Opinion ID: 2974114
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Investigation costs

Text: The Authority argues for the first time on appeal that it is entitled to recover its initial investigation costs even if its underlying CERCLA claim fails. See Pierson, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 16088, at -19; Donahey v. Bogle, 987 F.2d 1250, 1255-56 (6th Cir. 1993), vacated on other grounds, 512 U.S. 1201 (1994); Tinney, 933 F.2d at 1515. The Authority alleges that it spent more than $1 million investigating the environmental contamination at the Site. In order to recover initial investigation costs, a plaintiff must bring a separate claim for relief and present separate evidence in support thereof. Pierson, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 16088, at ; Tinney, 933 F.2d at 1515. Like the plaintiff in Pierson, the Authority “made no separate claim for [investigation costs] and failed to present any separate evidence or calculations of those costs.” Pierson, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 16088, at . “To accept [the plaintiff’s] belated attempt to salvage preclosure costs out of an adverse decision below on their unitary allegation of injury would require a remand and further evidentiary findings–proceedings which undermine the just, speedy and economical benefits of the summary judgment procedure.” Tinney, 933 F.2d at 1515. Therefore, we reject the Authority’s attempt to recover initial investigation costs at this late stage.