WASHINGTON (CN) - Distinguishing it from a statute of limitations, the Supreme Court on Monday found that a North Carolina statute of repose prevents landowners from suing over toxic contamination.
The dispute involves a tract of land in Asheville where CTS Corp. had for decades stored notable quantities of trichloroethylene (TCE) and manufactured products using TCE, cyanide, chromium VI and lead.
When CTS sold the facility in 1987, it promised realtors that the property "had been rendered in an environmentally clean condition." The company said that, "to the best of [its] knowledge, no on-site disposal or otherwise wanton disposal methods were practiced at [the] facility," and that as soon as "the existing inventory of materials contained in drums and other miscellaneous equipment within the plant [was] removed from the premises, no threat to human health or the environment [would] remain."
Dozens of buyers nevertheless soon learned that their well water contained concentrated levels of TCE and cis-1,2-dichloroethane (DCE), solvents that have carcinogenic effects.
David Bradley and Renee Richardson led the landowners in a lawsuit, but a federal judge dismissed the action under North Carolina's 10-year limitation on the accrual of real property claims.
A divided three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit nevertheless reversed after finding that the discovery rule articulated in Section 9658 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Liability, and Compensation Act (CERCLA) pre-empts North Carolina's 10-year limitation.
The Supreme Court took up the case this past February and reversed, 7-2, Monday.
At issue is the difference in how Section 9658 treats state-enacted statutes of limitations and statutes of repose.
Despite their common features, "the time periods specified are measured from different points, and the statutes seek to attain different purposes and objectives," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. "And, as will be explained, §9658 mandates a distinction between the two."
While Black's Law Dictionary explains that a statute of limitations creates "a time limit for suing in a civil case, based on the date when the claim accrued," Kennedy noted that a statute of repose "puts an outer limit on the right to bring a civil action."
"Like a discharge in bankruptcy, a statute of repose can be said to provide a fresh start or freedom from liability,' he explained. "Indeed, the double jeopardy clause has been described as 'a statute of repose' because it in part embodies the idea that at some point a defendant should be able to put past events behind him."
Equitable tolling meanwhile can apply to a statute of limitations but not to a statute of repose, "even in cases of extraordinary circumstances beyond a plaintiff's control," according to the ruling.
"As an illustrative example, under North Carolina law statutes of limitations may be tolled but statutes of repose may not," Kennedy wrote.
The Asheville property owners in this case contend that learned about the contamination in 2009, more than 20 years after taking ownership.
Kennedy said that one "altogether unambiguous textual indication that §9658 does not pre-empt statutes of repose is that §9658 provides for equitable tolling for 'minor or incompetent plaintiff[s].'"
