N.J. Supreme Court says polluters don't have to wait to sue for help with cleanup

N.J. Supreme Court holds session with newly appointed justice

The New Jersey Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Trenton last year.

(Patti Sapone/The Star-Ledger)

TRENTON — The state Supreme Court ruled today that companies charged with polluting New Jersey land don't have to wait for the state to sign off on a cleanup plan before they can sue others who may be responsible to help pay for it.

The unanimous decision allows the Magic Petroleum Corporation to move forward with a lawsuit against the Exxon Mobil Corporation, regarding contamination of land in Millstone Township.

Jeff Tittel, president of the New Jersey chapter of environmental group the Sierra Club, said the ruling may also help speed cleanups at some of New Jersey's 20,000 contaminated sites.

"It's a good decision," Tittel said. "It will allow owners to go after other polluters to help fund cleanups so they can go quicker."

The case revolves around a gasoline and refueling site that Magic operates in the Monmouth County township. The property was found to have contaminated soil and groundwater from underground storage tanks.

The state Department of Environmental Protection determined that Magic, which bought the land in the early 1990s, was liable for the cleanup costs — even though the company claimed other parties were responsible.

But in 2003, while the DEP was conducting its remediation of the site, Magic filed a court claim under New Jersey's Spill Act seeking to have Exxon and other parties to help pay for the cleanup. Exxon operated a gas station across the street.

Two lower courts ruled that Magic needed to wait until the DEP completed its remediation before filing its claim. Today's Supreme Court ruling reverses that.

Justice Faustino Fernandez-Vina wrote that "it would be contrary to the stated goals of the Spill Act — which promotes prompt remediation — to force a discharger to bear the burden of the entire cleanup cost until such time as the remediation is fully complete."

"The completion of a site's remediation may take many years and could involve substantial expenses," Fernandez-Vina continued. "To force one party to shoulder such an amount could prevent remediation from proceeding promptly by generating a disincentive for the party to put forth the financial contribution."

Stuart Lieberman, the Princeton attorney whose firm represents Magic, called it an "important decision."

"Without this finding," Lieberman said, "many cleanups would have ground to a halt and sites in New Jersey would remain uncleaned."

Todd Spitler, a spokesman for Exxon Mobil, said the company is reviewing the court's decision and declined further comment.

MORE POLITICS

FOLLOW STAR-LEDGER POLITICS: TWITTER • FACEBOOK • GOOGLE+

If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.