New Jersey Supreme Court: No Statute Of Limitations For Private Claims For Contribution Under NJ Spill Act

Following principles of strict statutory construction and refusing to "unsettle a decades-long understanding in this State," on January 26, 2015, the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously ruled that there is no statute of limitations for private claims for contribution brought under the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act ("NJ Spill Act"). Morristown Associates v. Grant Oil Co., A-38- 13 (073248). But for a short interlude following an Appellate Division panel's contrary finding, the status quo remains.

The backdrop is a not-all-that-unusual suit against multiple parties for cleanup and removal costs incurred by a private-party plaintiff at a strip mall pursuant to the oft-amended NJ Spill Act. The trial court first concluded that the general six-year statute of limitations for injury to real property applied and that certain of plaintiff's claims were time-barred. In 2013, in a decision that many practitioners viewed as a potential game-changer, the Appellate Division affirmed in a published decision, reasoning that the most appropriate general statute of limitations applied when a particular statute – here, the NJ Spill Act - did not include a specific limitations period. See McCarter & English Environment and Energy Alert, August 2013.

The case next went to the New Jersey Supreme Court on a successful petition for certification and attracted numerous amici, including the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, the New Jersey State Bar Association, the New Jersey State League of Municipalities, and many public interest and environmental organizations.

After carefully reviewing the Spill Act's basic liability structure and the subsequent amendments, the Supreme Court acknowledged that its basic "task involves construction of the Spill Act" and returned to traditional principles to "discern and give effect to the Legislature's intent." Writing for the Court, Justice Jaynee LaVecchia reiterated three common rules of construction: First, dwell on the plain language of the NJ Spill Act, as it is the "best indicator" of legislative intent; second, interpret the language in keeping with "common sense ... to effectuate the legislative purpose;" and third, to discern "purpose and intent ... consider the entire legislative scheme of which one provision is but a part."

Guided by these principles, Justice LaVecchia quickly observed that a core purpose of the NJ Spill Act is "to provide liability for damage sustained within this...