The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently reinforced a Circuit split on what kind of settlement agreement allows a claimant to pursue a contribution claim against other PRPs under Section 113(f)(3)(B) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). In Asarco v. Atlantic Ritchfield, (9th Cir. 8/10/17), the Court held that Congress did not intend to limit Section 113(f)(3)(B) contribution actions to recovery of costs incurred in response actions under CERCLA settlements. Non-CERCLA settlements, such as for implementation of corrective measures under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), may provide the necessary predicate for a CERCLA contribution claim, if they "determine a PRP's compliance obligations with certainty and finality." In so ruling, the 9th Circuit joined the 3rd Circuit (Trinity Industries, Inc. v Chicago Bridge & Iron Co., 3rd Cir. 2013) in holding that non-CERCLA settlements can authorize CERCLA contribution claims. The 2nd Circuit has held that a contribution right arises "only when liability for CERCLA claims ... is resolved." Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc. v. UGI Utilities, Inc. (2nd Cir. 2005).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.