May 24, 2012

Indiana’s Environmental Legal Action (“ELA”) Statute of Limitations: 6 Years or 10?

Indiana’s Environmental Legal Action (“ELA”) statute creates a cause of action to recover costs paid to remediate environmental contamination.  We have previously written an article regarding who may be liable under its provisions. And, we will save the discussion of what costs may be recovered for another day.  This article focuses on when an ELA claim must be brought.

In Indiana, it is black letter law that a cause of action must be brought within ten years after the cause of action accrues, unless another statute applies a different limitations period.  Indiana Code § 34-11-1-2(a).  One such statute, I.C. § 34-11-2-7(3), provides that actions for injuries to property must be brought within six years after the cause of action accrues.  For purposes of an ELA claim, it is unclear whether the general 10-year or specific 6-year statute of limitations applies.  Is an ELA claim one seeking to recover for an environmental injury to real property or one to recover costs associated with cleanup?  A case can be made for either position. 

Adding to the confusion, or perhaps continuing it, Indiana’s state and federal courts have both recently punted on the issue of whether the ELA statute of limitations should be 6 years or 10 years reasoning that such a ruling was not required to otherwise dispose of the cases.  Cooper Indus., LLC v. City of South Bend, 899 N.E.2d 1274, 1281 (Ind. 2009); Bernstein v. Bankert, 2011 WL 470430 (S.D. Ind. 2011). 

Moreover, Indiana’s General Assembly has twice failed to pass bills that would have settled the matter.  In 2007, Senator Gard offered Senate Bill 101 which would have required ELA claims to be filed within 10 years of discovering the presence of a hazardous substance or petroleum in soil or groundwater.  While the bill passed unanimously in the Indiana Senate, it died in the House Judiciary Committee.  Some of the bill’s language, however, did become law in the form of a House Bill.  Senator Gard tried again this year with a different approach in Senate Bill 346.  This bill proposes to limit the recovery of costs to those incurred within 10 years of the date the action was brought.  For example, if you incurred costs over the course of the last 15 years and then filed your ELA claim, you could only recover the costs incurred in years 5 to 15.  While the fate of this bill is unclear, it appears dead along with the rest this session’s legislation. 

What is the lesson from this uncertainty?  Always consult with experienced environmental counsel to determine whether a claim is potentially time-barred.  

Copyright © 2012 Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Partner

BRADLEY SUGARMAN is a partner in the Environmental practice group of Taft Stettinius & Hollister's downtown Indianapolis office.

He represents clients in all areas of environmental law from administrative enforcement to litigation and from regulatory counseling to environmental due diligence. Mr. Sugarman has extensive experience in complex civil litigation involving toxic torts allegedly caused by environmental contamination. He also has represented numerous corporations in CERCLA 107 and 113 actions as well as administrative and judicial appeals of enforcement...

317-713-3526

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.