Opinion ID: 768674
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Tutu, Virgin Islands Contamination Litigation

Text: 14 In 1987, the Environmental Protection Agency (the EPA) found that the property adjacent to the Laga Facility (the Tutu Site) was contaminated with, inter alia, oil byproducts and perchloroethylene (PCE). In January 1988, the EPA instituted a contamination removal action at the Tutu Site. In March 1989, the EPA issued a determination that Texaco, Inc. and Texaco Caribbean, Inc. (collectively, Texaco), Esso Virgin Islands, Inc. and Esso Standard Oil Co. (Puerto Rico) (collectively, Esso) (together with Texaco, the Oil Companies), and Laga, among others, were potentially responsible parties (PRPs) under CERCLA for the Tutu Site. 15 In April 1989, owners and lessees of the Tutu Site commenced an action in the United States District Court for the District of the Virgin Islands (the Virgin Islands District Court) asserting common law claims and CERCLA claims against Texaco, Esso, and others, for damages and response costs resulting from environmental contamination to the site. See Harthman v. Texaco, Inc. (In re Tutu Wells Contamination Litig.), 846 F. Supp. 1243 (D.V.I. 1993). The Oil Companies later impleaded appellants, alleging that the Laga Facility had contributed to the contamination at the Tutu Site and alleging that the distributees of Panex remained liable for the clean-up costs. The Oil Companies sought: (1) damages under the common law theories of strict liability, contribution, restitution, and equitable disgorgement; (2) recovery of response costs under CERCLA §§ 107 and 113(f); and (3) an injunction under the citizen suit provision of RCRA § 7002. 7