fCi vi lPr o ce dur e 41 ( b) , “ [ u] nl es s th e d ism 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 sdic ti on, i m properve nue, orf ai l ure to j oi n a p ar ty und erRule 19

— oper ate s a s a n adj ud i c at ion o n the m er i ts. ” A d i sm i ssa lo n m oo tness gr ou n d s is a d ism iss al for lac k of ju r isd ict ion
. St. John’s U nite d C hurch of C hris t v. C ity of Chi. , 50 2 F
. 3d 616, 62 6 ( 7th C ir. 20 07) ( “ ‘ w hen the i ssues pre sente d are no l onge r l i ve o rthe pa r ti es l ac k a lega l l y c o g ni zabl e i nt er es t i n the outco m e, ’ the case i s ( orthe c laim s are ) m oo t a nd m ust be di sm i sse d fo r l ac k of j uri sdic ti on. ” ( quoti ng Pow e l l v. M cCo rm ack, 39 5 U.S
. 48 6, 49 6 ( 1969 ) ) )
. The case l aw hol ds, consi ste nt with Rule 41(b) , thata d ism i ssa lf orl ack of subj ect m att erj uri sdic ti on ca nnot be a dism i ssa lwith p rej u d ice
. M urray v. Conseco, Inc. , 46 7 F
. 3d 602, 60 5 ( 7th C ir. 20 06) ( ci ti ng Fred ericksen v. C ityof Lo ckpo rt, 3 8 4 F
. 3d 43 7, 4 38 (7th C ir. 2004)). Th e reli ef A ut o Ow ne rs58 N os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 obt ai ned i n the dist ri ct c ourtwas th er ef or e a di sm i ssa l w i thout prej ud i ce. The re lief A uto Ow ners r equests i n 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 preju d ice. A ut o Ow ne rs seeks a d eterm i nati on that the claim s b ef or e the co urt i n thi s ca se have previ ousl y b een a dj 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 Bank & Trus tCo. , 64 9 F
. 3d 5 39, 54 7 (7t h C ir. 20 11 ); Johnson v. Cypres s H il l , 641 F. 3d 867, 874 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 1)
. Ob vi o us l y, i n c o nt r as t to a di smi ss alwi th

o utpr ej ud ice, a ny s uchde te r m i na ti o n di spo se s o fthe cl ai m s be f or e the co urt perm anen tly . I fthe Truste es’ de cl ar ato ryj ud gm ent c l ai m ag ai nst Au to Ow ners cannot be br o ug ht i n th i s i ns ta nc e due to an ea rli er, b i ndi ng deter m i nati on o fthe cl ai m o r ofthe dispos i tive i ssues , th eni t c an not b e br o ug htin a ny futur e i ns ta nc e wi th o ut r u n n i n g in to th e s am e p ro b lem
. S e eWal l i s e rv . Han n ig, 358 Fed. A pp x. 71 5, 71 7 ( 7th C ir. 2 00 9) ( re fer ring to a dism i ssa lo n re s j ud i cata gr ounds as a “ fi nalj ud gm ent o n the m er i ts” )
. The r elief A u to Ow ners se eks i n i ts cro ssap p eal, a dism issal w ith p rej ud ice, i s the refore d if fer en t fr o m the r el i efi t won i n the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s d isp os itio n of th e c a se , 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 rvancy, 6 5 0 F
. 3 d a t6 6 1 , 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 1 99 0 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 te r ed by theN os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 59 U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Cour t forthe So uthe rn D istr i ct o f In d ian a, w e a p p ly fed er al la w to d et er m in e t h eir p re 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 ( 7th Ci r. 19 93) ( “W h er e the e ar l i eract i on i s br ought i n federa lco urt, the federa lr ule s o f re s jud i c a t a a p p ly.” ) (int er n al c ita tio n s o m itt ed ); see also Havoc o of

