Opinion ID: 2823238
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Testimony of Rochelle Stringer, Esq.

Text: In addition to the testimony from the above-referenced experts, Attorney Rochelle Stringer, an employee of Huhtamaki who bore the title of general counsel, testified for Huhtamaki. Attorney Stringer testified that it was she who sent Ferris the March 10, 2006 letter - 12 - denying, on the basis of a purported lack of timely notice under the Indemnity Agreement, Ferris’s claim for indemnification. She also testified that the allegedly untimely notice prevented Huhtamaki from testing the contaminated soil as it lay in its natural state in order to determine if the contaminants were on the Property at the time of the 2003 closing. Attorney Stringer further testified that, after Huhtamaki received the Letter of Responsibility which had been sent by DEM, she directed Robert Steeves, Huhtamaki’s corporate environmental manager, to contact DEM to ensure that that agency was aware that Huhtamaki was no longer the operator of the Property and, for that reason, had been sent the letter in error. Thereafter, in a letter which she wrote to DEM, dated January 6, 2006, Attorney Stringer memorialized Mr. Steeves’s conversation with DEM to the effect that Huhtamaki had been sent the December 21, 2005 Letter of Responsibility by mistake. On cross-examination, Attorney Stringer admitted that Huhtamaki had received the Letter of Responsibility from DEM and that, as of January 3, 2006 at the latest, she was aware that there was a report indicating that there had been a release of hazardous substances on the Property. She then admitted that, in spite of Huhtamaki’s possible liability under the Indemnity Agreement, she had not contacted Ferris about the Letter of Responsibility or any potential cleanup.14