United States: New Jersey's Appellate Division Holds State May Be Liable For Cleanup Costs Under New Jersey's Spill Act

Last Updated: October 6 2015
Article by John J. DiChello,Jr.
Action Item: On August 26, 2015, in a case of first impression, the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court in NL Indus., Inc. v. State of New Jersey, No. A0869-14T3, 2015 N.J. Super. LEXIS 161 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Aug. 26, 2015), held that the State of New Jersey is subject to strict liability for the discharge of hazardous substances under New Jersey’s Spill Compensation and Control Act, N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11, and is not immunized from liability based on the New Jersey Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A. 59:1-1 - 12-3 or any other principles of sovereign immunity. This ruling clarifies that a responsible party at a cleanup site may obtain contribution for cleanup and removal costs under the Spill Act from both private and public entities, including the State of New Jersey. The Appellate Division’s decision was approved for publication on September 23, 2015.  

Responsible parties cleaning up contaminated sites in New Jersey now have an additional party to target for contribution to further reduce their liability for cleanup and removal costs: the State of New Jersey itself. Faced with an issue of first impression, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey in NL Indus., Inc. v. State of New Jersey, No. A0869-14T3, 2015 N.J. Super. LEXIS 161 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Aug. 26, 2015) (approved for publication on September 23, 2015), held that the State of New Jersey is subject to the strict liability provisions of New Jersey’s Spill Compensation and Control Act, N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11 (“Spill Act”), and cannot evade such liability based on the immunities enumerated in New Jersey’s Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A. 59:1-1 - 12-3 (“TCA”) or any doctrine of sovereign immunity. This ruling is significant because it will allow responsible parties at cleanup sites to sue not only private, corporate entities for contribution to recover cleanup costs under the Spill Act, but also the state if the state “is in any way responsible” for the discharge of a hazardous substance. The state need not be an active participant in a discharge to be held liable for cleanup costs under the Spill Act; the state may be liable, for example, if it exercised a degree of control over the actual discharger.  In that regard, the ruling in NL Industries also reaffirms that the Spill Act imposes broad liability for discharges of hazardous substances.


In NL Industries, the State of New Jersey, Old Bridge Township, and the United States Army Corps of Engineers entered into an agreement in the 1950s relating to the construction and maintenance of a beachfill protective structure, a levee, and other measures to address shoreline and beach erosion in the Laurence Harbor area of Old Bridge Township. The project, known as the Shore Protection Project, was completed in 1966. Under the parties’ agreement, the state and the township were required to maintain, operate, and inspect the beachfill and levee structures. 

Thereafter, in the late 1960s, a private developer named Sea-Land Development Corporation acquired property in the Laurence Harbor area, including a portion of what is now called the Raritan Bay Slag (or RBS) Superfund site. Sea-Land proposed construction of a seawall composed of furnace “slag,” a by-product material containing lead and other heavy metals, to replace the beachfill protective structure built as part of the Shore Protection Project.  The state authorized Sea-Land to construct the proposed seawall and fill the adjoining land after Sea-Land accepted certain conditions requested by the state. This work was completed in the early 1970s. 

Significantly, the state did not prohibit Sea-Land’s use of the lead-bearing slag material to construct the seawall. Nor did the state take any action to remove the slag material once the seawall was constructed. This was so even though the state knew the seawall would come into contact with Raritan Bay; state and township officials and citizens raised concerns about the use of lead-bearing slag in the seawall; the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection inspected the seawall; and several meetings were held to discuss the use of slag, including one at which the state openly acknowledged both ownership of the beach where the seawall was constructed and concerns of “lead slag dumped by Sea-Land.”

In 2009, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) added the RBS site (which included the seawall and the western jetty constructed by Sea-Land) to the National Priorities List after detecting elevated levels of lead and other heavy metals in soil, beach sand, and sediment. In 2014, the EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order requiring NL to remediate the site after identifying NL’s lead-smelting facility in Perth Amboy, New Jersey, as a source of contamination. NL allegedly produced at that facility some of the slag that Sea-Land used to build the seawall and fortify the western jetty. The total cost to clean up the RBS site was estimated to be $79 million. 

NL sued the state and other public and private entities to recover costs associated with the cleanup of the RBS site under the Spill Act. For the state’s part, NL contended that the state caused and contributed to contamination at the site by approving Sea-Land’s construction of the seawall and western jetty that incorporated the use of lead-bearing slag and compounding the problem by failing to take appropriate action to address the slag. The state moved to dismiss on three grounds: (1) the Spill Act does not retroactively abrogate the state’s sovereign immunity from lawsuits for conduct occurring before the Spill Act’s effective date of April 1, 1977; (2) NL failed to comply with the procedural and substantive requirements of the TCA; and (3) NL did not plead facts sufficient to find the state “in any way responsible” for contamination at the site under the Spill Act. 

Procedural History

The trial court denied the state’s motion to dismiss. See NL Indus., Inc. v. State of New Jersey, No. MID-L-1296-14 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. Aug. 27, 2014) (Wolfson, J.). On appeal, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s decision “substantially for the reasons set forth by [trial court] Judge Douglas K. Wolfson in his thoughtful and erudite seventeen-page written opinion that accompanied the order denying the motion.” The Superior Court incorporated by reference the trial court’s analysis in its decision and did not provide any additional rationale of its own.