Am e r i ca, L t d. v. Fre e m an, At ki ns & Col e m an, Lt d. , 58 F.3d 30 3, 3 0 7 n . 6 (7th C ir. 1995). A ut o Ow ne rs ar gues both i ssue and cl ai m pre cl usi on , w h ich ar e doctr i n a l l y re lat ed bu t a re su bj ec t t o d iffer en t t es ts . C laim precl usi on, w hi ch oper ate s to cons er ve j u d icial re sour ces and prom ote finali ty, appli es w hen a case i nvol ves the s am e par ti es and the s am e s et ofo perat i ve fac ts as an ea rlier on e t h at w as d ec id e d o n t h e m er its
. See M atrix IV, Inc. , 649 F.3d at54 7. Iss u e p re c lu sio n, a narr ower doct rine than cl ai m pre cl usi on, pre vents l i ti gants fro m r e-liti gat i ng an i ssue that has a l re ady be en d ec id ed in a p re vio u s jud gm en t. Hayes v. C ity of Chi. , 6 70 F. 3d 810, 81 4 (7t h Cir
. 20 12) ( ci ti ng M atrix IV, Inc. , 64 9 F. 3d at 547)
. The di str i ct c ourtf ound that nei therdoctrine p reclud ed this l aw su it. W e review the d istri ct cou rt’s d isp os itio n of th es e q u es tio n s d e n ov o, see Johns o n v. Cypres s H il l , 64 1 F
. 3d 867, 874 (7 th Ci r. 20 11) ( “W e r evi ew the di str i ct c ourt ’ s di sm i ssa lo fa l aw su it on r es j ud i cata gr ou n d s d e n ov o.” ); Tow ns e nd v. Val l as , 25 6 F
. 3d 661, 668 ( 7t h Cir
. 20 01) ( “W e r evi ew a dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deci si on to g r an t o rde ny s um m ary j ud gm en t de no vo . ”) , a nd w e a gr ee.60 N os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 I . I ssue Pre cl usio n W e be g i n b y a ddr essi ng Auto Owner s’ i ss ue pr ec l usion argu m en t
. Th e d octrine of i ssu e pre clusion “bars ‘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 gat ed a nd r eso l ved i n a v al i d courtdeter m i nati on ess en ti al to th e pr i o r j udg m en t, ’ ev en i f th e i ss ue recu rs i n the conte xt o fa differ ent c l ai m . ” Taylor v. Sturgell, 55 3 U. S
. 8 8 0 , 8 9 2 ( 2 0 0 8 ) ( qu o ti ng N e w Ham ps hi r ev. M ai ne, 532 U
. S. 74 2, 74 8 (2001 ) )
. I ssue precl usi on r equi re s a n i denti ty ofi ssues : “the doctr i ne ‘ appli es onl y when ( amongo th erthi ng s) the s ame i ss ue i s i nv o l ve d i n the tw o proce edi ngs[
. ] ’ ” Cole m an v. D onah oe, 66 7 F. 3d 835, 85 3- 54 ( 7th Ci r. 20 12) ( quoti ng Ki n g v. Bu r l i n gt on N. & Santa FeRy. Co. , 53 8 F. 3d 814, 81 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) )
. A dd i ti onal l y, i t i s wel l

- se tt l ed th ati ss ue pr ec l us i o n, l i k e cl ai m pr ec l usi on, onl y appli es i f the i ssue w as previ ou sly d ete rm i ned by a “ val i d and finalj ud gm ent. ” B o bby v. B ies , 556 U
. S. 825, 834 (2009). W e nee d no t deci de w hether the r el i efo btained by Au to Ow ners i n the 1 984 acti on

— a def au l t j udg m en t an d a co nsented d ism 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 n e e d n o tde c i de whe the rthe c o v e ra ge i s s ue wa s “ a c t ua l l y l i t i g a t e d” th er ei n. The i ssue i n thi s ca se and the i ssue i n that case ar e no t i den ti ca l
. The y a r e no t i den ti ca lb ec au se the effects of th e p oll ut ion exc lusion an d pers ona l inj ury provi si ons ofthe A uto Ow ners pol i ci es on co ve ra ge f or c o nt ami na ti o n a t th e Env i r o - Che m S i te a nd f o rc o nta m i na tion at Thi r d S i te ne ce ss ar i l y de pen d o n di ffer en t set s o ff acts
. True, nobo d y d i sputes that Thi rd S i te w asN os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 61

