Opinion ID: 795431
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Alleged Inconsistency Between Cooper Industries and Reading

Text: 62
63 Cooper Industries did not explicitly or implicitly overrule our precedents; indeed, the Supreme Court expressly declined to consider the very questions at issue here. See Cooper Indus., 543 U.S. at 168-71, 125 S.Ct. 577. Though it is true that our observation in Reading that § 113(f)(1) specifically permits an action for contribution to be brought `in the absence of a civil action under . . . section [107],' 115 F.3d at 1120, cannot support a cause of action for PRPs engaged in voluntary cleanups after Cooper Industries, we reject DuPont's view that this fatally undermines Reading's holding. For one thing (as explained in Part IV.B. 1.b below), our statement in Reading did not necessarily endorse a § 113(f)(1) contribution action in the absence of a preexisting civil action (and is not, therefore, clearly at odds with the Supreme Court's later instructions). But insofar as our statement can be read to recognize implicitly that possibility, it merely  reenforce[d] our conclusion that Congress intended § 113 to be the sole means for seeking contribution. Id. (emphasis added). We also relied on our precedent in New Castle County, the holdings of other Courts of Appeals, rules of statutory construction, and CERCLA's purpose following the SARA amendments, in deciding that § 113 provides the only contribution remedy under CERCLA. We conclude that, even disregarding the possible implicit reference in Reading to a § 113(f)(1) contribution action in the absence of a § 107 suit, our holding in that case was amply supported on other grounds and therefore survives Cooper Industries. 64
65 It is true that Reading's statement — which quotes from § 113(f)(1)'s saving clause — could be read to endorse a contribution action under § 113(f)(1) without a preexisting civil action, and as such would be wrong. See Cooper Indus., 543 U.S. at 167, 125 S.Ct. 577 (explaining that the saving clause does [not] ... expand § 113(f)(1) to authorize contribution actions not brought `during or following' a § 106 or § 107(a) civil action). But the Supreme Court also observed that while the saving clause rebuts any presumption that the express right of contribution provided by the enabling clause [in § 113(f)(1)] is the exclusive cause of action available to a PRP, it does not specify what causes of action for contribution, if any, exist outside § 113(f)(1), and the Court did not itself address the question further. Id. at 166-67, 125 S.Ct. 577. 66 We do know, however, there is one express cause of action available to a PRP for contribution under CERCLA outside the strictures of § 113(f)(1): contribution under § 113(f)(3)(B) for PRPs that settle their liability in an administrative or judicially approved settlement. Our statement in Reading is not, therefore, necessarily incorrect: it is true that § 113(f)(1) does not foreclose contribution actions when the PRP has not been sued, because § 113(f)(3)(B) remains available if the party chooses to settle. As we explain below, SARA's legislative history makes clear that the § 113(f)(3)(B) settlement provision is one of two incentives that are crucial to a carefully considered scheme to encourage PRPs to settle their liability, enter into consent decrees, and perform supervised cleanups. 21 The District Court concluded that the § 113(f)(1) saving clause merely clarifies that a contribution action brought following a settlement under the aegis of Section 113(f)(3) should not be held to be procedurally insufficient because of an absence of a prior primary action pursuant to CERCLA Sections 106 or 107. E.I. DuPont, 297 F.Supp.2d at 754 (emphasis omitted). As the discussion below demonstrates, this interpretation is consistent with the settlement provisions in SARA, and though there is no legislative history regarding the meaning of the saving clause, we are confident that the District Court's interpretation is in accord with CERCLA's purpose (as amended by SARA), as is our decision in Reading. We therefore decline DuPont's invitation to revisit Reading solely because its possible interpretation of the saving clause is incorrect, especially since our statement in Reading is not necessarily inconsistent with Cooper Industries in the first place.