Regents of the University of Minnesota v. United States of America
- David Doty
- 0:17-cv-03690
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 8
In Regents of the University of Minnesota v. United States, Judge Doty denied the United States’ motion for judgment on the pleadings.
The Regents of the University of Minnesota and the United States; the order also concerns environmental claims involving E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company.
What happened
Regents of the University of Minnesota sued the United States and E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company over environmental cleanup costs connected to the former Gopher Ordinance Works site. The United States sought a ruling concerning the portion of the site transferred to the University in 1948.
The United States argued that the 1948 deed and sales contract required the University to pay all environmental response costs and to indemnify the United States. The University argued that those documents addressed residual explosives, not broader environmental contamination. The court found that both interpretations were reasonable and that additional facts were needed.
The court denied the United States’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as to both the University’s Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act claim and the United States’ breach-of-contract counterclaim. Judge Doty signed the order.
The detailed version
- Regents of the University of Minnesota v. United States of America · No. 0:17-cv-03690
- David Doty
- July 12, 2018
Background
The University sued the United States and E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company over environmental response costs associated with the former Gopher Ordinance Works site in Rosemount, Minnesota. The United States operated the facility during World War II, and DuPont designed, constructed, and operated it. After the war, the United States transferred portions of the site to the University through deeds and related sales contracts. The motion concerned only the parcel transferred under a 1948 deed and contract.
The 1948 deed required the University to assume risks for personal injuries and property damage and to indemnify the United States against liability arising from the property’s potentially contaminated condition, ownership, use, occupation, or presence of people on the property. The related contract stated that the University assumed liability and responsibility arising from contamination, decontamination, and use or occupancy, and would perform necessary decontamination work.
Environmental investigations identified releases or threatened releases of hazardous materials at the site. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency identified the University, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, and DuPont as responsible persons under the Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act. The University alleged that it had incurred more than $3 million in environmental investigation and response costs and sought reimbursement under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) from the United States and DuPont, as well as relief under Minnesota law from DuPont.
The United States asserted counterclaims alleging that the University breached the 1948 deed and contract by seeking reimbursement and failing to indemnify the United States. It also sought allocation of some CERCLA response costs to the University and liability for response costs incurred or later incurred in connection with the site.
Motion and Standard
The United States moved for partial judgment on the pleadings. It asked the court to rule that the University could not recover response costs relating to the 1948 parcel and that the University had to indemnify and hold the United States harmless for past, current, and future response costs relating to that parcel. DuPont did not join the motion.
A motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) uses the same standard as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The court considers whether the pleaded facts, accepted as true, state a legally plausible claim for relief.
CERCLA Defense
The United States argued that the University’s CERCLA claim failed because the 1948 contract expressly assigned the University all liability relating to the condition of the parcel. The court explained that clear contract language controls, but a contract is ambiguous when it reasonably supports more than one interpretation.
The court found the 1948 deed and contract ambiguous. The University’s interpretation—that the provisions addressed residual explosives rather than general environmental liability—was reasonable. The United States’ broader interpretation—that the provisions included environmental contamination liability—was also reasonable. The documents did not clearly establish that the University assumed environmental contamination liability, but their broad language also did not clearly exclude it. Because the issue could not be resolved on the existing record without additional factual development, the court denied the motion as to the University’s CERCLA claim.
Breach-of-Contract Counterclaim
The United States also argued that the University breached the 1948 deed’s indemnification provision by bringing a CERCLA lawsuit against the United States. Because the court could not determine as a matter of law that the deed and contract imposed the broad obligations asserted by the United States, it denied the motion as to the breach-of-contract counterclaim as well.
Disposition
The court ordered that the United States’ motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied. David S. Doty signed the order.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.