In an opinion published today for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Judge Floyd writes that CERCLA, a federal environmental law, extends North Carolina’s absolute ten-year limitations period for people affected by environmental pollution; as written, NC law keeps plaintiffs from suing whether they knew about the pollution at the time or not.
The plaintiffs in this case discovered toxic carcinogens in their well water (TCE and DCE), and allege that CTS Corporation is responsible for this pollution under the law. Because the pollution occurred more than ten years ago, North Carolina law would ordinarily prevent them from suing, even though they did not find out about it during the period when they could sue.
But a federal statute, CERCLA, sets up its own limitations period that is tied to when plaintiffs discover the pollution, rather than when the pollution actually occurs. And this statute was meant to preempt state law that provided a shorter limitations period.
The issue in the case turns on a legal distinction between “statutes of limitations” and “statutes of repose.” CERCLA clearly preempts statutes of limitations. But CTS Corp. claimed that the ten-year period was a “statute of repose” and that CERCLA clearly was not meant to preempt such statutes.
The district court agreed with CTS Corp., but on appeal, the Fourth Circuit has now reversed that decision. The Fourth Circuit determined that the text of CERCLA was ambiguous on this point, and so they looked to other evidence of Congress’s intent, finding that CERCLA should apply to statutes of repose as well.
The Ninth and Fifth Circuits had previously addressed this question, and came out differently. The Fourth Circuit agreed with the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation.
Judge Thacker dissented from the three-judge panel, finding that CERCLA was unambiguous in preempting only statutes of limitations, and invoking a presumption against preemption.
The court reverses the district court’s decision to dismiss the case, and sends it back to the district court to allow the litigation to continue.
