Source: https://openjurist.org/419/f3d/355/burlington-northern-santa-fe-railway-company-v-poole-chemical-company-inc
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 12:26:59+00:00

Document:
Skinner Tank Company, Third Party Defendant-Appellee.
Richard Clark Harrist (argued), Thornton, Summers, Biechlin, Dunham & Brown, San Antonio, TX, for Poole Chemical Co., Inc.
Richey Gene Strange (argued), Cotton, Bledsoe, Tighe & Dawson, Midland, TX, for Skinner Tank Co.
Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
This appeal requires the court to decide whether § 9658 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) preempts the Texas statute of repose in a lawsuit involving a buyer's products liability claim. After considering that issue, the court concludes that § 9658 does not preempt the Texas statute of repose and affirms the judgment of the district court.
Appellant Poole Chemical Company (Poole) operates an agricultural blending facility near Slanton, Texas. Appellee Skinner Tank Company (Skinner) manufactures and sells storage tanks. Skinner manufactured two large above-ground storage tanks and sold them to Poole on October 28, 1988.
On January 29, 2003, one of the tanks ruptured. The rupture released several hundred thousand gallons of chemicals onto Poole's property and an adjacent railroad right-of-way. Poole and the Slanton fire department initiated emergency response services; Poole reclaimed some of the spilled chemicals. Plaintiff Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Company (the "railroad company") conducted an emergency clean-up and restoration of its right-of-way at a cost of $2.1 million. On March 4, 2004, the railroad company sued Poole under CERCLA for the cost of the clean-up.
Having learned that it had no insurance to cover the cost of the accident, Poole filed a third-party complaint against three defendants, one of which was Skinner, on April 19, 2004. Poole brought various state law claims against Skinner, alleging that the tank Skinner sold it was defective.
Section 16.012 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code establishes a 15-year statute of repose for products liability cases. That section provides that "a claimant must commence a products liability action against a manufacturer or seller of a product before the end of 15 years after the date of the sale of the product by the defendant."2 Here, the date of the sale of the allegedly defective product was October 28, 1988; Poole filed its lawsuit on April 19, 2004, more than 15 years after the date of the sale. Thus, if § 16.012 applies, Poole's claim is barred.
The current version of § 16.012 applies to actions filed on or after July 1, 2003.3 That version became effective on September 1, 2003—seven months after the chemical spill occurred and one month and 28 days before the fifteenth anniversary of the sale of the Skinner tanks to Poole.4 Because the 15-year repose period affects claims that arose from events that occurred before the law came into effect, it is a retroactive law.5 Poole maintains that § 16.012 cannot be applied retroactively because there is no clear legislative intent for retroactive application.
Under Texas law, an "act will not be applied retrospectively unless it appears by fair implication from the language used that it was the intent of the Legislature to make it applicable to both past and future transactions."6 Here, the plain language of § 16.012 demonstrates that the Texas legislature intended for the 15-year repose period to apply retroactively. The provision provides that a claim for a defective product must be brought before the end of 15 years after the date of the sale.7 Moreover, the legislature specifically provided that the repose period applies to "an action filed on or after July 1, 2003."8 Had the Texas legislature intended for § 16.012 to apply only prospectively, the legislature would have provided that the 15-year repose period applies to actions that "accrued" on or after July 1, 2003. Thus, the Texas legislature intended for the statute of repose to apply retroactively.
Section 16.012 does not bar all remedy, but rather shortens the time for filing suit on a claim. Whereas the Texas legislature had not previously specified a time for filing suit for a defective product against a manufacturer, it did so when it amended § 16.012. Here, the tank ruptured approximately seven months before § 16.012 became effective and almost two months before the expiration of fifteen years following the sale of the Skinner tanks. As result, Poole had nine months (from the January 29, 2003 rupture of the tank until the October 28, 2003 fifteenth anniversary of the sale of the tanks) to file its third-party complaint against Skinner—and at least one month and 28 days following the September 1, 2003 effective date of the amendment to § 16.012. Poole thus had a reasonable amount of time in which to file its third-party complaint, constituting a fair opportunity to preserve its rights against Skinner under the former Texas law.12 If Poole believed that a defective tank caused the accident, it did not need to wait until it was sued by the railroad company, or until it realized it had no insurance, to file its lawsuit against Skinner. Accordingly, retroactive application of § 16.012 does not violate the Texas constitution's general prohibition against retroactive laws.
