Terra-Products v. Kraft General Foods, Inc.
undisclosed (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner may recover damages for the reduction in a property's fair market value remaining after environmental remediation, but the landowner bears the burden of proving the amount of this loss with evidence of the property's value before the contamination and after the cleanup is complete.
Facts:
- From 1957 to 1969, P.R. Mallory, Inc. operated a battery manufacturing facility using polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) on a property known as 'Mallory Site.'
- Terra-Products, Inc. ('Terra') owned and operated a business on an adjacent property known as 'Terra Site.'
- In 1975, Terra purchased the Mallory Site from Kraft General Foods, Inc. ('Kraft'), the successor to P.R. Mallory.
- In 1986, federal and state environmental agencies discovered PCB contamination on the Mallory Site.
- During the subsequent investigation and cleanup, it was discovered that PCBs had migrated from the Mallory Site and contaminated the adjacent Terra Site.
- Kraft agreed to perform and pay for the entire cost of cleanup (remediation) for both the Mallory Site and the Terra Site.
- In June of 1992, before Kraft had completed the remediation, Terra sold both sites at a public auction.
Procedural Posture:
- Terra-Products, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Kraft General Foods, Inc. in an Indiana trial court, asserting claims for strict liability, negligence, nuisance, and trespass.
- Kraft filed a counterclaim against Terra for unjust enrichment.
- Kraft moved for summary judgment on all of Terra's claims, and Terra filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on Kraft's counterclaim.
- The trial court granted Kraft's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of Terra's claims.
- The trial court also granted Terra's motion for summary judgment on the counterclaim, finding it moot.
- Terra, as the appellant, appealed the grant of summary judgment against it to the Indiana Court of Appeals, with Kraft as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a landowner state a valid claim for permanent damages (i.e., post-remediation loss in market value) due to environmental contamination if they fail to produce evidence comparing the property's fair market value before the contamination to its fair market value after the cleanup was completed?
Opinions:
Majority - Najam, J.
No. A landowner fails to state a valid claim for permanent damages if they do not provide evidence to establish the amount of any remaining loss in the property's fair market value after remediation. The court adopted a hybrid theory of recovery for environmental contamination, recognizing that remediation costs alone may not fully compensate a landowner if the property suffers from a 'stigma' that permanently diminishes its market value. While such 'remaining loss' damages are theoretically recoverable, the plaintiff must prove them. Here, Terra failed its evidentiary burden because it did not provide evidence of Terra Site's value before the contamination and after the remediation was complete. The pre-contamination appraisal included both Terra Site and Mallory Site, and the auction sale occurred before the cleanup was finished, making the sale price an unreliable measure of the property's post-remediation value. Without this crucial evidence, Terra's claim for permanent damages is based on speculation, and summary judgment for Kraft was appropriate.
Analysis:
This case establishes for Indiana law that environmental contamination should generally be treated as a temporary injury, with the cost of remediation as the primary damage award. However, the court modernizes this rule by adopting a 'hybrid' theory that allows for recovery of permanent 'stigma' damages—the loss in market value that persists even after a full cleanup. The significance of this decision lies in the high evidentiary bar it sets for plaintiffs seeking such damages. By requiring specific proof of the pre-contamination and post-remediation property values, the court makes it more difficult for landowners to recover for stigma, demanding concrete evidence rather than speculation about lost value.