co nt ami na te d a s a r es ul t o fEn viro

- Che m o per at i o ns . But th atdo es no t m ea n tha t Env i r o - Che m ’ s o per at i o ns a t th e E nv iro- C he m Site an d En viro- C he m ’s operat ions at T hird Si te w er e i denti cal i n al l m ate ri al aspects
. A s t h e d i 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 recor d that c ontam i nati on a t Th ird Si te w as caused bythe re l eas e o fpol l utants at Thir d Site , and that conta m i nati on a t the Envi ro Chem S i te was c au se d b y the r el ea se o fpo l l ut an ts a t th e En vi ro - Ch em S i te. I t m ay yettur n ou t th at the abso l ute pol l uti on e xcl usi on

— to the e xt en t th atmos t o fthe p olic ies atiss u e in c o r p or at e it

— w i l lpre vent the Tr ustee s fro m r eco ver i ng ag ai nst Au to Ow ners f orco sts they i ncurr ed i n cl eani n g u p Thir d Si te. But i fso , that w i l lbe because the contam i nati on pro cess atThi rd S i te quali fi ed as a “ disc harg e, di sposal, r elea se o r esca pe of sm ok e, va p or s, so ot , fum es, aci ds, al kal is, to x ic c h em ica ls, liqu id s o r ga se s, w as te m at er ia l o r o th er irrit a nt s , c o nt a m i nant s o rp o l l ut a nt s i nt o a nd u po n l a nd , th e a tm os p h er e o r an y w a t er co u rs e o r b od y of w at er .” It w ill notb e be ca us e th e co nt ami na ti o n pr o ce ss a t th e E n vir o-C h em Site qu alifie d as th e s am e, an d th at is w ha t A u to Ow ners as ks us to co ncl ud e byfi nd i ng tha t th e co ve r ag e i ss ue s i nv o l ve d i n the p resent su i t an d the pri orsui t a re i den tical
. They a re di ffer ent f actualquestions, requ iring differen t d iscovery, etc. , and A ut o Ow ne rs is n oten tit led to iss u e p re c lu sio n .
I I . Clai m Pre cl usio n N ex t, we tu r n t o A ut o Owner s’ c l ai m pr ec l us i o n a r g um ent. The doctr i ne of cl ai m precl usi on, al so known as r es62 N os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 j ud i cata, “a pp l i es to bara seco nd sui t in federa l cour t when ther e e xi s t s : ( 1 ) a n i de nt i t y o f the c a us e s o f a c t i o ns ; ( 2) an i denti ty ofthe p ar ti es orthei r pri vi es; and ( 3) a fi nal j ud gm ent o n the m er i ts. ” Krat vi l l ev. Runy on , 90 F. 3d 195, 197 ( 7th Ci r. 19 96)
. W i th r espectto the fi rs t e l em ent, “[ a] c laim is d ee m ed to h av e ‘id en tit y’ w ith a p re v i ou sly litig at ed m at te r if it i s ba se d on th e sam e, o r n e ar ly the s am e, f actualal l ega ti ons a ris i ng fro m the sam e t ra nsacti on o r occurrence. ” Id
. at19 8. W i th r espectto the s eco nd , “[ w ] hetherther e i s pri vi ty between a party aga i nst w hom cl ai m precl usi on i s ass er ted and a party to p riorl i ti g at i o n i s a func ti o na li nqui r y i n whi chthe f or m al i ti es ofl egal r el ati onshi ps prov i de cl ues but not so l uti ons. ” Ticev. Am
. Airl ine s, Inc. , 1 6 2 F
. 3 d 9 6 6 , 9 7 1 ( 7th Cir
. 19 98) ( quoti ng C ha se M a nh a tt a n B a nk, N .A . v. Celo tex Corp
. , 56 F .3 d 3 4 3 , 3 46 (2d C ir. 19 95 )). I t is a fac t-s p ec ific anal ysi s, and shor t- hand te rm s l i ke “vi rtual r epres entatio n ” a re of lit t l e t o n o u se in o u r c irc u it. Id
. W i th re sp ec t t o th e fin al e lem en t, for th e p u rp os e o f cla im pr ec l us i o n, the t r adi ti o na lr ul e i s th at“ a j udg m ento n the m er i t s i s o n e wh i c h ‘ i s b a s e d o n l e g a lr i g h t s a s d i st i ngui shed fro m m er e m att er s o fprac ti ce, pro cedure, j uri sdict ion , orf or m . ’ ” Ha rper P la stics, Inc. v. A m o co C hem s. Corp
. , 65 7 F
. 2d 939, 94 4 ( 7th Ci r. 19 81) ( quoti ng Fai r m ont A lum inum Co
. v . Co m m ’r, 222 F.2d 622 , 625 (4th C ir. 1955)). Regar dle ss ofwh ethert h e parti es ar e i denti calo r whe the rthe p i e c e mea lr e s o l ut i o n o fthe 19 84 l i ti gat i on q u alifie d as a “fin al jud gm en t o n th e m e rit s,” cla im precl usi on i s inap p ro p ri ate bec ause ther e i s no “i denti ty of the c auses o fact i on. ” F edera ll aw defi nes a “ca use ofact i on” as “a cor e o fo perat i ve f acts wh i ch gi ve ri se toN os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 63

