United States: US Eighth Circuit Overturns Summary Judgment In Favor Of Government In CERCLA Arranger Liability Case Arising Out Of Sale Of Contaminated Buildings

Keywords: Summary Judgment, Government, CERCLA, Liability

If a defendant sells a product containing hazardous waste to a buyer that later disposes of the product, and if the product has commercial value and was part of a "legitimate sale," the defendant may avoid so-called "arranger liability" under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 ("CERCLA")1,even if the seller knows that the buyer intends to dispose of the hazardous product. That was the holding in United States v. Dico, Inc.,2 in which the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit partly reversed summary judgment that had been entered in favor of the government and against defendant tire manufacturer Dico. The court also affirmed $1.6 million in civil damages based on Dico's inability to prove that it had sufficient cause for violating a related EPA order, but declined to impose punitive damages against Dico for its violation of that order.


Several decades ago, the EPA identified polychlorinated biphenyls ("PCBs") in insulation adhesive in several buildings on Dico's property in Iowa. In 1994, the EPA issued an order requiring Dico to remove or otherwise encapsulate the contaminated insulation. Dico removed some of the insulation and encapsulated what remained. Dico had a continuing obligation under the 1994 order to inspect and maintain the encapsulated surfaces, as well as to notify the EPA of any change in site conditions. By 2002, Dico no longer occupied or used the buildings, and the EPA agreed that Dico could discontinue testing on the condition that DICO alert the EPA should the buildings come back into use.

In 2007, acting through an affiliate, Dico paid Southern Iowa Mechanical ("SIM") to remove parts of certain contaminated buildings and sold SIM several other buildings. After learning of the dismantling and sale, the EPA took the position that Dico was responsible for related cleanup costs. In addition, the EPA tracked insulated steel beams from the disassembled buildings to SIM's facility elsewhere in Iowa, where the beams were in direct contact with the ground. Samples from the surrounding soil confirmed that PCBs resided in the beams and had contaminated nearby soil at SIM's facility. The government subsequently incurred costs related to cleanup of the SIM site.

Arranger Liability

The government sued Dico for recovery of cleanup costs under Section 107(a)(3) of CERCLA, which creates liability for any person who "arranged for disposal or treatment . . . of hazardous substances owned or possessed by such person."3 The district court granted the government's motion for partial summary judgment on its claim that Dico was liable as an arranger of the disposal of hazardous waste.4

After a bench trial on damages, the district court imposed $1,620,000 in civil penalties – $10,000 for each of the 162 days the court deemed Dico to be in violation of the EPA Order – and punitive damages of $1,477,787.73.5 Dico then appealed.

Relying on the US Supreme Court's decision in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway v. United States,6 the Eighth Circuit noted that liability was not immediately apparent because Dico's motives in selling the buildings were unclear, thus requiring a "fact-intensive inquiry" to determine liability. Mere knowledge on the part of the seller that the buyer would dispose of the items in the future is not enough for CERCLA liability. According to the Eighth Circuit, a plaintiff must show that the seller intended for those items to be disposed of when selling them.

Under these principles, the Eighth Circuit held that Dico could not be liable as a matter of law for selling its buildings to SIM. The court criticized the district court for focusing too intently on the buyer's motive for purchasing the buildings and explained that the "relevant question" boils down to "the seller's intent with respect to the transaction."7 The court then stated that if "the sale product has some commercial value and was part of a legitimate sale, even if the seller knows disposal will result," the question whether "the seller did not actually intend to sell the product but intended to discard the hazardous substance" is ordinarily one for a jury to decide.

The court concluded that a dispute of fact regarding Dico's intent precluded summary judgment, as there was evidence that Dico manifested its intent to derive more from the sale than simply the disposal of hazardous materials. The court held that Dico's expectation of commercial value from the sale was reasonable. There was no evidence that the buildings were "merely waste" or "commercially useless," and the buildings were not hazardous products themselves. Further, Dico solicited bids, and other entities beyond SIM were interested in buying. In sum, the court held that the government had not shown that Dico "was merely trying to get rid of a hazardous substance" by selling the buildings.8

Judge Jane Kelly dissented from this conclusion. She maintained that the record indicated both parties' intent that the buildings would not be reused and that the price for which Dico sold the buildings was far lower than the probable cost of remediating them. Furthermore, Judge Kelly noted that SIM was unaware that the buildings contained PCBs, that the steel beams were useless with the insulation still attached and that the hazardous material was discarded at the time of the transfer of ownership. For Judge Kelly, these factors supported the conclusion that Dico intended through its sale of the buildings to dispose of contaminated materials. (Because of this reasoning, Judge Kelly also dissented from the court's reversal of the district court's imposition of punitive damages, discussed below.)

Violation of EPA Order

Though the Eighth Circuit rejected summary judgment against Dico on CERCLA arranger liability, it affirmed the district court's imposition of $1.62 million in civil penalties on Dico for violating the EPA's 1994 order,9 holding that there was little question that Dico had violated the order. Although a defendant can avoid liability for such a violation under CERCLA if it shows "sufficient cause" for doing so,10 the court held that Dico failed to make that showing.

