New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. v. Firstenergy Corp.
| Citation | 808 F.Supp.2d 417 |
| Decision Date | 07 September 2011 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 3:03–CV–0438 (DEP). |
| Parties | NEW YORK STATE ELECTRIC & GAS CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. FIRSTENERGY CORPORATION, Defendant.FirstEnergy Corporation, Third–Party Plaintiff, v. I.D. Booth, Inc., Third–Party Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Dickstein Shapiro LLP, of Counsel: David L. Elkind, Esq., Keisha A. Gary, Esq., Geoffrey M. Long, Esq., Kristin C. Davis, Esq., Washington, D.C., Hinman, Howard Law Firm, of Counsel: James S. Gleason, Esq., Binghamton, NY, for Plaintiff.
Saul Ewing LLP, of Counsel: John F. Stoviak, Esq., Cathleen M. Devlin, Esq., Christina D. Riggs, Esq., Amy L. Piccola, Esq., Philadelphia, PA, Costello, Cooney Law Firm, of Counsel: Paul G. Ferrara, Esq., Syracuse, NY, for Defendant/Third-party Plaintiff.
Davidson & O'Mara, P.C., of Counsel: Donald S. Thomson, Esq., Elmira, NY, for Third–Party Defendant I.D. Booth, Inc.
DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff New York State Electric & Gas Corporation (“NYSEG”) commenced this action in April of 2003 seeking to recover from defendant FirstEnergy Corporation (“FirstEnergy”) expenses incurred to remediate twenty-four hazardous waste sites throughout Upstate New York formerly associated with manufactured gas plant (“MGP”) operations of NYSEG and its predecessor utility companies. The MGP operations conducted at those locations were typical of those carried out by many public utilities during the 1800s and the first half of the twentieth century to produce gas, manufactured principally through processes employing coal as raw material, for commercial and residential usage. By their nature, MGP facilities generated significant quantities of byproducts, including coal tar and oils, containing what have come to be regarded as hazardous substances. Those byproducts were typically stored on-site and often released into the soil and groundwater at and near the MGP sites, on occasion migrating off-site and into nearby waterways.
NYSEG's complaint, as amended in October 2004, at one time asserted a combination of federal and state law causes of action including, inter alia, under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA”), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq. Its claims, however, have been materially reshaped as a result of the ongoing refinement of CERCLA jurisprudence. Given the rapid and robust development of environmental caselaw, coupled with rejection by the court of plaintiff's contribution cause of action under § 113(f) of CERCLA, and dismissal of plain...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
...APL Co. Pte. v. Kemira Water Sols., Inc. , 999 F. Supp. 2d 590, 619–20 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (quoting N.Y.S. Elec. & Gas Corp. v. FirstEnergy Corp. , 808 F. Supp. 2d 417, 522 (N.D.N.Y. 2011) ). "[C]ourts in this Circuit have found that ‘because initial monitoring, assessment, and evaluation expen......
-
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. United States, Civil Action Nos. H-10-2386
...methods "more realistically represent the actual plant conditions." (Exxon MSJ at 53); see New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. v. FirstEnergy Corp. , 808 F.Supp.2d 417, 530-31 (N.D.N.Y. 2011) (applying production-based approach in CERCLA case). Exxon also argues that a production-based approac......
-
N.Y. State Elec. v. Firstenergy Corp.
...FirstEnergy based on a veil-piercing theory, but limiting that recovery to certain sites. New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. v. FirstEnergy Corp., 808 F.Supp.2d 417, 499–502 (N.D.N.Y.2011) (“ NYSEG ”).1 The district court also found I.D. Booth liable for a portion of the cleanup costs at one ......
-
Am. Premier Underwriters Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co.
...that the OUs in this case are not subject to their own distinct statute of limitations. Accord New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. v. FirstEnergy Corp., 808 F.Supp.2d 417, 511 (N.D.N.Y.2011) (finding “persuasive those cases in which courts have concluded that regardless of the number of operat......
-
Defenses and Exceptions to Liability
...Gen. Elec. Co. v. AAMCO Transmissions, Inc., 962 F.2d 281, 285 (2d Cir. 1992); N.Y. State Elec. & Gas Corp. v. FirstEnergy Corp., 808 F. Supp. 2d 417, 487 (N.D.N.Y. 2011). 4. See, e.g. , United States v. Capital Tax Corp., 545 F.3d 525, 530 (7th Cir. 2008) (“CERCLA is strict liability statu......
-
Cry, No Recovery!: Narrowing Judicial Interpretation of Cercla's Double Recovery Provision
...about whether PRPs could recover under § 113 for nearly twenty years). 42. See N.Y. State Elec. & Gas Corp. v. FirstEnergy Corp., 808 F. Supp. 2d 417, 529 (N.D.N.Y. 2011), aff'd in part, vacated in part, 766 F.3d 212 (2d Cir. 2014); see also Lockheed, 35 F. Supp. 3d at 162.43. 3 Grad, supra......