http://blog.sprlaw.com/2010/02/federal-district-court-holds-lessor-of-industrial-equipment-liable-as-a-%e2%80%9ccurrent-owner%e2%80%9d-under-superfund/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=federal-district-court-holds-lessor-of-industrial-equipment-liable-as-a-%25e2%2580%259ccurrent-owner%25e2%2580%259d-under-superfund Environmental Law News & Updates from Environmental Law Firm Sive, Paget & Riesel PC Tue, 17 Jan 2012 22:46:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://blog.sprlaw.com/2010/02/federal-district-court-holds-lessor-of-industrial-equipment-liable-as-a-%e2%80%9ccurrent-owner%e2%80%9d-under-superfund/comment-page-1/#comment-630 Gary Heard Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:07:49 +0000 http://blog.sprlaw.com/2010/02/federal-district-court-holds-lessor-of-industrial-equipment-liable-as-a-%e2%80%9ccurrent-owner%e2%80%9d-under-superfund/#comment-630 Saporito must have been mystified. Costly defense as well. Saporito must have been mystified. Costly defense as well.

]]> http://blog.sprlaw.com/2010/02/federal-district-court-holds-lessor-of-industrial-equipment-liable-as-a-%e2%80%9ccurrent-owner%e2%80%9d-under-superfund/comment-page-1/#comment-629 Steven C. Russo Fri, 26 Feb 2010 19:16:16 +0000 http://blog.sprlaw.com/2010/02/federal-district-court-holds-lessor-of-industrial-equipment-liable-as-a-%e2%80%9ccurrent-owner%e2%80%9d-under-superfund/#comment-629 In this case the EPA appears to have settled with the current operator, leaving Saporito as the only non-settling party. The opinion does not specify the apportionment of the $1.5 million, if any, between the current operator and Saporito. On the summary judgment motion there appears to have been a dispute as to Saporito’s continuing involvement at the site. That is what makes the opinion interesting. The court avoided the disputed issue and held Saporito liable simply because he owned the plating line. There was no evidence that he had any continuing operation or maintenance obligation. There also is no finding in the opinion that the release that led to the cleanup costs came from the plating line, and it is there that I believe the court erred. In this case the EPA appears to have settled with the current operator, leaving Saporito as the only non-settling party. The opinion does not specify the apportionment of the $1.5 million, if any, between the current operator and Saporito. On the summary judgment motion there appears to have been a dispute as to Saporito’s continuing involvement at the site. That is what makes the opinion interesting. The court avoided the disputed issue and held Saporito liable simply because he owned the plating line. There was no evidence that he had any continuing operation or maintenance obligation. There also is no finding in the opinion that the release that led to the cleanup costs came from the plating line, and it is there that I believe the court erred.

]]> http://blog.sprlaw.com/2010/02/federal-district-court-holds-lessor-of-industrial-equipment-liable-as-a-%e2%80%9ccurrent-owner%e2%80%9d-under-superfund/comment-page-1/#comment-628 Gary Heard Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:05:03 +0000 http://blog.sprlaw.com/2010/02/federal-district-court-holds-lessor-of-industrial-equipment-liable-as-a-%e2%80%9ccurrent-owner%e2%80%9d-under-superfund/#comment-628 It would be interesting to know to what degree the owner of the equipment was involved in its operation or maintenance and the facts around the releases that caused the contamination. Were there no other PRP's from which the EPA could recover costs? It would be interesting to know to what degree the owner of the equipment was involved in its operation or maintenance and the facts around the releases that caused the contamination. Were there no other PRP’s from which the EPA could recover costs?

]]>