The Trial Court Ruling Affirmed by the Appellate Division        

In holding that the state is subject to liability under the Spill Act, the trial court in NL Industries was guided by three principles of statutory construction: (1) statutory language should be interpreted using the ordinary, plain meaning of the language; (2) any waiver of sovereign immunity must be narrowly construed; and (3) statutory amendments should be read in harmony with the original statutory language. 

Against this backdrop, the trial court began by stating that the New Jersey Legislature expanded the scope of the Spill Act in 1979 by amending it to provide that “any person who has discharged a hazardous substance, or is in any way responsible for any hazardous substance, shall be strictly liable, jointly and severally, without regard to fault, for all cleanup and removal costs no matter by whom incurred.” N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11g(c)(1) (emphasis added). Moreover, since its inception, the Spill Act has expressly defined the term “person” to include—rather than exclude—the “State of New Jersey and any of its political subdivisions or agents.” N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11b. In addition, the court stated that the legislature amended the Spill Act in 1991 to expressly grant a right of contribution for any person who has discharged a hazardous substance “against all other dischargers and persons in any way responsible for a discharged hazardous substance”—again without any exclusion or exception for the State. N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11f(a)(2) (emphasis added). Therefore, based on the plain meaning of the statutory language, the court concluded that the state is subject to strict liability under the Spill Act.

The trial court rejected the state’s argument that the Spill Act should not be applied retroactively to the state’s conduct before the Spill Act’s effective date, citing the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in State, Dep’t of Envtl. Prot. v. Ventron Corp., 94 N.J. 473 (N.J. 1983). In that, case, the Supreme Court upheld retroactive application of the Spill Act and imposition of liability for a party’s actions that occurred before the effective date of the Spill Act because the Spill Act explicitly provides that it should be given retroactive effect. Consistent with Ventron, the court in NL Industries gave retrospective effect to the Spill Act in this case.

The trial court in NL Industries also held that the TCA neither provides the state with immunity for discretionary actions nor mandates that a plaintiff like NL adhere to certain procedural or substantive requirements, such as a notice of claim, before filing its contribution action under the Spill Act. The TCA limits the tort liability of the state and other public entities by providing specific immunities, including from liability for injuries resulting from the exercise of judgment or discretion. N.J.S.A.59:2-3. The trial court noted that at least one federal district court has concluded that the substantive requirements and immunities of the TCA do not apply to the Spill Act. The court added that the TCA and the Spill Act could not be read in pari materia, or to achieve a “unitary and harmonious whole,” because the two statutes were designed to serve different purposes and were enacted at different times for “wholly different ends.” Furthermore, the trial court could not divine any intent in the legislative history of the Spill Act to make the procedural protections of the TCA applicable to Spill Act claims.

Lastly, the trial court held that NL adequately pleaded a claim under the Spill Act against the state. The court first rejected the state’s argument that it could not be liable under the Spill Act when no action or omission of the state was directly responsible for the discharge. The court reasoned that the Spill Act is not limited to active participants in the discharge of hazardous substances. Rather, the plain language of the Spill Act is broadly worded to impose strict liability on “any person who has discharged a hazardous substance, or is any way responsible for any hazardous substance” and does not distinguish between public and private actors. N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11g(c)(1). 

The court then applied the two-prong nexus test for determining whether a contributing party may be held liable under the Spill Act established by the New Jersey Supreme Court in New Jersey Dep’t of Envtl. Prot. v. Dimant, 212 N.J. 153 (N.J. 2012). The first prong requires evidence of “some connection between the discharge complained of and the alleged discharger,” and the second prong requires a showing of a nexus between “the discharge for which one is responsible—in any way—and the contaminated site.” In other words, a party must demonstrate a reasonable nexus or connection between the alleged discharge and the contamination. That may be shown if a party had some degree of control over the direct discharger. The trial court in NL Industries concluded that NL sufficiently alleged facts to support its contention that the state constitutes a person “in any way responsible for any hazardous substance” under the Spill Act because NL alleged that the state (1) played a significant role in planning and constructing the seawall and western jetty; (2) had actual knowledge of the use of lead-bearing slag at the RBS site; (3) actively operated and maintained the Shore Protection Project that was supplemented by the seawall; and (4) failed to take steps to prevent or abate the risk of contamination despite having notice of the potential harm. These facts, if proven, would constitute a sufficient nexus between construction of the seawall and western jetty of lead-bearing slag and the actions and omissions of the state for purposes of Spill Act liability.


The NL Industries decision is an outright victory for responsible parties saddled with the costs to clean up contaminated sites in which the state bears some level of responsibility for the contamination. Because environmental cleanup costs can be costly, the addition of just one more potentially responsible party to help shoulder the burden is not inconsequential. Unless the New Jersey Supreme Court states otherwise, responsible parties may minimize their share of cleanup costs by seeking contribution relief under the Spill Act from not only private entities, but also the state—even if the state was not an “active participant” in, or directly responsible for, the discharge and simply had some level of control over the discharger. NL Industries should have an immediate impact on the scope and nature of contribution claims under the Spill Act.

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.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

John J. DiChello,Jr.
In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.