Key Tronic Corporation v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1994 · Corporations

511 U.S. 809 (1994)

Updated August 22, 2026

CERCLAattorney's feescost recoveryresponse costscontributionAmerican RuleCERCLA § 107CERCLA § 113

Facts

Key Tronic was one of several parties responsible for contamination at the Colbert Landfill and agreed in a settlement with WDOE and EPA to contribute $4.2 million to an EPA cleanup fund. It later sought to recover additional pre-settlement response costs under CERCLA § 107(a)(4)(B), including attorney's fees for identifying other potentially responsible parties, negotiating its agreement with EPA, and prosecuting this action. The Air Force had separately settled with EPA and was released from further contribution liability for matters covered by that settlement. The dispute here concerned whether the claimed attorney's fees qualified as recoverable "necessary costs of response."

Issue

Whether attorney's fees are "necessary costs of response" recoverable by a private party under CERCLA § 107(a)(4)(B). More specifically, the Court considered whether fees for prosecuting a private cost-recovery action, identifying other potentially responsible parties, and negotiating a consent decree with EPA are recoverable.

Rule

Absent explicit congressional authorization, attorney's fees are not recoverable under the American Rule. CERCLA § 107(a)(4)(B) does not authorize a private litigant to recover attorney's fees incurred in prosecuting a private cost-recovery action, because the statute lacks sufficiently explicit authorization; however, some nonlitigation legal work that is closely tied to the actual cleanup and itself constitutes a necessary response cost may be recoverable.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Harbor Circuit Components paid for cleanup work at a contaminated industrial parcel in Toledo, Ohio, then filed a CERCLA § 107 action against two other generators. It now seeks to recover the fees its lawyers billed for drafting the complaint, taking depositions, and arguing summary judgment.

Are those legal fees recoverable as "necessary costs of response" under CERCLA § 107(a)(4)(B)?

Explanation. The majority held that CERCLA does not explicitly authorize recovery of a private party's attorney's fees for bringing a cost-recovery action. Under the American Rule, such litigation fees are not recoverable absent sufficiently explicit congressional authorization, and the phrase "enforcement activities" is not explicit enough to cover private § 107 litigation.