Supreme Court of the United States
Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc.
December 13, 2004543 U.S. 157
Summary
The Court held that CERCLA § 113(f)(1) does not authorize a private party to seek contribution unless that party has been subject to a civil action under § 106 or § 107(a). Because Aviall had undertaken cleanup voluntarily and had never been sued or subjected to an administrative order, its § 113(f)(1) claim failed. The Court declined to decide whether Aviall could proceed under § 107 or under any implied right of contribution. Justice Ginsburg, dissenting, would have resolved the § 107 issue and held that PRPs may seek reimbursement of cleanup costs from other PRPs.
Holding
- Availability of contribution under CERCLA § 113(f)(1) absent a qualifying civil action. A private party may not obtain contribution under § 113(f)(1) unless the contribution claim is brought during or following a civil action under CERCLA § 106 or § 107(a). Because Aviall had not been subject to such an action, § 113(f)(1) did not support its suit.
Docket 02-1192
Cited authorities
- CA11
- CA10
- CA10
- 94 Stat. 2767
- 42 U.S.C. § 9607
- 100 Stat. 1613
- 42 U.S.C. § 9613
- 42 U.S.C. § 9613
Cited by
- United States v. Yuen
- City of West Sacramento v. R & L Business Management
- City of West Sacramento v. R & L Business Management
- City of West Sacramento v. R & L Business Management
- Jordan Marks v. Crunch San Diego, LLC
- City of Bangor, Plaintiff, Appellee v. Citizens Communications Company, Defendant/third-Party Plaintiff, Appellee…
- Frontier Communications Corporation, Plaintiff v. Barrett Paving Materials, Inc., Defendants
- City of Bangor, Plaintiff v. Citizens Communications Company, Defendant & Third Party Plaintiff v. Barrett Paving…