Here, Poole cannot meet his burden because Texas courts have determined that the 15-year repose period for defective products is "reasonably related to the legitimate state purpose of protecting manufacturers and sellers from stale claims."19 Additionally, "Texas courts have repeatedly held that statutes of repose do not violate the open courts provisions of the Texas Constitution."20 In order for common law causes of action like Poole's claims to be protected by the Texas constitution, the claims "must be a vested right or something more than a mere expectancy based upon an anticipated continuance of existing law."21 In Texas, a "party has no vested right to a cause of action" because neither the federal constitution nor the Texas constitution "forbids the abolition of common-law rights to attain a permissible legislative objective."22 Thus, prior to September 1, 2003, Poole had nothing more than an expectation based on an anticipated continuance of existing law, an expectation that is not protected by the Texas constitution.23 Consequently, retroactive application of § 16.012 does not violate the open courts provision of the Texas constitution.
Finally, Poole contends that § 9658 of CERCLA preempts § 16.012, superimposing a rule of discovery on the commencement of the running of § 16.012's period of repose. Poole thus maintains that under § 9658, the 15-year period of repose did not begin to run until January 29, 2003, when the tank ruptured.
Here, the reach of the plain language of § 9658 does not extend to statutes of repose like § 16.012. Literally, § 9658 states that it only preempts state law when the applicable state statute of limitations "provides a commencement date which is earlier than the [FRCD]" — no mention of peremptory statutes or statutes of repose. The provision defines "commencement date" as the "date specified in a statute of limitations as the beginning of the applicable limitations period."32 Section 16.012, however, is not a statute of limitations; it is a statute of repose, and the differences between statutes of limitations and statutes of repose are substantive, not merely semantic.
Although courts considering the applicability of § 9658 have not always clearly distinguished a statute of repose from a statute of limitations,33 the two types of statutes are quite different.
Section 16.012 is clearly a statute of repose because it cuts off a claimant's right to sue a manufacturer for a product defect by requiring him to "commence a products liability action . . . before the end of 15 years after the date of the sale of the product by the defendant,"40 and because it runs from an act of the defendant — "the date of the sale of the product by the defendant."41 The plain language of § 9658, however, refers to state statutes of limitations — not state statutes of repose. This court is bound by that plain language, absent express congressional intent to the contrary.42 Congress did not express a contrary intent in this instance.
In enacting CERCLA, Congress intended "to facilitate the prompt cleanup of hazardous waste sites and to shift the cost of environmental response from the taxpayers to the parties who benefitted from the wastes that caused the harm."43 Section 9658 was not part of the original CERCLA. Congress added § 9658 as part of the 1986 CERCLA amendments to respond to a report by a congressional study group that determined that many state systems were inadequate to deal with the delayed discovery of the effect of a release of a toxic substance.44 Congress was concerned that in the case of a long-latency disease like cancer, a plaintiff could be barred from bringing his lawsuit if the state statute of limitations ran from the time of the first injury rather than from the time when the plaintiff discovered that his injury was caused by the hazardous substance.45 Congress fixed this problem by preempting the state statute of limitations with the FRCD, which runs from the date the plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known that his injury was caused by exposure to the hazardous substance. As a result, CERCLA's legislative history indicates Congress intended for § 9658 to preempt a state statute of limitations that deprives a plaintiff who suffers a long-latency disease caused by the release of a hazardous substance of his cause of action, but not to preempt a state statute of repose like § 16.012.
This interpretation comports with a fundamental principle of statutory construction — common sense.46 Under the proper application of that principle, § 9658 does not preempt § 16.012.
In addition, this case does not involve the delayed discovery for which § 9658 was intended to address. The case does not implicate a long-latency disease or involve a situation where the time for filing a claim expired before the plaintiff learned that a hazardous substance caused his injury. Poole's alleged injury was not inherently undiscoverable. Poole knew about its injury as soon as the tank ruptured, and is held to knowledge of the amendment to § 16.012 no later than its effective date, September 1, 2003; yet Poole did not file its third-party complaint until almost 16 months after the rupture.
