Bd. Of County Comm'rs Of St. Mary's County v. Marcas

• Decision Date: 20 September 2010
• Docket Number: Misc. No. 3
• Parties: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ST. MARY'S COUNTY v. MARCAS, L.L.C.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ST. MARY'S COUNTY

v.MARCAS, L.L.C.

Misc. No. 3

Court Of Appeals Of Maryland

September Term, 2009

Filed: September 20, 2010

LGTCA LIMITATION ON LIABILITY; "INDIVIDUAL CLAIM" UNDER C.J. § 5-303(a): Under C.J. § 5-303(a), if a local government negligently fails to comply with applicable state and federal regulations pertaining to a particular landfill, and that negligence is the proximate cause of contamination to one or more adjacent properties, each adjacent property owner's claim for money damages would constitute an "individual claim," regardless of how many theories of recovery are asserted.

LGTCA LIMITATION ON LIABILITY; "SAME OCCURRENCE" UNDER C.J. § 5-303(a): Under C.J. § 5-303(a), if a local government negligently fails to comply with applicable state and federal regulations pertaining to a particular landfill, and that negligence is the proximate cause of contamination to one or more adjacent properties, each adjacent owner's claim for money damages would arise out of the "same occurrence," even if the local government was negligent (1) in several different ways, and (2) for an extended period of time.

Bell, C.J. Harrell Battaglia Greene Murphy Adkins Barbera, JJ.

Opinion by Murphy, J.

On January 22, 2007, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland opened Case No. 8:07-cv-00196-CBD as a result of a Complaint filed by Marcas, L.L.C. against the Board of County Commissioners of St. Mary's County. On October 2, 2009, that case was "Stayed pending the receipt of the written opinion of the Court of Appeals of Maryland stating the law governing [two] questions certified" pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act, ¹ and Maryland Rule 8-305(b).²The certified questions are:

1. Whether multiple tort counts and injuries as alleged in [the] Complaint [filed by Marcas, L.L.C. against the Board of County Commissioners of St. Mary's County] constitute an "individual claim" under the Maryland Local Government Tort Claims Act [(LGTCA)], Md. Code Ann. Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-303(a); and

2. Whether the multiple tort counts and injuries as alleged in [Marcas, L.L.C.'s] Complaint constitute the "same occurrence" under the Maryland Local Government Tort Claims Act, Md. Code Ann. Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-303(a)[?]

For the reasons that follow, we answer "yes" to both questions. Despite the fact that Appellant's negligence is alleged to have occurred in many ways over an extended period of time, for purposes of C.J. § 5-303(a), ³ all of the causes of action in which Appellee has asserted a claim for money damages constitute an "individual claim" that arises out of the "same occurrence."

Background

In a Memorandum Opinion accompanying its certification order, the federal court stated:

This case arises out of [Appellee's] claims that sub-surface methane gas and other volatile organic compounds migrated from the St. Andrews Landfill to [Appellee's] adjacent property. [Appellee] alleges that each day of contamination equals a separate occurrence and separate claims for damages, thus allowing for a maximum of $500,000 in damages for each day that a violation exists. In contrast, [Appellant] argues that sub-surface migration over time amounts to one occurrence and one individual claim under the statute, resulting in a maximum total liability of $200,000.

Appellee's SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, in pertinent part, alleges:

INTRODUCTION

1. This suit is brought under the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, Solid Waste Disposal Act, and in tort for releases of hazardous substances and other pollutants by [Appellant] onto the property of [Appellee]. [Appellant's] actions have damaged or threatened the environment and public health and safety and have harmed [Appellee] through damage to and loss of value of [Appellee's] property, as well as interference with [Appellee's] efforts to use, develop, and sell [Appellee's] property. [Appellee] seeks its necessary costs of response to [Appellant's] releases of hazardous substances under the federal Superfund statute as alleged in Count One; injunctive relief and damages in nuisance and trespass by [Appellant] as alleged in Counts Two and Three; damages for [Appellant's] wrongful interference with [Appellee's] business relationships as set forth in Count Four; and damages in strict liability for [Appellant's] harm to[Appellee's] property and business interests, as alleged in Count Five.

* * *

8. The property that is the subject of [Appellee's] claims is a tract of land consisting of approximately 227 acres, located in California, Maryland, at St. Mary's County Tax Map 34, Parcel 455 (the "Property").

9. Cazimir Szlendak, a person who directly or indirectly has an interest in [Appellee], acquired the Property in 1978.

10. [Appellee] acquired the Property on April 10, 1998 from Cazimir Szlendak.

