Author Archives: William A. Ruskin

Judicial Roadblocks Truncate CERCLA “Arranger” Liability

William A. Ruskin's Toxic Tort Litigtion Blog Posted on by

Ever since the Supreme Court issued its landmark 2008 decision in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States, 556 U.S. 599, 129 S. Ct. 1870, 173 L. Ed. 2d 812 (2009), significantly limiting the application of CERCLA “arranger” liability, federal courts have been re-examining the application of “arranger liability” with renewed purpose.  The upshot is that it is much harder for a plaintiff to prevail on an “arranger” theory of liability today than it was  ten years ago.  The recent Tenth Circuit decision in Chevron Mining Inc. v. United States,  No. 15-2209, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12959 (10th Cir. July 19, … Continue reading →

Growing Acceptance of Value Assurance Plans to Address Diminution of Property Value Claims

William A. Ruskin's Toxic Tort Litigtion Blog Posted on by

Some 25 years ago, I published an article in the Journal of Trial Advocacy that discussed the benefits of  implementing Value Assurance Plans (“VAPs”) as a strategy for dealing with community anxiety over the impact of environmental contamination on property values.  The article praised the creative approaches implemented by two well-known U.S. companies–Eastman Kodak Company (“Kodak”) and E.I. du Pont de Nemours  Company (“Du Pont”).  Kodak developed a VAP for neighborhoods in and around its Rochester, New York headquarters in 1988 following the discovery of contaminated groundwater in bedrock under its property fence line. Du Pont rolled out a VAP in Pompton Lakes, New Jersey in 1989 … Continue reading →