Retroactive application of § 16.012 does not offend the Texas constitution, and CERCLA's § 9658 does not preempt § 16.012, vis-à-vis Poole's product liability claims against Skinner. Thus, the district court properly entered summary judgment in Skinner's favor. Consequently, the court AFFIRMS the district court's judgment.
Pension Ben. Guar. Corp. v. Wilson N. Jones Mem'l Hosp., 374 F.3d 362, 366 (5th Cir.2004); Olander v. Compass Bank, 363 F.3d 560, 564 (5th Cir.2004).
Barshop v. Medina County Underground Water Conservation Dist., 925 S.W.2d 618, 633 (Tex.1996); Tex. Water Rights Comm'n v. Wright, 464 S.W.2d 642, 648 (Tex.1971).
Ex parte Abell, 613 S.W.2d 255, 258 (Tex.1981).
City of Tyler v. Likes, 962 S.W.2d 489, 502 (Tex.1997).
Likes, 962 S.W.2d at 502 (discussing a new immunity provision of the Texas Tort Claims Act that prevented the plaintiff from recovering from a municipal defendant even though the plaintiff's claim accrued before the new defense was available to the defendant).
See Likes, 962 S.W.2d at 502 (determining that retroactive application was not unreasonable where the plaintiff had 17 months to file her claim before it was barred by a new statute); Wright, 464 S.W.2d at 642 (concluding that a new statute that provided for cancellation of water permits upon proof of ten continuous years of nonuse provided a reasonable remedy despite the fact that six months of the ten-year period was prior to the statute's effective date); AT&T v. Rylander, 2 S.W.3d 546, 554 (Tex.App.—Austin 1999) (deciding that 11 months is a reasonable amount of time to file a request for a refund where a new law established a statute of limitations); but see Alvarado v. Gonzales, 552 S.W.2d 539, 542-43 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1977, no writ) (explaining that a new statute that gave a mother only 21 days to establish paternity and enforce child support could not be applied retroactively).
Ellerbe v. Otis Elevator Co., 618 S.W.2d 870, 873 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1981).
Rose v. Doctors Hosp., 801 S.W.2d 841, 843 (Tex.1990); Howell v. Tex. Workers' Comp. Comm'n, 143 S.W.3d 416, 444 (Tex.App. — Austin 2004, pet. denied).
Enron Corp. v. Spring Indep. Sch. Dist., 922 S.W.2d 931, 934 (Tex.1996).
Enron, 922 S.W.2d at 934.
Zaragosa v. Chemetron Inv., Inc., 122 S.W.3d 341, 346 (Tex.App. — Fort Worth 2003, no pet.).
Zaragosa, 122 S.W.3d at 346; see also Barnes v. J.W. Bateson Co., 755 S.W.2d 518, 521 (Tex.App. — Fort Worth 1988, no writ) (stating that 10-year statute of repose for claims against architects does not violate open courts provision).
Zaragosa, 122 S.W.3d at 346-47.
Tex. Gas Exploration Corp. v. Fluor Corp., 828 S.W.2d 28, 32 (Tex.App.Texarkana 1991, writ denied).
Zaragosa, 122 S.W.3d at 346-47; McCulloch v. Fox & Jacobs, 696 S.W.2d 918, 924 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.).
Computer Assoc. Int'l v. Altai, Inc., 918 S.W.2d 453, 455 (Tex.1996).
See Am. Tobacco Co. v. Patterson, 456 U.S. 63, 68, 102 S.Ct. 1534, 71 L.Ed.2d 748 (1982) (explaining the basic principles of statutory construction before interpreting a provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964).
Am. Tobacco Co., 456 U.S. at 68, 102 S.Ct. 1534 (quoting Richards v. United States, 369 U.S. 1, 9, 82 S.Ct. 585, 7 L.Ed.2d 492 (1962)).
