Opinion ID: 738219
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Consistency With Price-Anderson Act

Text: 58 One final consideration not raised by the parties is whether a claim for continuing trespass, as defined by Ohio law, is inconsistent with the Price-Anderson Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 2014(hh). Although this issue is fundamental to the ultimate disposition of this case and is a question of law, we decline to decide it here in light of the posture of the case and the wholly undeveloped record on this point. 59 Initially, the Price-Anderson Act did not explicitly provide any statute of limitations. 15 In 1966, Congress amended the Price-Anderson Act to provide that with respect to any ENO, the Commission or the Secretary may incorporate provisions in indemnity agreements and insurance policies requiring licensees and contractors to waive any issue or defense based on any statute of limitations if suit is instituted within three years from the date on which the claimant first knew, or reasonably could have known, of his injury or damage and the cause thereof, but in no event more than ten years after the nuclear incident. 1966 Amendments, Pub.L. 89-645, § 3(n), 42 U.S.C. § 2210(n)(1) (1966). Congress reasoned that [t]he 10-year gross limitations period which this bill establishes is a more equitable time period for asserting radiation-caused personal injury claims than is afforded under the laws of many States. S.Rep. No. 89-1605 (1966), reprinted in 1966 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3201, 3220. 60 Congress settled on ten years as consistent with the gross period provided in the Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage (1963), the Brussels Convention on the Liability of Operators of Nuclear Ships (1962), the Paris Convention on Third-Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy (1960), and the laws of several foreign countries. Id. Moreover, the legislative history recognizes the difficulty of establishing a magic number that equitably balances the need to quiet stale claims and the need to assure victims a reasonable time in which to discover and assert their claims. 1966 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 3220-21. Significantly, the legislative history further states that the ten-year provision did not trump longer state law statutes of limitations: 61 It should be noted that the 10-year period is not a maximum period for assertion of Price-Anderson covered claims, since the waiver authorized by the bill serves only to avoid the application of more restrictive State statutes of limitations. Such waiver leaves undisturbed the laws of those States which have enacted--or in the future may enact--longer periods of limitation. 62 1966 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 3221. 63 In 1975, Congress amended § 2210(n)(1) to increase the ten-year period to twenty years. Pub.L. 94-197, § 12, 42 U.S.C. § 2210(n)(1) (1975). In 1988, Congress again amended § 2210(n)(1) to eliminate the twenty-year statute of limitations. Pub.L. 100-408, § 16, 42 U.S.C. § 2210(n)(1) (1988). Thus, under the 1988 amendment, a damage suit could be filed at any time after an ENO, provided the suit is instituted within 3 years from the time that the claimant first knew, or reasonably could have known, of his injury or damages caused by the ENO. S.Rep. No. 100-70, at 21 (1988), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1424, 1434. Moreover, as with each amendment to the statute of limitations provision, this new standard was meant to supercede any more restrictive State tort law standards in existing law with respect to statutes of limitations. Id. 64 The three-year discovery provision has not changed since the 1966 Amendments. In the instant case, it is uncontested that Nieman discovered at least part of his damages more than three years before he filed this case. However, because Ohio law provides a longer period within which Nieman could file his continuing trespass claim, if Ohio law of continuing trespass does not conflict with § 2210 as prohibited by § 2014(hh), the three-year discovery rule would not necessarily bar Nieman's Price-Anderson Act claim for continuing trespass. Moreover, we note that § 2210(n)(1) applies only to ENOs, not all nuclear incidents; therefore, presumably Congress intended not to alter the state law statutes of limitations for nuclear incidents that are not ENOs (again to the extent they are not inconsistent with § 2210 as required by § 2014). Although the various amendments to the provision regarding the waiver of issues and defenses based on statutes of limitations with respect to ENOs may provide some insight into Congressional intent, in light of the posture of this case and the fact that neither the district court nor the parties have addressed whether a continuing trespass claim that effectively extends the time for filing beyond the traditional discovery rule is consistent with § 2210 of the Price Anderson Act, we decline to decide this issue. 65 It could be argued that a continuing trespass claim defined by Ohio law is inconsistent with the three-year discovery rule provision in § 2210(n)(1) since Ohio law of continuing trespass allows a claimant to file suit more than three years from the date on which the claimant first knew, or reasonably could have known, of his injury or damage and the cause thereof. 42 U.S.C. § 2210(n)(1). On the other hand, § 2210(n) previously limited the three-year discovery rule to provide an outside limit in which a claimant must institute an action, i.e., within twenty years of the date of the nuclear incident. The parties have not explored the impact of these amendments on the issue at hand, i.e., whether the amendments indicate a Congressional intent to limit the time for bringing a claim under the Price-Anderson Act or whether the elimination of an outside limitation period that begins to run on the date of the nuclear incident implies the opposite intent. 16 Nor have the parties discussed whether the fact that § 2210(n) applies only to ENOs suggests that no outside time limit should apply to nuclear incidents or, alternatively, that a shorter time limit should apply to a less significant public liability action. In fact, the parties have provided no proof that the alleged leak constitutes an ENO or a nuclear incident. Finally, the legislative history for each amendment relating to the statute of limitations issue stresses that the statute imposed is a minimum limitations period, such that it supersedes more restrictive state tort law limitations periods but does not necessarily preclude the application of a longer state statute of limitations. See, e.g., S.Rep. No. 100-70, at 21 (1988), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 1434. Since the parties have not developed this issue and because the district court had no occasion to address it in deciding the motion to dismiss, we decline to decide at this juncture whether Ohio law of continuing trespass is consistent with the Price-Anderson Act.