Opinion ID: 201206
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Measure of contribution entitlement

Text: 79 The district court entered a monetary judgment in favor of R & H based upon the costs associated with the groundwater cleanup. The Capuanos contend that any contribution entitlement should have been based on aggregate response costs, including monies expended on soil remediation. We review the district court's legal conclusion on this issue de novo. Cariglia v. Hertz Equip. Rental Corp., 363 F.3d 77, 82 (1st Cir.2004). 80 In interpreting CERCLA's contribution provisions, this circuit give[s] the word `contribution' its generally accepted legal meaning. Browning-Ferris Indus., 33 F.3d at 99. When applied to an environmental case, the term contribution refers to an action by a responsible party to recover from another responsible party that portion of its costs that are in excess of its pro rata share of the aggregate response costs.  Id. at 103 (emphasis added). Focusing on the words aggregate response costs, the Capuanos contend that the district court erred by not calculating the soil remediation costs together with the groundwater remediation costs. We disagree. Contribution is the right of one who has discharged a common liability to recover of another also liable, the aliquot portion which he ought to pay or bear. Id. at 99 (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 399 (6th ed.1990)). In the action before the district court, the Capuanos and R & H shared common liability for the groundwater remediation only. Since the Capuanos had contribution immunity for costs relating to the soil remediation, it was not error for the district court to conclude that the costs associated with the soil remediation were not relevant.