In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (“MTBE”) Prods. Liab. Litig., Docket Nos. 10–4135–cv, 10–4329–cv.
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
| Writing for the Court | SUSAN L. CARNEY |
| Citation | 725 F.3d 65 |
| Parties | In re METHYL TERTIARY BUTYL ETHER (“MTBE”) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. |
| Docket Number | Docket Nos. 10–4135–cv, 10–4329–cv. |
| Decision Date | 26 July 2013 |
725 F.3d 65
In re METHYL TERTIARY BUTYL ETHER (“MTBE”) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Docket Nos. 10–4135–cv, 10–4329–cv.
United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.
Argued: May 23, 2012.
Decided: July 26, 2013.
[725 F.3d 76]
Paul D. Clement, Bancroft PLLC, Washington, DC (Traci L. Lovitt, Nicholas W. Haddad, Jones Day, New York, NY; Peter John Sacripanti, James A. Pardo, Lauren E. Handel, McDermott Will & Emery LLP, New York, NY, on the brief), for Defendants–Appellants–Cross–Appellees Exxon Mobil Oil Corporation, Exxon Mobil Corporation, and Mobil Corporation.
Paul M. Smith, Jenner & Block LLP, Washington, DC (Susan E. Amron, Assistant Corporation Counsel, New York City Law Department, New York, NY; Victor M. Sher, Sher Leff LLP, San Francisco, CA, on the brief), for Plaintiffs–Appellees–Cross–Appellants the City of New York, the New York City Water Board, and the New York City Municipal Water Finance Authority.
Donald W. Fowler, Eric G. Lasker, Hollingsworth LLP, Washington, DC; Donald D. Evans, American Chemistry Council, Washington, DC; Thomas J. Graves, American Coatings Association, Inc., Washington, DC; Quentin Riegel, National Association of Manufacturers, Washington, DC; Elizabeth Milito, NFIB Small Business Legal Center, Washington, DC; Robin S. Conrad, National Chamber Litigation Center, Inc., Washington, DC, for amici curiae American Chemistry Council, American Coatings Association, the National Association of Manufacturers, the NFIB Small Business Legal Center, and the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, in support of Defendants–Appellants–Cross–Appellees.
Joseph R. Guerra, James R. Wedeking, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, DC, for amici curiae National Petrochemical and Refiners Association and American Petroleum Institute, in support of Defendants–Appellants–Cross–Appellees.
Michael B. Mukasey, Anne E. Cohen, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, New York, NY; Hugh F. Young, Jr., Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc., Reston, VA, for amicus curiae The Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc., in support of Defendants–Appellants–Cross–Appellees.
[725 F.3d 77]
Michael E. Wall, Natural Resources Defense Council, San Francisco, CA, Johanna Dyer, Natural Resources Defense Council, New York, NY, for amicus curiae Natural Resources Defense Council, in support of Plaintiffs–Appellees–Cross–Appellants.
Paula T. Dow, Attorney General of New Jersey, George N. Cohen, Richard F. Engel, Deputy Attorneys General, Trenton, NJ; Michael Axline, Miller, Axline & Sawyer, Sacramento, CA, for amicus curiae New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, in support of Plaintiffs–Appellees–Cross–Appellants.
Before: PARKER, HALL, and CARNEY, Circuit Judges.
SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judge:
+-----------------+
¦Table of Contents¦
+-----------------¦
¦ ¦
+-----------------+
+----------------------------------+
¦I.¦BACKGROUND ¦79 ¦
+----------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦A. ¦MTBE and Its Effects ¦80 ¦
+----+----+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦B. ¦The Clean Air Act and the Reformulated Gasoline Program¦81 ¦
+----+----+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦C. ¦The City's Water–Supply System ¦81 ¦
+----+----+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦D. ¦The City's Claims ¦82 ¦
+----+----+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦E. ¦The Trial ¦83 ¦
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦1. ¦Phase I: Future Use of the Station Six Wells ¦83 ¦
+----+----+---+------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦ ¦ ¦2. ¦Phase II: Peak MTBE Concentration in the Station Six ¦85 ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Wells ¦ ¦
+----+----+---+------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦ ¦ ¦3. ¦Phase III: Liability and Statute of Limitations ¦86 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦a.¦Injury ¦87 ¦
+---+---+--+--+----------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦b.¦Causation ¦88 ¦
+---+---+--+--+----------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦c.¦Damages ¦89 ¦
+---+---+--+--+----------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦d.¦Statute of Limitations ¦90 ¦
+---+---+--+--+----------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦e.¦Phase III Jury Verdict ¦91 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦F.¦Punitive Damages ¦91 ¦
+--+--+-------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦G.¦Juror Misconduct ¦94 ¦
+--+--+-------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦H.¦Post–Trial Motions ¦95 ¦
+------------------------------------------+
+---------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+---+------------------------------------------+----¦
¦II.¦DISCUSSION ¦95 ¦
+---------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦A.¦Preemption ¦95 ¦
+------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦1.¦Federal Preemption of State Law ¦96 ¦
+----+---+--+---------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦2.¦Conflict Preemption: the Impossibility Branch¦97 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦a. ¦The Import of the Jury's Finding on the City's ¦98 ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Design–Defect Claim ¦ ¦
+----+----+---+---+--------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦b. ¦Considering Ethanol as a Possible Alternative to ¦100 ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦MTBE ¦ ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+---------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦3.¦Conflict Preemption: the Obstacle Branch¦101 ¦
+---+---+--+----------------------------------------+-----¦
¦ ¦ ¦4.¦Tortious Conduct Beyond Mere Use of MTBE¦103 ¦
+---------------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦B.¦Legal Cognizability of Injury ¦104 ¦
+------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦1.¦Standing ¦105 ¦
+---+---+--+------------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦ ¦2.¦Injury As a Matter of New York Law ¦107 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦C. ¦Ripeness and Statute of Limitations ¦109 ¦
+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦D. ¦Sufficiency of the Evidence as to Injury and Causation¦112 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦1. ¦The Jury's 10 ppb MTBE Peak Concentration Finding¦113 ¦
+----+---+---+-------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦2. ¦The Jury's Consideration of Market Share Evidence¦115 ¦
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦E.¦New York Law Claims ¦117 ¦
+------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦1.¦Negligence ¦117 ¦
+---+---+--+------------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦ ¦2.¦Trespass ¦119 ¦
+---+---+--+------------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦ ¦3.¦Public Nuisance ¦121 ¦
+---+---+--+------------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦ ¦4.¦Failure to Warn ¦123 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦F. ¦Juror Misconduct ¦125 ¦
+---+---+--------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦ ¦G. ¦The City's Cross–Appeals for Further Damages¦126 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦1.¦Compensatory Damages Offset ¦126 ¦
+---+---+--+------------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦ ¦2.¦Punitive Damages ¦127 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+----+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦III.¦CONCLUSION ¦130 ¦
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
[725 F.3d 78]
Exxon Mobil Corporation, Exxon Mobil Oil Corporation, and Mobil Corporation (collectively, “Exxon”) appeal from an amended judgment entered in favor of the City of New York, the New York City Water Board, and the New York City Municipal Water Finance Authority (collectively, “the City”) on September 17, 2010, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Shira A. Scheindlin, Judge), following an eleven-week jury trial and post-trial proceedings. The case was selected to serve as a bellwether trial in certain long-running multidistrict litigation, consolidated in the District Court, that concerns contamination of groundwater by the organic chemical compound methyl tertiary butyl ether (“MTBE”).1
As described in greater detail below, this extended litigation arose from the intensive use of MTBE as a gasoline additive by Exxon and other gasoline companies in the New York area from the 1980s through the first half of the 2000s, when a state ban on MTBE brought the era to an end. Treatment with MTBE increased the oxygen content of gasoline and mitigated harm to air quality caused by automobile emissions, thereby furthering the goals of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401–7671q, as amended from time to time. Because of spillage and leakage from gasoline stored in underground tanks, however, MTBE-treated gasoline was released into the ground, contaminating groundwater supplies. MTBE causes water to assume a foul smell and taste, and has been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
200 practice notes
-
Seggos v. Next Millennium Realty, LLC, 06-CV-1133 (SJF)(AYS)
...is also known as "PCE," "perc," or perchloroethylene. See In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Products Liab. Litig., 725 F.3d 65, 89 n. 6 (2d Cir. 2013), cert. denied sub nom Exxon Mobil Corp. v. City of New York, N.Y., 134 S. Ct. 1877, 188 L. Ed. 2d 948 (2014). Perchloroethylene is on......
-
Gordon v. New England Cent. R.R., Case No. 2:17-cv-00154
...federal law preempts state law bears the burden of establishing preemption." In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Prods. Liab. Litig., 725 F.3d 65, 96 (2d Cir. 2013) (citing Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555, 569 (2009)). "If the statute contains an express pre-emption clause, the task of s......
-
Torres v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 17-cv-2794 (SJF)(ARL)
...and sensitive power: 'the purpose of Congress is the ultimate touchstone.'" In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Prod. Liab. Litig., 725 F.3d 65, 96 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555, 565, 129 S. Ct. 1187, 173 L. Ed. 2d 51 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted)); ......
