Opinion ID: 2221968
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Related Provisions.

Text: The Board argues other provisions in the statute reveal a legislative intent for oil companies who operate through the jobber system to be included within the definition of an operator. First, it asserts section 455G.13(2)(a), which places limits on cost recovery against a fund claimant, implies the legislature intended to permit cost recovery against oil companies, like Mobil, because there would otherwise be few remaining entities available to seek cost recovery. Second, it argues section 455G.13(8), which renders agreements to shift liability to an owner or operator eligible for fund assistance void, also reveals an intent to make oil producers liable. Finally, it claims the lender exception to the definition of owner under section 455B.471(6)(b) shows the legislature intended to include other such entities, like oil companies, who do not participate in the direct operation of a tank. In construing a statute, we consider all parts of the enactment together. Mortensen v. Heritage Mut. Ins. Co., 590 N.W.2d 35, 39 (Iowa 1999). However, our goal remains to find the legislative intent, and we must not under the guise of construction extend terms or change terms of the statute. State v. Vietor, 208 N.W.2d 894, 898 (Iowa 1973), overruled on other grounds by, State v. Monroe, 236 N.W.2d 24, 33 (Iowa 1975). The companion statutes cited by the Board provide little assistance in our search for the intent of the legislature. Although the Tank Fund Act permits only limited recovery against a claimant and voids indemnity agreements, it is conjecture to conclude these provisions reveal an intent to make oil producers liable. Moreover, the lender exception was placed in the Act to be consistent with [RCRA]. Iowa Code § 455B.471(6)(b). Yet, Congress enacted the lender exception after federal court decisions began to impose lender liability under certain circumstances. See United States v. Fleet Factors Corp., 901 F.2d 1550, 1555-56 (11th Cir.1990). Thus, the exemption was most likely unrelated to an expression of intent to include oil companies within the Act, but was a legislative response to specific judicial interpretations finding lenders to be owners.