On October 3, the Supreme Court rejected the petition for certiorari in Morrison Enterprises, LLC v. Dravo Corp., which sought to clarify key Superfund cost recovery provisions. Specifically, the question was whether a party who has incurred response costs either pursuant to an administrative order, or to a consent decree following suit under § 106 or § 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), may ever seek to recover those "compelled" costs under §107(a), or whether the exclusive remedy for cost recovery is contribution under CERCLA § 113(f). For additional information, please see "Cases to Watch: Supreme Court Could Address Key Cost Recovery Issue In Morrison."
In 2008, Morrison Enterprises, LLC and the City of Hastings, Nebraska sued under CERCLA § 107 seeking to recover a portion of groundwater cleanup costs form Dravo Corp. Morrison, with the City's support, argued that Dravo was responsible for the TCE contamination and that Dravo should therefore pay for clean-up costs related to the operation of the well to extract the TCE contamination. Morrison did not bring a contribution claim under CERCLA § 113(f). The district court dismissed the claim, holding that because the parties had previously entered into administrative consent agreements relating to groundwater remediation, CERCLA § 113(f) provided the exclusive remedy. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Morrison filed a petition for a writ of certiorari at the Supreme Court July 1.