Opinion ID: 721571
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Existence of Claims Independent of the Contract

Text: 90 Stanford claims that each of the claimants stated facts necessary to support a citizen-suit based on violations of the Clean Water Act (Act) and independent of the contract and therefore the lawsuits are really tort cases. 5 We reject this claim. 91 There is no evidence that the sub-developers would have, or could have, brought suit under the Act. Standing exists for a citizen to sue under the Act only if it can establish that it  'personally has suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the putatively illegal conduct of the defendant....'  Save Our Community v. United States E.P.A., 971 F.2d 1155, 1160 (5th Cir.1992) (quoting Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 472, 102 S.Ct. 752, 758, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982)). Moreover, a citizen's right to bring suit under the Act is limited and may not be brought if appropriate federal or state regulatory agencies have undertaken their own enforcement action to correct a violation. Saboe v. State of Oregon, 819 F.Supp. 914, 916 (D.Or.1993). 92 In the present case, there is no evidence that the sub-developers had standing to bring a citizen's suit for the alleged violations of the Act. Nor is there any evidence that the Corps' cease and desist and remediation orders to Stanford were inadequate. Thus, there is no evidence that Stanford could have been sued under the Act. 93 Furthermore, although each sub-developer alleged that Stanford violated the Act by filling wetlands, the violation of the Act was not the basis of the suits. The suits were based on Stanford's breach of contract. Stanford's speculation that the complaints could have been amended to state a claim under the Act is insufficient to create a potential for coverage. See Hurley Constr. Co. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 10 Cal.App.4th 533, 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 629, 631 (1992) ([T]he insured may not speculate about unpled third party claims to manufacture coverage.).