Opinion ID: 2552631
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alaska Statute 46.03.822(a) necessarily implies a private cause of action under the Hendsch Analysis.

Text: In Alaska Marine Pilots v. Hendsch, we identified six factors as relevant to determine whether a statute implies a private cause of action in tort: the nature of the legislative provision, the adequacy of existing remedies, the extent to which a tort action will interfere with existing remedies, the importance of the purpose of the provision, how drastically the new tort will change the law, and the burden the [cause of action] will place on the court system. [14] Here, these factors support a private cause of action. (1) Nature of subsection .822(a): Subsection.822(a) is easily amenable to individual enforcement. The prohibited conduct and the potential defendants are clearly identified by subsection .822(a), which attaches strict liability for the release of hazardous substances, and by subsection .822(k), which identifies damage to persons or to public or private property as a kind of damage covered by subsection .822(a). [15] An injured property owner who, like FDIC, identifies parties responsible for contaminating the property need only show that the parties owned or operated the facility causing the contamination. [16] (2) Adequacy of existing remedies: When the legislature created a strict liability regime for hazardous substance contamination, it expressed its judgment that negligence remedies were not adequately controlling the hazardous substance contamination problem. Nevertheless, Peninsula and Laidlaw insist that the subsection .822(j) right of contribution is an adequate remedy. We disagree. Under subsection .822(j), a damaged party can seek contribution only during or after an action against the party under subsection.822(a). Since private parties who voluntarily undertake cleanup efforts cannot compel the state to commence an action against them, they would be forced to wait for government action and, if no action were brought, would lose funds spent cleaning up another's contamination. That is not an adequate remedy. A more convincing reading of subsections .822(a) and (j) gives private parties the means to recover private damages, while allowing defendants a way to spread the costs of that recovery among the responsible parties. (3) Interference with existing remedies, and (4) importance of purpose of the provision: A private cause of action under subsection.822(a) would not interfere with existing remedies, such as contribution claims; and it would enhance the important purposes of Alaska's contamination responsibility regime. As discussed above, allowing private parties to initiate cleanup while they bring an action against others who may be responsible  without waiting for government action  promotes the goal of quick response to discovered contamination. At the same time, actions for contribution allow the parties to sort out ultimate responsibility for the contamination afterwards. (5) Scope of change in the law: Allowing a private cause of action under subsection.822(a) is not a departure from the way the law already operates in Alaska. In Chenega Corp. v. Exxon Corp., for example, the parties litigated a complex private strict liability claim under subsection .822(a) stemming from the EXXON VALDEZ disaster. [17] No party questioned that subsection .822(a) allowed the action, and Exxon ultimately conceded strict liability, contesting only causation and damages. [18] (6) Burden on the courts of creating a private action: While allowing private parties to bring causes of action may increase the number of claims under subsection.822(a), it will be consistent with what the legislature intended. We do not see that as an undue burden on the courts. Because subsection .822(a) meets all of the criteria for an implied cause of action under our Hendsch analysis, and since the legislative history of the provision supports the conclusion that the legislature meant to permit private actions, we hold that subsection.822(a) creates a private cause of action for joint and several strict liability. In the following section, we briefly consider the scope of this private action.