Opinion ID: 779984
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: State statutes of limitations for hazardous substance cases

Text: 21
22 In the case of any action brought under State law for personal injury ... which [is] caused or contributed to by exposure to any hazardous substance, or pollutant or contaminant, released into the environment from a facility, if the applicable limitations period for such action (as specified in the State statute of limitations or under common law) provides a commencement date which is earlier than the federally required commencement date, such period shall commence at the federally required commencement date in lieu of the date specified in such State statute. 23 The effect of this provision is to ensure that if a state statute of limitations provides a commencement date for claims of personal injury resulting from release of contaminants that is earlier than the commencement date defined in § 9658, then plaintiffs benefit from the more generous commencement date. Section 9658 defines the federally required commencement date for state limitations periods as the date the plaintiff knew (or reasonably should have known) that the personal injury... w[as] caused or contributed to by the hazardous substance or pollutant or contaminant concerned. 42 U.S.C. § 9658(b)(4)(A). 24 Thus, § 9658 preempts California's commencement date if that date is earlier than the federally required commencement date. See Tucker v. Southern Wood Piedmont Co., 28 F.3d 1089, 1093 (11th Cir.1994) (interpreting § 9658 to ensure effective preemption of state statutes of limitation); Angeles Chem. Co. v. Spencer & Jones, 44 Cal.App.4th 112, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 594, 599 (1996) (Practically speaking, CERCLA essentially preempts state statutes of limitations if ... the applicable limitations period provides for an earlier commencement date than federal law. (internal quotations and citations omitted)). We must therefore determine whether the limitations period for Plaintiffs' claims would commence earlier under state law than under § 9658. If so, then we apply federal law. See Elec. Power Bd. of Chattanooga v. Monsanto Co., 879 F.2d 1368, 1378 (6th Cir.1989) (comparing federal and state standards for discovery of claims). On the other hand, if the commencement date is later under state law than under federal law, or they are the same, we apply the state law standard. See id. (holding that the federal and state standards were the same, and that both barred the plaintiffs' claims); Angeles Chem. Co., 51 Cal.Rptr.2d at 599-600([W]here a state applies the discovery rule, such that the statute of limitations commences on the same date under both state law and CERCLA, there is no federal preemption.). Here, because the federal standard under CERCLA is more generous than California law in tolling the statute of limitations when a plaintiff's discovery of her claims is delayed, the federal commencement date preempts California's discovery rule. 25