ENFORCE35100 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

653 N.E.2d 89 (Cite as: 653 N.E.2d 89, *91) Standard of Review In reviewing a ruling on a motion for summary judgment, this court applies the same standard applied by the trial court. Walling v. Appel Service Co. (1994), Ind.App., 641 N.E.2d 647, 6489; Miller v. Monsanto (1993), ind.App., 626 N.E.2d 538, 541. Summary judgment is appropriate only if "the designated evidentiary matter shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Ind. Trial Rule 56(C). We resolve any doubt as [o a fact, or an inference [o be drawn therefrom, in favor of the party opposing stunmary judgment. [FN3] Miller, 626 N.E.2d at 54I. FN3. The trial coon rntered extensive findings with its order granting summary judgment for both Terra and Kraft. While we are not bound by [he trial court's fmdings, a trial court's explanation of its reasons for entering summary judgment is helpful on review. Miller, 626 N.E.2d at 541 n. 2. The purpose of summary judgment is to terminate litigation about which there can be no factual dispute and which can be determined as a matter of law. Beradi v. Hardware Wholesalers, /nc. (1993), Ind.App., 625 N.E.2d 1259, 1261, trans. denied. Even though there may be conflicting facts and inferences regarding certain elements of the claim, we are only concerned with the diapositive or essential facts, and inferences to be drawn therefrom Citizens Nat. Bank v. Indianapolis Auto Auction (1992), [nd.App., 592 N.E.2d 1256, 1257. Measure of Damages [1][2] in this case of first impression in Indiana, we are asked to consider the proper measure of damages for injury to land contaminated by PCBs. Under Indiana law, the measure of damages in a case of injury to real property depends fast upon a determination of whether the injury is "permanent" or "temporary." City ojAnderson v. Balling Concrete Corp. (1980), Ind.App., 411 N.E.2d 728, 732, trans. denied (citing General Outdoor Advertising Co. v. LaSalle Realty Corp. (1966), 141 Ind.App. 247, 265, 218 N.E.2d 141, 150, trans. denied ). Permanent injury to unimproved land occurs where "the cost of restoration exceeds the market value ... prior to injury." General Outdoor Advertising, 141 Ind.App. at 267, 218 N.E.2d at I51. If the injury is permanent, the measure of *92 damages is limited to Page 3 the difference between the fair market value of the property before and after the injury, based on the rationale that "economic waste" results when restoration costs exceed the economic benefit. See Balling, 411 N.E.2d at 734. For a temporary injury the proper measure of damages is the cost of restoration. /d. It is undisputed that the cost to remediate Terra Site far exceeded the value of the land itself Applying the common law distinction between permanent and temporary damage to these facts, the damage to Terra Site would be considered pemtanent and the measure of damages would be the difference between the value of the property before and after the remediation. That is the measure of damages advocated by Terra on appeal. Kraft maintains that because it has remediated Terra Site at its expense, "Terra is entitled only to what it has already received" and "its damage claims aze moot." Brief of Appellees at 11. In other words, Kraft azgues and the trial court determined that remediation repaired Terra Site and, thus, that the PCB contamination was temporary damage. The court agreed with Kraft that Terra could not "seek to recover damages allowed for permanent injury and also to keep the rewards allowed under temporary injury that have aready been performed." Record at 377. The trial court's judgment was based on its determination that "[u]nder recent case law and through statements of the EPA and Indiana legislature, PCB contamination has been treated as a temporary injury despite the high cost of repair." Record at 376. The court relied on the federal district court decision in /n re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litigation (E.D.Pa.1992), 811 F.Supp. 1071, and on Indiana statutes and regulations, and reasoned that those audtoriries were "contrary to the common law policy of avoiding repair at costs which greatly exceed the value of the land." Record at 376-77; see IND. CODE § 13-7-8.5-5.5; IND. ADMIN. CODE tit. 329, r. 2-6~. The trial court concluded that "the current policy of the State of Indiana as well as the United States ... preempt[s] the common law doctrine for assessing the appropriate damages to real property and requves PCB contamination to be considered a temporary injury." Record a[ 377. We agree with the trial court that in light of the often exorbitant costs of remediation, the traditional common law economic waste analysis is inadequate Copt. ~ West 2001 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works