Case Law In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (“MTBE”) Prods. Liab. Litig.

In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (“MTBE”) Prods. Liab. Litig.

Document Cited Authorities (73) Cited in (169) Related (5)

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Paul D. Clement, Bancroft PLLC, Washington, DC (Traci L. Lovitt, Nicholas W. Haddad, Jones Day, New York, NY; Peter John Sacripanti, James A. Pardo, Lauren E. Handel, McDermott Will & Emery LLP, New York, NY, on the brief), for DefendantsAppellantsCross–Appellees Exxon Mobil Oil Corporation, Exxon Mobil Corporation, and Mobil Corporation.

Paul M. Smith, Jenner & Block LLP, Washington, DC (Susan E. Amron, Assistant Corporation Counsel, New York City Law Department, New York, NY; Victor M. Sher, Sher Leff LLP, San Francisco, CA, on the brief), for PlaintiffsAppelleesCross–Appellants the City of New York, the New York City Water Board, and the New York City Municipal Water Finance Authority.

Donald W. Fowler, Eric G. Lasker, Hollingsworth LLP, Washington, DC; Donald D. Evans, American Chemistry Council, Washington, DC; Thomas J. Graves, American Coatings Association, Inc., Washington, DC; Quentin Riegel, National Association of Manufacturers, Washington, DC; Elizabeth Milito, NFIB Small Business Legal Center, Washington, DC; Robin S. Conrad, National Chamber Litigation Center, Inc., Washington, DC, for amici curiae American Chemistry Council, American Coatings Association, the National Association of Manufacturers, the NFIB Small Business Legal Center, and the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, in support of DefendantsAppellants–Cross–Appellees.

Joseph R. Guerra, James R. Wedeking, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, DC, for amici curiae National Petrochemical and Refiners Association and American Petroleum Institute, in support of DefendantsAppellants–Cross–Appellees.

Michael B. Mukasey, Anne E. Cohen, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, New York, NY; Hugh F. Young, Jr., Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc., Reston, VA, for amicus curiae The Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc., in support of DefendantsAppellants–Cross–Appellees.

Michael E. Wall, Natural Resources Defense Council, San Francisco, CA, Johanna Dyer, Natural Resources Defense Council, New York, NY, for amicus curiae Natural Resources Defense Council, in support of PlaintiffsAppellees–Cross–Appellants.

Paula T. Dow, Attorney General of New Jersey, George N. Cohen, Richard F. Engel, Deputy Attorneys General, Trenton, NJ; Michael Axline, Miller, Axline & Sawyer, Sacramento, CA, for amicus curiae New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, in support of PlaintiffsAppellees–Cross–Appellants.

Before: PARKER, HALL, and CARNEY, Circuit Judges.

SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judge:

