Supreme Court Holds That CERCLA Preemption Is Inapplicable To Statutes Of Repose

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), preempts statutes of limitations applicable to state-law tort actions for personal injury or property damage in certain circumstances. §9658 of CERCLA applies to statutes of limitations governing actions for personal injury or property damage arising from the release of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant into the environment. The preemption creates a discovery rule to be used in determining the accrual date of any state cause of action arising from the release of contamination where state law does not provide a discovery rule. §9658 was adopted out of a Congressional concern for diseases or harms with long latency periods.

CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, decided June 9, 2014, addresses whether §9658 likewise preempts statutes of repose. CTS Corporation and a subsidiary operated an electronics plant in Asheville, North Carolina from 1959 to 1985. Trichloroethylene (TCE) and cis-1, 2-dichloroethane (DCE) were used on site. In 1987, CTS sold the property. The buyer eventually sold portions of the property to individuals who, along with adjacent landowners, brought suit alleging damage from contaminants released on the land.

North Carolina has a 10-year statute of repose barring all claims brought more than 10 years after the last act or omission of the defendant, and also a statute of limitations with a discovery rule. If the statute of repose is not preempted, all claims against CTS Corp. are barred as a matter of law, despite the fact that no one knew or should have known of the exposure and injuries during that 10-year period. The claim may be barred by the statute of repose before any claim accrues for injuries that might not appear and be discovered for many more years after the last act of the defendant.

Procedurally, the District Court found that the statute of repose applied, was not affected by CERCLA's discovery rule (or by the state statute of limitation and its discovery rule) and barred all claims. The Fourth Circuit reversed, finding that §9658 preempted the statute of repose to the extent that it denied relief in the form of claims otherwise preserved by the discovery rule. The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision authored by Justice Kennedy, decided that §9658 does not preempt statutes of repose. Therefore CTS Corp. has no liability in the underlying lawsuit.

The Court first reasoned that there are relevant differences between...