judd law group --vapor intrusion presentation

8/9/2019 Judd Law Group --Vapor Intrusion Presentation

1/18

Vapor Intrusion: Toxic TortsJeffrey M. Judd

Partner

525 Market Street, 36thFloor

San Francisco, CA 94105

415-848-3221 (direct)

[email protected]


2/18

2

Environmental vs. Toxic Torts LitigationEnvironmental vs. Toxic Torts Litigation

Environmental litigationaddresses the legal effect ofcontamination on soil, water, air, and plant and animalresources

Toxic Tort litigationaddresses the legal effect ofenvironmental contamination on humans


3/18

3

Contamination ofsoil or

groundwater

EnvironmentalAction (Assessment,remediation, closure)

Intervening Event(migration,

redevelopment)

Vapor Intrusion

Regulatory action

Anatomy of a Toxic Tort ActionAnatomy of a Toxic Tort Action

AG Action Toxic Tort


4/18

4

Common Threads Between EnvironmentalCommon Threads Between Environmentaland Toxic Tort Suitsand Toxic Tort Suits

Causes of action

Negligence

Trespass

Nuisance

Strict Liability

Damages/Claims for Relief Compensatory Damages

Punitive/Exemplary Damages

Injunction/mitigation Diminution/Stigma

Defenses Statute of limitations


5/18

5

Toxic Tort Causes of ActionToxic Tort Causes of Action

Negligence

Duty to take reasonable precautions to avoid injury toanother

Breach of duty

Injury

Proximate/Actual Causation

Effect of safety statute/regulation negligence per se


6/186


Nuisance Invasion of private use and enjoyment of land

Intentional and unreasonable or

Negligent or reckless or

Actionable under rules governing liability for abnormally dangerousconditions or activites (i.e., strict liability)

If a trespass is found, damages will be awarded

Nominal

Compensatory

Punitive/exemplary


7/187


Trespass

Causing a thing or substance to go on or contaminate property

Without justification or permission

With intent to act so as to cause invasion

If a trespass is found, damages will be awarded

Nominal

Compensatory

Punitive/exemplary


8/188

Toxic Tort Causes of ActionToxic Tort Causes of Action StatutoryStatutoryCausesCauses

RCRA Injunctive Relief (42 U.S.C. 6972(a)(1)(B) Past/present generator, transporter, TSD owner/operator

Has contributed/is contributing to (i.e., active, not passive)

Past/present handling, storage, treatment, transport,disposal

Of any solid or hazardous waste that

May present an imminent and substantial endangerment to

health or the environment See, e.g., Interfaith Commty Org. v. Honeywell Intl, Inc., 188 F. Supp. 2d at 503 (D.N.J.

2002) (actual harm not required, that substantial endangerment mayexist is sufficient)

Meghrig v. KFC Western, Inc., 516 U.S. 557 (1992) (imminence implies that there must bea threat which is present now, although the impact of the threat may not be felt until later


9/189

Toxic Tort Causes of ActionToxic Tort Causes of Action StatutoryStatutoryCausesCauses

CERCLA section 107(a) (42 U.S.C. sec. 9607(a))

Property is a CERCLA facility

release of a hazardous substance Defendant is a PRP/covered person

Plaintiff seeks costs of response

Plaintiff is not a liable under CERCLA


10/1810

Examples of Toxic Tort VI CasesExamples of Toxic Tort VI Cases

Belmont High School (Belmont Learning Center), LosAngeles Unified School District

Endicott, NY Blaine, et al. v. IBM

Greenpoint, Brooklyn, NY (seewww.epa.gov/region02/superfund/npl/newtowncreek/newtowncreek_review.pdf)

Montgomery County, PA Ball v. Bayard Pump & TankCo., Penn. Court of Common Please No. 95-6438 (jurytrial verdict)

Ft. Edwards, NY Aiken, et al. v. General Electric Co.,No. 505023, Memo and Order (3d Dept, Supreme CourtAppellate Division, December 4 2008).
http://www.epa.gov/region02/superfund/npl/newtowncreek/newtowncreek_review.pdfhttp://www.epa.gov/region02/superfund/npl/newtowncreek/newtowncreek_review.pdf


11/1811

Toxic Tort ClaimsToxic Tort Claims

Why not a class action?

Medical monitoring claims

Emotional distress (cancerphobia)

Causation Issues

Injury Issues

Expansive roster of potential claimants Employees

Tenants

Contractors

HOAs


12/1812

Toxic Tort ClaimsToxic Tort Claims

Potential defendants include

Developers

Builders

Up-gradient owners, operators, generators

TSD operators

Remediation contractors


13/1813

Plaintiffs Strategic ConsiderationsPlaintiffs Strategic Considerations

Jurisdiction/Venue

Judge/jury considerations

Applicable law

Federal ancillary jurisdiction over state law claims

Availability of damages

Limitations on damages

Coat-tailing/enlisting regulators

AG actions the New York experience EPA orders


14/1814

Defendants Strategic ConsiderationsDefendants Strategic Considerations

Removal under CAFA mass action provisions (28U.S.C. sec. 1332(d))

100 or more plaintiffs

Common questions of law or fact between the plaintiffs claims

Minimal diversity (at least one P is diverse from one D)

Aggregated claims greater than $5 million

At least one plaintiffs claim exceeds $75,000

Case removable w/I 30 days after basis for removal determined(no 1-year deadline applies)

Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676 (9th Cir.2006); Lowery v. Alabama Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184 (11th Cir.2007)


15/18

15


Avoiding a toxic tort action

Prompt assessment and cleanup

Minimizing anxiety

Hiring owners experts

The IBM mitigation offer

Managing public disclosurethe crisis management model

Indoor air testing issues

Modeling

Mitigation/prophylactic measures

Cooperation with governing agencies


16/18

16


The expert case

Daubert & Fryeconsiderations

Causation and injury issues

Standards

Occupational exposures and PELs

EPA risk assessments the TCE saga Conflict and uncertainty

Safe-unsafe vs. Relative Risk


17/18

17

Contact InformationContact Information

Jeffrey M. JuddHowrey LLP525 Market Street, 36th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94105Direct dial: 415-848-3221

Email: [email protected]

Link to bio: http://www.howrey.com/juddj/


18/18

18

judd law group --vapor intrusion presentation

Documents