+-----------------+
¦Table of Contents¦
+-----------------¦
¦                 ¦
+-----------------+
+----------------------------------+
¦I.¦BACKGROUND                 ¦79 ¦
+----------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦A.  ¦MTBE and Its Effects                                   ¦80    ¦
+----+----+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦B.  ¦The Clean Air Act and the Reformulated Gasoline Program¦81    ¦
+----+----+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦C.  ¦The City's Water–Supply System                         ¦81    ¦
+----+----+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦D.  ¦The City's Claims                                      ¦82    ¦
+----+----+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦E.  ¦The Trial                                              ¦83    ¦
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦1. ¦Phase I: Future Use of the Station Six Wells          ¦83     ¦
+----+----+---+------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦    ¦2. ¦Phase II: Peak MTBE Concentration in the Station Six  ¦85     ¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦Wells                                                 ¦       ¦
+----+----+---+------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦    ¦3. ¦Phase III: Liability and Statute of Limitations       ¦86     ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦  ¦a.¦Injury                            ¦87  ¦
+---+---+--+--+----------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦  ¦b.¦Causation                         ¦88  ¦
+---+---+--+--+----------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦  ¦c.¦Damages                           ¦89  ¦
+---+---+--+--+----------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦  ¦d.¦Statute of Limitations            ¦90  ¦
+---+---+--+--+----------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦  ¦e.¦Phase III Jury Verdict            ¦91  ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------+
¦  ¦F.¦Punitive Damages               ¦91  ¦
+--+--+-------------------------------+----¦
¦  ¦G.¦Juror Misconduct               ¦94  ¦
+--+--+-------------------------------+----¦
¦  ¦H.¦Post–Trial Motions             ¦95  ¦
+------------------------------------------+
+---------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦                                          ¦    ¦
+---+------------------------------------------+----¦
¦II.¦DISCUSSION                                ¦95  ¦
+---------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------+
¦  ¦A.¦Preemption                     ¦95  ¦
+------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦   ¦1.¦Federal Preemption of State Law              ¦96    ¦
+----+---+--+---------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦   ¦2.¦Conflict Preemption: the Impossibility Branch¦97    ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a. ¦The Import of the Jury's Finding on the City's    ¦98     ¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦Design–Defect Claim                               ¦       ¦
+----+----+---+---+--------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b. ¦Considering Ethanol as a Possible Alternative to  ¦100    ¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦MTBE                                              ¦       ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+---------------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦3.¦Conflict Preemption: the Obstacle Branch¦101  ¦
+---+---+--+----------------------------------------+-----¦
¦   ¦   ¦4.¦Tortious Conduct Beyond Mere Use of MTBE¦103  ¦
+---------------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------+
¦  ¦B.¦Legal Cognizability of Injury  ¦104 ¦
+------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦1.¦Standing                            ¦105 ¦
+---+---+--+------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦2.¦Injury As a Matter of New York Law  ¦107 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦C.  ¦Ripeness and Statute of Limitations                   ¦109   ¦
+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦D.  ¦Sufficiency of the Evidence as to Injury and Causation¦112   ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦   ¦1. ¦The Jury's 10 ppb MTBE Peak Concentration Finding¦113   ¦
+----+---+---+-------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦   ¦2. ¦The Jury's Consideration of Market Share Evidence¦115   ¦
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------+
¦  ¦E.¦New York Law Claims            ¦117 ¦
+------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦1.¦Negligence                          ¦117 ¦
+---+---+--+------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦2.¦Trespass                            ¦119 ¦
+---+---+--+------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦3.¦Public Nuisance                     ¦121 ¦
+---+---+--+------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦4.¦Failure to Warn                     ¦123 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦F. ¦Juror Misconduct                            ¦125  ¦
+---+---+--------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦   ¦G. ¦The City's Cross–Appeals for Further Damages¦126  ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦1.¦Compensatory Damages Offset         ¦126 ¦
+---+---+--+------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦2.¦Punitive Damages                    ¦127 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦                                                       ¦      ¦
+----+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦III.¦CONCLUSION                                             ¦130   ¦
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

Exxon Mobil Corporation, Exxon Mobil Oil Corporation, and Mobil Corporation (collectively, “Exxon”) appeal from an amended judgment entered in favor of the City of New York, the New York City Water Board, and the New York City Municipal Water Finance Authority (collectively, “the City”) on September 17, 2010, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of...