The Eighth Circuit rejected the district court's imposition of punitive damages on Dico for the same violation. Under CERCLA, a court may impose punitive damages against a party that "fails without sufficient cause to properly provide removal or remedial action" in response to an EPA order and if the EPA incurs cleanup costs as "a result of such failure."11 The district court had levied nearly $1.5 million in punitive damages, which was equal to the government's costs in cleaning up contamination at the SIM site. Yet the court held that these costs were not "a result of" Dico's violations of the EPA order. Those violations led to the scattering of contaminated insulation at the building teardown site, not at the SIM site, where the government performed the cleanup. Because the court had held that the government was not entitled to summary judgment with respect to Dico's liability for arranging for disposal of the beams, which went to the SIM site, the punitive damages had to be vacated pending resolution of the arranger liability issue.

Judge James Loken concurred in part and dissented in part. Of particular significance, he agreed that Dico was liable for civil penalties, but would have remanded the case for redetermination of the amount of penalties. As he saw it, although the record showed that Dico violated the EPA order on the day the buildings were demolished, there were no grounds for finding a continuing violation after that day because "there was no proof of an actual release" of hazardous substances on days subsequent to the demolition. Thus, Judge Loken wrote, a one-day fine of $10,000 may have been appropriate, but no more, given that a penalty may not be assessed under CERCLA unless the "extent and gravity of the violation" warrants it. In contrast, the majority gave no consideration to whether the seriousness of this violation warranted a penalty of $10,000 per day, instead perfunctorily holding that Dico's "failure to maintain the protection and integrity of the encapsulation continued throughout the disassembly process and constituted a continuing violation."


While the situation the Eighth Circuit considered in Dico is fairly unique—a defendant violating a standing EPA order in selling buildings containing contaminants, which the buyer then disposes of on a different property— the case's holding on arranger liability has broader applicability. To avoid arranger liability under CERCLA, entities planning to sell items containing hazardous materials would be wise, under both Dico and Burlington Northern, to substantiate the fact that the items have commercial value and are not merely "waste." In such circumstances, sellers should also consider soliciting bids for the items or having them appraised. Doing so could provide evidence that the seller is not "merely trying to get rid of a hazardous substance," in the court's words—a key consideration for determining arranger liability under CERCLA.

The division between the majority and Judge Loken regarding the calculation of the civil penalties is also significant. The determination of civil penalties under statutes that provide for daily penalties is a recurring issue that can have enormous consequences. Here, there really were two debates, both of which Dico lost.

The first was whether Dico's violation was limited to a single day or could be treated as continuing. The majority gave a very elastic interpretation to the concept of a "continuing violation." Arguably, Dico lacked fair notice that its alleged failure to maintain the integrity of the encapsulation after the buildings were demolished could be treated as a violation of the order that could continue—and be the basis for daily penalties—ad infinitum. If a court could be persuaded that the statute does not provide fair notice that it could be applied in this way, imposing penalties based on the notion that Dico had engaged in a continuing violation would violate the US Constitution's Due Process Clause.12

The second question involves the reasonableness of imposing a daily fine of $10,000 under the circumstances described. Even if Dico's violation could be deemed to be a continuing one, its seriousness pales in comparison to the kinds of daily violations that Congress likely had in mind when it enacted the statute (e.g., intentional discharges of hazardous substances in defiance of an EPA order). The Supreme Court's punitive damages jurisprudence applies fully to civil penalties imposed by the government—albeit under the Eighth Amendment's excessive fines clause in addition to, or in lieu of, the Due Process Clause. Companies confronted with governmental demands for massive daily fines should keep that in mind.


1 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(3).

2 No. 14-2762, 2015 WL 8479378 (8th Cir. Dec. 10, 2015).

3 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(3).

4 United States v. Dico, Inc., 892 F. Supp. 2d 1138 (S.D. Iowa 2012).

5 United States v. Dico, Inc., 4 F. Supp. 3d 1047 (S.D. Iowa 2014).

6 556 U.S. 599 (2009).

7 Judge Loken, concurring and dissenting in part, wrote separately to stress that cases prior to Burlington Northern that focus on a buyer's intent are now irrelevant.

8 Judge Kelly dissented from this conclusion.

9 Damages were calculated by multiplying $10,000 per day for 162 days of violations.

10 42 U.S.C. § 9606(b)(1).

11 42 U.S.C. § 9607(c)(3).

12 See BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 574 (1996) ("Elementary notions of fairness enshrined in our constitutional jurisprudence dictate that a person receive fair notice not only of the conduct that will subject him to punishment, but also of the severity of the penalty that a State may impose."); see also F.C.C. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 2307, 2317 (2012) ("A fundamental principle in our legal system is that laws which regulate persons or entities must give fair notice of conduct that is forbidden or required.").

Originally published on January 13, 2016

Visit us at mayerbrown.com

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

© Copyright 2016. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.

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.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
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