ENFORCE35100 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

653 N.E.2d 89 (Cite as: 653 N.E.2d 89, *92) when measuring damages to land from environmental contamination. Land subject to hazardous waste or PCB contamination is required to be remediated virtually without regard to cost. See, e.g., Slate of Ohio v. U.S. Dept. of Inferior (D.C.Cir.1989), 880 F.2d 432, 446 (under CERCLA, preference is for restoration cost as measure of damage to natural resources, at least-where restoration is feasible and can be perfomred at a cost not grossly disproportionate to use value of resource). PCB contamination, therefore, will generally be considered a temporary injury capable of being remediated or "repaired." Nevertheless, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has recognized that the traditional distinction between temporary and permanent injury to real property is ill- suited for determining damages in the context of environmental contamination. In In re Paoli R.R. Yard Litigation (3rd Cir.1994), 35 F.3d 717, the federal court of appeals [FN4] reversed the district court's deternination that the plaintiffs were not entitled to damages for diminution in value because PCB contamination of their property was "temporary and remediable." Id. at 795. The court held that a factual question existed as to whether the injury to the plaintiffs' land was temporary or permanent. Id. at 796. The tour reasoned that, although the plaintiffs may not have presented evidence of permanent "physical" damage, they did present expert evidence that the PCB contamination had not been completely remediated and that "the stigma of living oo property which once contained significant amounts of PCBs" constituted "permanent, irremediable damage to property...." /d. at 796-97 (emphasis added). FN4. The federal district court opinion in /n re Paoli, upon which the trial court relied, was reversed after the trial tour granted summary judgment for Kraft. *93 The Third Circuit in In re Paoli determined it was not necessary, under Pennsylvania law, "that an injury to land ... be physical for it to be considered permanent." Id. at 797. The court observed that the [ern "permanent injury" was mean[ to apply whenever repair costs would be an inappropriate measure of damages. !d. (citing Wade v. S.J. Groves & Sons Co. (1981), 283 Pa.Super. 464, 424 A.2d 902, 912). "[A]n appropriate measure of damages is generally defined as what is necessary [o compensate fully the plaintiff" /d. The court concluded: This approach is normally consistent with the view [ha[, when physical damage is temporary, only Page 4 repair costs are recoverable, because in a perfectly functioning market, fully repaired property will return [o its former value. Thus, an award of repair costs will be fully compensatory.... Hence, nornally, it is only when property cannot be repaired that courts must award damages for diminution in value in order to fully compensate plaintiffs. However, the marke! sometimes jails and repair costs are not jolly compensatory. In such cases, ... plaintiffs should be compensated jor their remaining loss. Absent such an approach, plaintiffs are pernanently deprived of significant value without any compensation. Id. at 797-98 (emphasis added). The Third Circuit then established athree-factor test which plaintiffs must meet to "make out a claim for diminution of value of their property without showing permanent physical damage to the land." !d. at 798. Those factors aze: (I) defendants have caused some (temporary) physical damage to plaintiffs' property; (2) plaintiffs demonstrate that repair of this damage will not restore the value of the property to its prior level; and (3) plaintiffs show that there is some ongoing risk to their land. /d. [3] The law of damages in Indiana is consistent with the Third Circuit's interpretation of Pennsylvania law concerning the proper measure of damages for environmental contamination. As in Pennsylvania, the aim in awarding damages in Indiana is to fairly and adequately compensate an injured party for his loss. See Wiese-CMC, /nc. v. Wells (1993), Ind.App., 626 N.E.2d 595, 597, trans. denied. In discussing the appropriate measure of damages which will fully compensate the plaintiff for an item of personal property that is damaged but not destroyed, this court has stated: the fundamental measure of damages is the reduction in fair market value caused by the negligence of the tort feasor. This reduction in fair market value may be proved in any of three ways, depending on [he circumstances. First, it may be proved by evidence of the fav market value before and the fair market value after the causative even[. Secondly, it may be proved by evidence of the cost of repair where repair will restore the personal property to its jair market value hejore the causative event. Third, the reduction in fav market value may be proved by a combination of evidence Copr. ©West 2001 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works