a r em edy[
. ] ” Shav e rv. F. W
. Wool worth Co. , 84 0 F
. 2d 1361 , 1 36 5 ( 7th Ci r . 1 98 8) ( i nt erna lc i ta ti o ns o m i tt ed). A ccor dingl y, th e testf oran “ i denti ty ofthe causes o f acti on” i s “ w hetherthe cl ai m s aris e out o fthe sam e s et of oper ati ve f acts o r the s am e t ra nsacti on. ” Ma t r ix I V, Inc. , 649 F. 3d at 547 (citi ng In re E nergy C oop . , Inc. , 8 1 4 F
. 2 d 1 2 2 6 , 1 2 3 0 ( 7 th C i r . 1 9 8 7 ) )
. “ E v e n i f th e t wo c l a i ms a r e b a s e d on di ffe r e n tl e g a lth e o r i e s , th e ‘ t wo claim s are one for pu r p oses of res j ud icata ifthey are base d on the sam e, or near l y the sam e, f actualal l ega ti ons. ” ’ Id
. ( quoti ng Herm a nn v. C enco m C a ble A ssoc s. , 999 F. 3d 223, 22 6 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 3) ). T he t es t i s ano ut g r o wth o fthe r u l e t h at a p ar ty m u st alleg e in on e p ro c ee d in g a ll claim s an d /o r coun terclaim s for reli ef ari sing ou t of a si n gle occ urr ence, o r be pr ecl ud ed fro m pursui ng tho se c laim s in th e fu tu re . Id. , 84 0 F
. 2d at 1365 ; Fe d. R
. Ci v. P. 13 ( a)
. But des pi te th e fr eque nc y wi th whi chprec l usi on defenses ar e r ai sed, “there i s no f or m al i sti c te st f ordeter m i ni ng wh ethersui ts ar i se out ofthe sam e t ra nsacti on o r occur re nce. ” Ross ex r e l
. Ross v. Bd. of E du c. of Tp. H igh Sc hoolD i s t
. 21 1 , 4 86 F.3d 27 9, 284 (7th Cir. 2007 )
. “Instea d, w e hav e hel d that cour ts ‘ shoul d consi der th e to ta l i tyo fthe clai m s, i nc l udi ngthe na tu r e o fthe c l a i ms, the l e g a lb a s i s f o rr e c o v e r y, the law i nv o l v e d, and th e res pecti ve f actualbac kgr ounds. ’ ” Id
. ( quo ting Bu r l i n g t o n N. R
. R. C o . v . S t r ong, 90 7 F
. 2d 707, 71 1 ( 7th C ir. 1990). A ut o Ow ne rs’ 1984 com p lai nt sough t a de cla ratory j ud gm ent th at 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 ora te e nt i ti es unde rthe pol i ci es list ed ther ei n f orenvi ro nm entaldam age s a t64 N os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 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 er e that the En vi ro - Ch em Site w as pol l uted; th at the EPA was engag ed i n a c ol l abor ati ve proce ss to re m edy thatpol l uti on ; thatl i ti gat i on was unde r way t o di st ribute l i ab i l i tyf o rthe c l ea nup co st s be twe enc o o per at i ve a nd un coopera ti ve PRP s; 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 enti ti es , who ha d no t pai d f o ra ny o fthe cl ea nup de spi te the ir PR P s ta tu s, 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 se f ac ts do o ve r l ap, t o s o m e ex te nt, w ith th e o per at i ve f ac ts unde r l y i ngCo untVI Ii n th is c as e. The T r u s t e e s s e e k a de c l a r a t i o n o fc o v e r a g e f o rth e s a me i nsureds under the s am e insurance po lici es, al though th eyf o cus o n a diff eren t co ve r ag e pr o vi si o n wi th i n the pol i cies . B ut ther e a re al so fund am entaldi ffer ences betwe enthe f ac tu alb ac k g r o und o fthi s su i t and the f a c t u a lb a c k g r o u n d u n d e r l y i n gA ut o O wn e r s ’ 1 9 8 4 c o mpl aint. F o re xa m pl e, the s ame f ac tu alc o ns i der at i o ns w hi ch bar re d a fi nd i ng o fi ssue p re c l usi on co m e into pl ayh er e. Thi s co ve r ag e di spu te c o nc erns whethe rthe pol l uti on a cti vi ti es at Thir d Si te w er e c ove re d by Au to Own e r s ’ p o l 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 w hetherthe pol l uti on a cti vi ties a t the Envi ro - Ch em S i te w er e co ver ed by A uto Ow ners’ p olici 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 e nough to no te tha t i t m ea ns the cl ai m s ar e no t i den ti ca l ; the succes s o fea ch depend s o n fi tting the f acts thatl ed to th at co n ta m in at io n t o t h 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 ftere n gag i ng i n such ana na l y si s, the di st r i ctc o ur t co ul d co m e to theN os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523 65