* * *

22. [Appellant] began purchasing land for the St. Andrews Landfill in 1971 and completed land acquisition in 1984, for a total site area of approximately 270 acres. The Landfill includes four sanitary waste disposal cells (Cells 1-4) and one rubble disposal cell (Cell 5).

23. Active land-filling operations were conducted and wastes were disposed at the Landfill beginning in approximately 1974 under the authority of [Appellant].

24. [Appellant] was in 1974 and continues to be the owner and operator of the Landfill.

25. Disposal operations at the Landfill were conducted until [Appellant] discontinued waste disposal in Cells 1, 2, and 4 in November 1997 and in Cell 3 in February 1999. The disposal of rubble was discontinued in June 2001.

* * *

COUNT ONE

COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION AND LIABILITY ACT OF 1980, AS AMENDED ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601, ET SEQ.

* * *

96. There has been a release or threatened release of hazardous substance from the Landfill.

97. [Appellee] has incurred necessary response costs, including monitoring, assessment, and evaluation costs consistent with the National Contingency Plan, in response to the releases or threatened releases from the Landfill. [Appellee] expects to incur further response costs, consistent with the National Contingency Plan, in response to the releases from the Landfill.

98. [Appellant] is a current owner or operator of the Landfill.

99. [Appellant] was an owner or operator of the Landfill at the time of disposal of a hazardous substance.

100. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a), [Appellant] is liable to [Appellee] for all necessary response costs incurred and to be incurred by [Appellee] at its Property.

COUNT TWO

TRESPASS

103. [Appellant] has allowed and is continuing to allow hazardous substances, pollutants and contaminants from the Landfill to invade [Appellee]'s Property and interfere with [Appellee]'s interest in the exclusive possession, use and enjoyment of the Property.

104. [Appellant] had notice of its actions giving rise to the trespass and failed to cease the actions.

105. As an actual and proximate result of the trespass by [Appellant], has been damaged in an amount greater than $10,300, 000, the exact amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT THREE

PRIVATE NUISANCE

107. [Appellant]'s ownership and/or operation of the Landfill has been conducted and is continuing to be conducted in a manner that interferes with [Appellee's] reasonable use and enjoyment of the Property.

108. [Appellant] knew or should have known of the condition and the nuisance or unreasonable risk involved.

109. [Appellant] knew or should have known that the condition existed without the consent of [Appellee].

110. [Appellant] has failed, after a reasonable opportunity, to abate the condition.

111. As an actual and proximate result of the nuisance maintained by [Appellant], has been damaged in an amount greater than $10,300, 000, the exact amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT FOUR

INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS OR ECONOMIC RELATIONSHIP

115. [Appellant] wrongfully interfered with [Appellee's] business or economic relationship though intentional and willful acts that had the foreseeable effect of causing damage to [Appellee] in its lawful business of developing property within the First Colony PUD.

116. [Appellant] caused damage to [Appellee] in its lawful business without right or justifiable cause.

117. As an actual and proximate result of [Appellant]'s actions, [Appellee] was damaged in an amount greater than $2,000, 000, the exact amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT FIVE

STRICT LIABILITY FOR ABNORMALLY DANGEROUS OR ULTRAHAZARDOUS ACTIVITY

119. [Appellant's] operations ofthe Landfill as an open dump in violation of the Solid Waste Disposal Act and regulation promulgated thereunder is an activity that is unduly dangerous and inappropriate to the place in which it isconducted.

120. As an actual and proximate result of [Appellant's] activity, [Appellee] has been damaged in an amount greater than $10,300, 000, the exact amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT SIX

SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT ("SWDA"), 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(A)

123. [Appellant] has allowed and is allowing known carcinogens and other pollutants to discharge from the Landfill into waters of the United States without a permit in violation of the requirements of § 402 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1342.

124. [Appellant] has allowed and is allowing methane gas to exceed its lower explosive limit at the facility boundary of the Landfill.

125. [Appellant] has allowed and is allowing uncontrolled public access so as to expose the public to health and safety hazards at the Landfill.

126. Because the Landfill fails to satisfy the criteria in 40 C.F.R. Part 258, including but not limited to, criteria in 40 C.F.R. §§ 258.27, 258.23, or 258.25, the Landfill is an open dump prohibited by Section 4005 of the SWDA, 42 U.S.C. § 6945.

127. [Appellant]'s operation and closure ofthe Landfill is in violation of the SWDA and regulations, conditions, requirements, and prohibitions that are effective pursuant to the SWDA.

128. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 6972(

...