-
In re Tribune Company Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation, Nos. 13-3992-cv
...L.Ed.2d 43 (2013) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); accord In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Prods. Liab. Litig., 725 F.3d 65, 97 (2d Cir. 2013) cert. denied sub nom. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. City of New York, 572 U.S. 1080, 134 S. Ct. 1877, 188 L.Ed.2d 948 (2014) (courts......
Request a trial to view additional results
193 cases
-
Seggos v. Next Millennium Realty, LLC, 06-CV-1133 (SJF)(AYS)
...is also known as "PCE," "perc," or perchloroethylene. See In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Products Liab. Litig., 725 F.3d 65, 89 n. 6 (2d Cir. 2013), cert. denied sub nom Exxon Mobil Corp. v. City of New York, N.Y., 134 S. Ct. 1877, 188 L. Ed. 2d 948 (2014). Perchloroethylene is on......
-
Gordon v. New England Cent. R.R., Case No. 2:17-cv-00154
...federal law preempts state law bears the burden of establishing preemption." In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Prods. Liab. Litig., 725 F.3d 65, 96 (2d Cir. 2013) (citing Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555, 569 (2009)). "If the statute contains an express pre-emption clause, the task of s......
-
Torres v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 17-cv-2794 (SJF)(ARL)
...and sensitive power: 'the purpose of Congress is the ultimate touchstone.'" In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Prod. Liab. Litig., 725 F.3d 65, 96 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555, 565, 129 S. Ct. 1187, 173 L. Ed. 2d 51 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted)); ......
-
In re Tribune Company Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation, Nos. 13-3992-cv
...L.Ed.2d 43 (2013) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); accord In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Prods. Liab. Litig., 725 F.3d 65, 97 (2d Cir. 2013) cert. denied sub nom. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. City of New York, 572 U.S. 1080, 134 S. Ct. 1877, 188 L.Ed.2d 948 (2014) (courts......
Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
-
Court Dismisses Water Contamination Complaint For Failure To State A Cause Of Action Against Chemical PFAS Manufacturers
...allegations" regarding causation were fatal to all of plaintiff's claims. Analyzing the seminal groundwater case of In re MTBE, 725 F.3d 65, (2nd Cir. 2013) the Court conceded causation is typically a question of fact for a jury, but held MTBE and its progeny were distinguishable due to the......
-
Court Dismisses Water Contamination Complaint For Failure To State A Cause Of Action Against Chemical PFAS Manufacturers
...allegations" regarding causation were fatal to all of plaintiff's claims. Analyzing the seminal groundwater case of In re MTBE, 725 F.3d 65, (2nd Cir. 2013) the Court conceded causation is typically a question of fact for a jury, but held MTBE and its progeny were distinguishable due to the......
4 books & journal articles
-
Air Pollution as Public Nuisance: Comparing Modern-Day Greenhouse Gas Abatement with Nineteenth-Century Smoke Abatement.
...preempted a products liability lawsuit against a manufacturer of MTBE. See In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether ("MTBE") Prods. Liab. Litig., 725 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. (64.) Bell, 734 F.3d at 195. (65.) Id. at 191, 194. The CAA's savings clause states "[n]othing in this section shall restrict any r......
-
Being Small in a Supersized World: Tackling the Problem of Low-Level Exposures in Toxic Tort Actions
...of Bolton, 2002 WL 1555320, at **3-4 (Mass. Super. Ct. May 23, 2002). 33. In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Prods. Liab. Litig., 725 F.3d 65, 78 (2d Cir. 2013). See generally Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE); Advance Notice of Intent to Initiate Rulemaking Under the Toxic Substance......
-
Emerging Clarity on Climate Change Law: EPA Empowered and State Common Law Remedies Enabled
...L.P. v. Bell, 134 S. Ct. 2696 (No. 13-1013) (U.S. June 2, 2014). 45. In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Prods. Liab. Litig., 725 F.3d 65, 96-103, 43 ELR 20171 (2d Cir. 2013). 46. Freeman v. Grain Processing Corp ., No. 13-0723 (Iowa June 13, 2014). 47. Freeman , slip op. at 1. 48. Id ......
-
Four Things You Need to Know About Courts' Rejection of Clean Air Act Preemption of State Common-Law Claims
...class certiication). 19. Bell , No. 12-929, slip op. at 7. 20. See In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Prods. Liability Litigation, 725 F.3d 65, 97 (2d Cir. 2013) (“[T]he Clean Air Act and its 1990 Amendments contain no explicit preemption directive expressing a Congressional intent to......