N.J. Supreme Court holds session with newly appointed justice

The New Jersey Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Trenton in 2013.

(Patti Sapone | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com)

TRENTON — The state Supreme Court today ruled that under the state's Spill Act, someone cleaning up environmental contamination can go after anyone responsible for the pollution to pay the bill at any time, without having to worry about a statute of limitations.

In its unanimous decision in Morristown Associates v. Grant Oil Co., the court said a New Jersey commercial real estate owner can move forward with a lawsuit against its tenant and oil delivery companies for remediation costs.

The parties responsible for hazardous discharge can't use the clock as a defense against paying, the court said. The dry cleaner and oil companies had argued that the six-year statute of limitations on property damage claims, like a tree falling on a house, apply also to claims under the Spill Act.

"The Spill Act is remedial legislation designed to cast a wide net over those responsible for hazardous substances and their discharge on the land and waters of this state," the court said.

At the time of lower court arguments, Morristown Associates, which owns Morristown Plaza, had spent roughly $1 million cleaning up contamination from an underground fuel oil storage tank, Morristown's attorney, Steven Singer said today.

A dry cleaner in the strip mall installed the tank to power a steam boiler on the property. It was in use until 2003.

It was later discovered that while the storage tank itself was intact, the fill and vent pipes were "severely deteriorated, with large holes along a significant portion of their lengths," according to the lawsuit. The tank had been leaking each time it was filled since 1988.

Morristown began the cleanup, suing the owners of the dry cleaner and delivery companies to force them to contribute to the cleanup costs.

The cleanup work is ongoing, Singer said.

"What this really means is that you can focus on doing the investigation and remediation first, and worry about the lawsuit later on," Singer said. "They didn't want someone who goes out and does the cleanup, which should be encouraged, to lose their opportunity to sue because of the typical limitations of time."

The court ruled that the Spill Act limits those responsible for discharge of hazardous substances to just a few defenses: "an act or omission caused solely by war, sabotage, or God, or a combination thereof."

"The language of the statute expressly restricting the defenses available under the Spill Act provides significant support for a conclusion that no statute of limitations applies," the court said. "

Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey Sierra Club, called the decision a victory for environmental protection.

"Had the lower court decision been upheld, it would have gutted the Spill Act and made it virtually impossible to clean up contaminated sites," he said. "With 20,000 contaminated sites in New Jersey this is an important victory. It will made sure these sites get cleaned up and that polluters do not allow the clock to run out."

Spartan Oil Company, one of the defendants in the case, is disappointed by the court's decision but confident Morristown Associates' allegations won't support a Spill Act contribution claim on remand, attorney Kristin Hayes said today.

"Spartan Oil was accused of nothing more than delivering heating oil to a commercial property in the early 1990s," she said. "The corporate property owner, which does not allege that Spartan Oil ever spilled or overfilled the tank during any of its deliveries, seeks to hold Spartan Oil liable based only on the very thing the property owner has a legal duty to do for almost 25 years -- inspect and maintain its underground storage tank."

Samantha Marcus may be reached at smarcus@njadvancemedia.com . Follow her on Twitter @samanthamarcus. Find NJ.com Politics on Facebook.