5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland – 2018
Maryland v. Exxon Mobil Corp., CIVIL ACTION NO. ELH-18-0459
"... ... contamination of the State's waters with methyl tertiary butyl ether ("MTBE"), an oxygenate ... In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Prods. Liab. Litig. v. Atlantic Richfield Co. , MDL ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York – 2017
Baker v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.
"... ... 1060 (2001) ); accord In re September 11 Litig. , 280 F.Supp.2d 279, 290 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). Such ... See, e.g. , In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Prods. Liab. Litig ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Vermont – 2015
Grocery Mfrs. Ass'n, Snack Food Ass'n, Int'l Dairy Foods Ass'n, & Nat'l Ass'n of Mfrs. v. Sorrell
"... ... purpose and intended effects.” In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Prods. Liab. Litig., ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York – 2019
New York v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.
"... ... (quoting Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Prods. Co. , 473 U.S. 568, 580–81, 105 S.Ct. 3325, ... conjectural or hypothetical.’ " In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Prods. Liab. Litig ... "
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit – 2013
Manning v. Bos. Med. Ctr. Corp.
"..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
5 books and journal articles
Document | Vol. 120 Núm. 7, May 2022 – 2022
Air Pollution as Public Nuisance: Comparing Modern-Day Greenhouse Gas Abatement with Nineteenth-Century Smoke Abatement.
"...preempted a products liability lawsuit against a manufacturer of MTBE. See In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether ("MTBE") Prods. Liab. Litig., 725 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. (64.) Bell, 734 F.3d at 195. (65.) Id. at 191, 194. The CAA's savings clause states "[n]othing in this section shall restrict any r..."
Document | Núm. 37-2, December 2020
Who Calls the Shots?: Parents Versus the Parens Patriae Power of the States to Mandate Vaccines for Children in New York
"...families." Id. 149. V.D., 403 F. Supp. 3d at 82.150. Id. at 86 (quoting In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MBTE) Prods. Liab. Litig., 725 F.3d 65, 97 (2d Cir. 2013)).151. . Id. at 89.152. Id. at 88. The court explained: Here, it is entirely possible to comply with both the compulsory immuni..."
Document | Núm. 44-7, July 2014 – 2014
Being Small in a Supersized World: Tackling the Problem of Low-Level Exposures in Toxic Tort Actions
"...of Bolton, 2002 WL 1555320, at **3-4 (Mass. Super. Ct. May 23, 2002). 33. In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Prods. Liab. Litig., 725 F.3d 65, 78 (2d Cir. 2013). See generally Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE); Advance Notice of Intent to Initiate Rulemaking Under the Toxic Substance..."
Document | Núm. 44-9, September 2014 – 2014
Emerging Clarity on Climate Change Law: EPA Empowered and State Common Law Remedies Enabled
"...L.P. v. Bell, 134 S. Ct. 2696 (No. 13-1013) (U.S. June 2, 2014). 45. In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Prods. Liab. Litig., 725 F.3d 65, 96-103, 43 ELR 20171 (2d Cir. 2013). 46. Freeman v. Grain Processing Corp ., No. 13-0723 (Iowa June 13, 2014). 47. Freeman , slip op. at 1. 48. Id ..."
Document | Núm. 46-1, January 2016 – 2016
Four Things You Need to Know About Courts' Rejection of Clean Air Act Preemption of State Common-Law Claims
"...class certiication). 19. Bell , No. 12-929, slip op. at 7. 20. See In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Prods. Liability Litigation, 725 F.3d 65, 97 (2d Cir. 2013) (“[T]he Clean Air Act and its 1990 Amendments contain no explicit preemption directive expressing a Congressional intent to..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
5 firm's commentaries
Document | JD Supra United States – 2018
Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Water Contamination Action as Untimely
"...Id. at 125. The Second Circuit held the District’s claims were time-barred. Drawing on its analysis in In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl (“MTBE”) Prod. Liab. Litig., 725 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2013), the court stated that in a groundwater contamination action, the statute of limitations is triggered “w..."
Document | JD Supra United States – 2014
How Courts Have Ruled on the Still-open Issue of Whether the Clean Air Act Preempts State Common Law Tort Suits
"...as currently written, the CAA does not preempt state common law tort suits. Carl Pernicone In re: Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Products Liability Litigation, 725 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2013). Briefly, that suit arose from groundwater contamination allegedly stemming from the spillage and le..."
Document | JD Supra United States – 2014
Lyondell Bankruptcy Court Holds That Safe Harbors Do Not Prohibit Creditors From Asserting State Law Constructive Fraudulent Transfer Claims
"...poses an actual conflict with the overriding federal purpose and objective.’” Id. at *10 (quoting In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Prods. Liab. Litig., 725 F.3d 65, 101 (2d Cir. 2013)). Relying on the Tribune decision, the Bankruptcy Court also rejected this argument and held that state fr..."
Document | Mondaq United States – 2014
Lyondell Bankruptcy Court Holds That Safe Harbors Do Not Prohibit Creditors From Asserting State Law Constructive Fraudulent Transfer Claims
"...conflict with the overriding federal purpose and objective.'" Id. at *10 (quoting In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Prods. Liab. Litig., 725 F.3d 65, 101 (2d Cir. 2013)). Relying on the Tribune decision, the Bankruptcy Court also rejected this argument and held that state fraudulent transfe..."
Document | Mondaq United States – 2022
Court Dismisses Water Contamination Complaint For Failure To State A Cause Of Action Against Chemical PFAS Manufacturers
"...allegations" regarding causation were fatal to all of plaintiff's claims. Analyzing the seminal groundwater case of In re MTBE, 725 F.3d 65, (2nd Cir. 2013) the Court conceded causation is typically a question of fact for a jury, but held MTBE and its progeny were distinguishable due to the..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 books and journal articles