See First United Methodist Church of Hyattsville v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 882 F.2d 862, 868 (4th Cir.1989) (determining that § 9658 does not preempt a Maryland statute of repose in an asbestos-removal action because CERCLA's legislative history indicated that it was not intended to apply to substances that are part of a structure, despite clear indication that court recognized the difference in a statute of repose and a statute of limitation); Elec. Power Bd. of Chattanooga v. Monsanto Co., 879 F.2d 1368, 1378 (6th Cir.1989) (explaining that a plaintiff's claims about equipment purchased more than ten years from the date of filing of the lawsuit were untimely under CERCLA and barred by a Tennessee statute of repose); Covalt v. Carey Canada, 860 F.2d 1434, 1436 (7th Cir.1988) (finding that § 9658 did not preempt Indiana statute of repose because CERCLA applies only to releases into the environment and plaintiff's claim involved his exposure to asbestos, not a release of a hazardous substance); Buggsi, Inc. v. Chevron U.S.A., 857 F.Supp. 1427, 1433 (D.Or.1994) (concluding that § 9658 preempts an Oregon statute of repose in a landowner's action against the owner of an adjacent petroleum bulk storage and distribution plant even though petroleum is not defined as a hazardous substance because petroleum is a pollutant and the plant was a facility, without making any distinction between a statute of repose and a statute of limitations); A.S.I., Inc. v. Sanders, 835 F.Supp. 1349, 1358 (D.Kan.1993) (rejecting an argument that § 9658 did not preempt a Kansas statute of repose because a statute of repose is substantive rather than procedural because other courts have treated the two types of statutes in the same way); Knox v. AC & S, Inc., 690 F.Supp. 752, 758 (S.D.Ind.1988) (deciding that § 9658 does not preempt Indiana statute of repose in an asbestos products liability case without considering whether § 9658 applies to statutes of reposes).
Servicios-Expoarma, C.A. v. Indus. Mar. Carriers, 135 F.3d 984, 989 (5th Cir.1998) (quoting Harding v. K.C. Wall Prods., 250 Kan. 655, 831 P.2d 958, 967 (1992)).
Coastal Distrib. Co. v. NGK Spark Plug Co., 779 F.2d 1033, 1036 (5th Cir.1986).
Colonial Penn Ins. v. Market Planners Ins. Agency, 157 F.3d 1032, 1034 (5th Cir.1998); see also In re Coastal Plains, 179 F.3d 197, 214 (5th Cir.1999).
Wayne v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 730 F.2d 392, 401-02 (5th Cir.1984).
Cadle Co. v. Wilson, 136 S.W.3d 345, 350 (Tex.App. — Austin 2004, no pet.).
Tex. Gas Exploration Corp., 828 S.W.2d at 32 (discussing the Texas statute of repose that applies to claims against architects and builders).
Am. Tobacco Co., 456 U.S. at 68, 102 S.Ct. 1534.
OHM Remediation Servs. v. Evans Cooperage Co., 116 F.3d 1574, 1578 (5th Cir.1997).
See H.R. CONF. REP. No. 99-962, 2d Sess. 262, reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3276, 3354.
See Cal. v. F.E.R.C., 383 F.3d 1006, 1016-17 (9th Cir.2004) (explaining that the court must be guided by common sense in determining congressional intent); United States v. Nippon Paper Indus. Co., 109 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir.1997) (describing common sense as a good barometer of statutory meaning); Salt Lake City v. Western Area Power Admin., 926 F.2d 974, 984 (10th Cir.1991)(stating that the most fundamental guide to statutory construction is common sense); First United Methodist Church of Hyattsville v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 882 F.2d 862, 869 (4th Cir.1989) (referring to common sense as the most fundamental guide to statutory construction).

References: § 9658
 § 9658
 § 16
 § 16
 § 16
 § 16
 § 16
 § 16
 § 16
 § 16
 § 16
 § 16
 § 9658
 § 16
 § 16
 § 9658
 § 9658
 § 16
 § 9658
 § 9658
 § 9658
 § 9658
 § 9658
 § 16
 § 9658
 § 16
 § 9658
 § 16
 § 16
 § 9658
 § 16
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 9658
 v. 
 v. 
 § 9658
 v. 
 § 9658
 v. 
 § 9658
 v. 
 § 9658
 § 9658
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.