X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Bonnie Blue Inc. and Bonnie Blue Ltd. filed this suit against the appellees to recover the costs associated with their cleanup and removal of certain hazardous waste on property previously owned by J. M. Reichenstein Jr., Frances R. Bedell, Ruth Sielaff, and Robert L. Bedell, trustee of Frances R. Bedell Trust. The appellants asserted a claim under the Solid Waste Disposal Act as well as a common law contribution and indemnity claim. The trial court granted a take-nothing summary judgment in favor of the appellees based on a purported “as is” clause in the real estate sales contract between the Reichensteins and T. D. Corp., whose successor in interest later sold the property to Bonnie Blue Inc. This matter concerns a 1.5-acre tract of land located in Dallas County. From 1964 to 1982, some or all the Reichensteins operated a wood-preserving business on the property utilizing an underground storage tank, a concrete sump and a steel vat containing wood preserving chemicals. In 1982, the Reichensteins sold the property to T.D. Corp. Preprinted paragraph 8 of the sales contract between the Reichensteins and T.D. Corp. contained the following provision: “Purchaser acknowledges that he has inspected all buildings and improvements situated on the property and is thoroughly familiar with their condition, and Purchaser hereby accepts the property and the buildings and improvements situated thereon, in their present condition, with such changes therein as may hereafter be caused by reasonable deterioration.” Bonnie Blue Inc. purchased the property in 1991 from Rex-Tex Equipment Co., the successor in interest to T.D. Corp. In 1999, after discovering environmental contamination, appellants entered the property into the Texas Voluntary Cleanup Program, and the underground storage tank, concrete sump, steel vat and contaminated soil were removed. The appellants then filed this cost recovery action asserting a claim under the SWDA and a common-law contribution and indemnity claim. HOLDING:Reversed and remanded in part; affirmed in part. Appellants have not cited a single authority in support of the position that paragraph 8 is not an “as is” clause. That portion of appellants’ argument asserting they are not bound by the purported “as is” clause contains only two case citations, and neither addresses this particular issue. Any error based on these arguments is waived. The appellants contend that even if paragraph 8 constitutes an “as is” provision by which they are bound, it still does not bar their claim under the SWDA. No Texas case specifically addresses the effect of an “as is” provision on a contribution claim under the SWDA. Appellees contend the holding in Prudential Insurance Co. v. Jefferson Associates Ltd., 896 S.W.2d 156 (Tex. 1995), compels a ruling that the appellants’ SWDA claim is barred by paragraph 8. After reviewing the SWDA’s applicable provisions and considering the legislative purpose in enacting the SWDA, the court concludes the holding of Prudential is inapposite to the circumstances presented and that the purported “as is” clause of paragraph 8 does not bar the appellants’ statutory contribution claim. Unlike Prudential where causation was required to establish the seller’s liability, the statute here clearly intends to hold those responsible for hazardous waste liable for their fair share of the cleanup costs without the need to establish causation. Allowing an otherwise “responsible party” to avoid liability based on paragraph 8 would clearly circumvent both the intent and language of the statute. The court acknowledges the appellees’ contention that various courts have held that the SWDA’s federal counterpart, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act permits parties to enter contracts affirmatively to insure or to indemnify against CERCLA liability. CERCLA has a specific provision authorizing such contracts. 42 U.S.C. �9607(e). The court does not address the issue of whether the SWDA similarly permits such insurance or indemnification contracts between parties as it is not necessary for the disposition of this appeal. OPINION:Francis, J.; Moseley, Richter and Francis, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.