Opinion ID: 2971540
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: K-H Caused a Release of a Hazardous Substance

Text: To be liable under NREPA, a defendant must have “caused” a release or threat of release of a hazardous substance, leading to the incurrence of response costs. Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.20126(1)(a). The district court found that K-H did not cause a release. Because causation is a question of fact, this court reviews the finding for clear error. Hasler v. United States, 718 F.2d 202, 204 (6th Cir. 1983). Findings of fact are to be reversed only if the court is left “with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Franklin County Convention Facilities Auth., 240 F.3d at 541 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). “Where two logically permissible interpretations of the evidence exist, the trial judge’s selection cannot be adjudged clearly erroneous on appeal.” Id. We assess the district court’s finding that K-H did not cause the release to be clearly erroneous, given its other factual finding acknowledging that K-H used and released the hazardous substances found in Milford’s wells.