Shepard, Chief Justice.
The question here is whether a property owner’s claim for contribution toward environmental cleanup costs is barred by the statute of limitation if the owner should have known about the contamination more than ten years before the complaint was filed. We hold that the statute of limitation does not begin to run until the owner is ordered to cleanup the property, regardless of whether an owner earlier knew or should have known about the need for cleanup.
Conclusion (slip op. at 7): We reverse the trial court’s order of dismissal and remand the case for further proceedings on the merits.
Key Analysis (slip op. at 5, 6, 7): Because the damage at issue in the Pflanzes’ contribution claim is the cleanup obligation assessed by IDEM that resulted from Foster’s use of the land, the statute of limitation did not begin to accrue until after the Pflanzes were ordered to clean up the property. Accordingly, because IDEM ordered the Pflanzes to pay for the environmental cleanup costs in 2001, the Pflanzes filed their contribution claim well within the ten-year statute of limitation . . . The Pflanzes’ claim for stigma damages cannot possibly have been outside the statute of limitation period. The Pflanzes first incurred cleanup costs in 2001 and filed their claim in 2006 . . . We cannot accept the trial court’s holding that, as a matter of law, the passage of the USTA automatically put landowners on notice that they should inspect and monitor any underground storage tanks on their property even if the former property owners had assured them the tanks were closed and not in use.
Dickson, Sullivan, Boehm, Rucker, JJ., concur.
DisclaimerADVERTISING MATERIAL www.boselaw.com/disclaimer
- Amish Litigants Forced to Honor Agreement
- Indiana Appellate Civil Case Law Summary (May 2012)
- U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down FCC’s Indecency Determinations Against Fox And ABC
- Indiana Appellate Civil Case Law Summary (February 2012)
- Extraordinary Stay Against Newspaper Publication Should Raise Concern
- absolute privilege Advertising Injury Alternative Fee amish anonymous speech Antitrust Appeals Boehm Censorship CERCLA Class Actions Commercial Lines Policy Communications Law Defamation Discovery discovery tools Duty to Defend environmental cleanup FCC First Amendment Free Speech Indecency Indiana indiana court of appeals Indiana Supreme Court Internet Law Journalist's Privilege Justice Life Insurance Media Law Newsgathering objections public utility religious Res Judicata Sevnth Circuit sewer district Shepard Technology United States Supreme Court