Document | Vol. 120 Núm. 7, May 2022 – 2022
Air Pollution as Public Nuisance: Comparing Modern-Day Greenhouse Gas Abatement with Nineteenth-Century Smoke Abatement.
"...preempted a products liability lawsuit against a manufacturer of MTBE. See In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether ("MTBE") Prods. Liab. Litig., 725 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. (64.) Bell, 734 F.3d at 195. (65.) Id. at 191, 194. The CAA's savings clause states "[n]othing in this section shall restrict any r..."
Document | Núm. 37-2, December 2020
Who Calls the Shots?: Parents Versus the Parens Patriae Power of the States to Mandate Vaccines for Children in New York
"...families." Id. 149. V.D., 403 F. Supp. 3d at 82.150. Id. at 86 (quoting In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MBTE) Prods. Liab. Litig., 725 F.3d 65, 97 (2d Cir. 2013)).151. . Id. at 89.152. Id. at 88. The court explained: Here, it is entirely possible to comply with both the compulsory immuni..."
Document | Núm. 44-7, July 2014 – 2014
Being Small in a Supersized World: Tackling the Problem of Low-Level Exposures in Toxic Tort Actions
"...of Bolton, 2002 WL 1555320, at **3-4 (Mass. Super. Ct. May 23, 2002). 33. In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Prods. Liab. Litig., 725 F.3d 65, 78 (2d Cir. 2013). See generally Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE); Advance Notice of Intent to Initiate Rulemaking Under the Toxic Substance..."
Document | Núm. 44-9, September 2014 – 2014
Emerging Clarity on Climate Change Law: EPA Empowered and State Common Law Remedies Enabled
"...L.P. v. Bell, 134 S. Ct. 2696 (No. 13-1013) (U.S. June 2, 2014). 45. In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Prods. Liab. Litig., 725 F.3d 65, 96-103, 43 ELR 20171 (2d Cir. 2013). 46. Freeman v. Grain Processing Corp ., No. 13-0723 (Iowa June 13, 2014). 47. Freeman , slip op. at 1. 48. Id ..."
Document | Núm. 46-1, January 2016 – 2016
Four Things You Need to Know About Courts' Rejection of Clean Air Act Preemption of State Common-Law Claims
"...class certiication). 19. Bell , No. 12-929, slip op. at 7. 20. See In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Prods. Liability Litigation, 725 F.3d 65, 97 (2d Cir. 2013) (“[T]he Clean Air Act and its 1990 Amendments contain no explicit preemption directive expressing a Congressional intent to..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland – 2018
Maryland v. Exxon Mobil Corp., CIVIL ACTION NO. ELH-18-0459
"... ... contamination of the State's waters with methyl tertiary butyl ether ("MTBE"), an oxygenate ... In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Prods. Liab. Litig. v. Atlantic Richfield Co. , MDL ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York – 2017
Baker v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.
"... ... 1060 (2001) ); accord In re September 11 Litig. , 280 F.Supp.2d 279, 290 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). Such ... See, e.g. , In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Prods. Liab. Litig ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Vermont – 2015
Grocery Mfrs. Ass'n, Snack Food Ass'n, Int'l Dairy Foods Ass'n, & Nat'l Ass'n of Mfrs. v. Sorrell
"... ... purpose and intended effects.” In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Prods. Liab. Litig., ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York – 2019
New York v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.
"... ... (quoting Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Prods. Co. , 473 U.S. 568, 580–81, 105 S.Ct. 3325, ... conjectural or hypothetical.’ " In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Prods. Liab. Litig ... "
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit – 2013
Manning v. Bos. Med. Ctr. Corp.
"..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 firm's commentaries
Document | JD Supra United States – 2018
Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Water Contamination Action as Untimely
"...Id. at 125. The Second Circuit held the District’s claims were time-barred. Drawing on its analysis in In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl (“MTBE”) Prod. Liab. Litig., 725 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2013), the court stated that in a groundwater contamination action, the statute of limitations is triggered “w..."
Document | JD Supra United States – 2014
How Courts Have Ruled on the Still-open Issue of Whether the Clean Air Act Preempts State Common Law Tort Suits
"...as currently written, the CAA does not preempt state common law tort suits. Carl Pernicone In re: Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Products Liability Litigation, 725 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2013). Briefly, that suit arose from groundwater contamination allegedly stemming from the spillage and le..."
Document | JD Supra United States – 2014
Lyondell Bankruptcy Court Holds That Safe Harbors Do Not Prohibit Creditors From Asserting State Law Constructive Fraudulent Transfer Claims
"...poses an actual conflict with the overriding federal purpose and objective.’” Id. at *10 (quoting In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Prods. Liab. Litig., 725 F.3d 65, 101 (2d Cir. 2013)). Relying on the Tribune decision, the Bankruptcy Court also rejected this argument and held that state fr..."
Document | Mondaq United States – 2014
Lyondell Bankruptcy Court Holds That Safe Harbors Do Not Prohibit Creditors From Asserting State Law Constructive Fraudulent Transfer Claims
"...conflict with the overriding federal purpose and objective.'" Id. at *10 (quoting In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Prods. Liab. Litig., 725 F.3d 65, 101 (2d Cir. 2013)). Relying on the Tribune decision, the Bankruptcy Court also rejected this argument and held that state fraudulent transfe..."
Document | Mondaq United States – 2022
Court Dismisses Water Contamination Complaint For Failure To State A Cause Of Action Against Chemical PFAS Manufacturers
"...allegations" regarding causation were fatal to all of plaintiff's claims. Analyzing the seminal groundwater case of In re MTBE, 725 F.3d 65, (2nd Cir. 2013) the Court conceded causation is typically a question of fact for a jury, but held MTBE and its progeny were distinguishable due to the..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial