The recently decided case of Morristown Associates v. Grant Oil Co., 432 N.J. Super. 287 (App. Div. 2013) is, in essence, in conflict with a prior published decision of the Appellate Division. Moreover, it affirmed a greatly expanded interpretation of the “discovery rule” and is in contradiction to the traditional notion of when a contribution claim arises.
The Morristown Associates case involved a Spill Act contribution claim for costs to remediate contamination by a landowner against other parties who may have caused the contamination. The court upheld the trial court ruling which applied a six-year statute of limitations to the contribution claim, although no such limitations period is found within the statute. It also upheld the trial court’s ruling that the claim was “discovered” once the plaintiff realized that there was an unknown oil tank on the premises, despite the absence of any data indicating that the tank had caused contamination. Additionally, the court accepted the lower court’s decision that the contribution claim ripened when the plaintiff first learned of the claim, not when the plaintiff incurred costs of cleanup beyond its fair share.
