In action under CERCLA by plaintiff seeking to recover certain environmental cleanup costs from defendants-neighboring property owners, Dist. Ct. erred in finding that liability for remediating environmental harm was capable of being apportioned among parties that was based on parties’ causation of environmental harm, as opposed to principles of joint and several liability. Record did not support Dist. Ct.’s finding that liability could be apportioned, where: (1) at least three different owners of four different properties released hazardous waste in different quantities and concentrations at different times between 1960s and well into 1980s; (2) record did not establish where or in what amounts any of said pollution occurred; and (3) once hazardous chemicals entered groundwater and commingled, individual molecules that made up plume became indistinguishable. Dist. Ct. also improperly required plaintiff to affirmatively disprove that harm was capable of apportionment and displaced norm of joint and several liability in favor of apportionable harm. While remand was required for new determination as to whether apportionment of liability is appropriate, Ct. of Appeals also observed that Dist. Ct. erred in failing to explain how it determined basis for its finding of specific amount of liability for each party or explain what portion of liability reflected apportionment that was related to causation of harm or principles of allocation
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
CERCLA