c o nc l us i o n tha tAut o Own er s d o 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 thout i n any w ay contr adic ti ng the ea rl i erfi nd i ng tha t i t doe s not owe cove ra ge at the En vi ro - Ch 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 ju d gm en t in a se c on d su it w ou ld im p air rights esta bli sh ed un d er the fir s t ju d 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, the di str i ct c ourtm ay w el lfi nd thatthe p ollu tio n excl usi on in A uto Ow ners’ co ntra cts bar s co ver age f or th e p ollu tio n ac tiv itie s a t T h ird Site , bu t n o t o n cla im preclusi on g ro und s. W e a ffi rm with r espectto bo th precl usi on i ssues .
C ONC L US I ON For the reas ons stated , w e rev e r se th e d istri ct cou rt’s di smi ss alo fCoun ts I, I I, I I I, a nd VI I
. In Co untI, the Truste es have m ade a ti m el y C ER CL A cl ai m , under 42 U. S
. C. § 9 60 7( a) ( 4) ( B) , t o r ec o ve rc ost s i nc ur r ed pur su an t to the 2002 A OC
. The Truste es’ Count II “co m panio n cl ai m ” fora decl ar ato ryj ud gm ent o fCE RC LA l i abi l i ty i s th er efo r e al so r eins ta te d
. W e find tha t th e I ndi an a ELA clai m c ontaine d i n Co untI I Ii s ti m ely, a nd tha t th e decl ar ato ryj ud gm ent c l ai m co ntai ned i n Count VI Ii s no t m oo t. The di str i ct c ourtco m m i tte d no a b u se ofdi scr eti o n in i ts h an d li ngo fthe s um m ary j udg m en t br i efi ng proce ss. Final l y, we affirm the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deni alo f Auto Owner s’ m o ti o n f o r su m m ary j udg m en t o n p recl us i o n g r o u n d s . T h e t r u s t e e s ’ s u i t i s r e i n s t a t e d a nd66 N os. 11

- 1501 & 11

- 1523

re m anded f orfurtherpro ceedi ngs c onsi ste nt with th i s o pi ni o n.

12- 19- 12