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.
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
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
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions