Trinity Industries, Inc. v. Greenlease Holding Co.

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Corporations

CorporationsCERCLA contributionParent-subsidiary liabilityContract interpretationCERCLAHSCAcontributionoperator liability

Facts

Greenlease owned and operated the North Plant in Pennsylvania from 1910 to 1986, using historic fill and conducting railcar painting operations that contributed to contamination, and Trinity bought the site in 1986 and operated it until 2000. After a Pennsylvania investigation into Trinity's waste disposal activities, Trinity entered a plea agreement and consent decree requiring remediation of the site, which ultimately cost nearly $9 million. The sale agreement between Greenlease and Trinity contained three-year environmental indemnities, a non-assumption-of-liabilities clause, and a non-waiver-of-remedies clause. Ampco was Greenlease's parent, but Greenlease employees handled day-to-day plant, waste, and environmental operations while Ampco provided only general professional and oversight services.

Issue

Whether the expired indemnification provisions barred Trinity's statutory contribution claims, whether Trinity's cleanup costs were necessary and reasonable under CERCLA, whether the district court properly allocated cleanup costs between Trinity and Greenlease, and whether Ampco could be held directly or derivatively liable for Greenlease's contamination.

Rule

Under CERCLA, parties may seek contribution after resolving liability through an approved settlement, but allocation must be based on an intelligent estimate rather than speculation. A volumetric approach is permissible only when the evidence supports a correlation between the chosen unit and cost; where multiple remediation activities with different costs are involved, the court must differentiate among activities and account for varying costs. A parent is directly liable as an operator only if it manages, directs, or conducts pollution-related operations at the facility beyond ordinary parental oversight, and derivative liability requires veil piercing based on extraordinary circumstances showing misuse of the corporate form.

🔒

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.

Cascade Fabrication bought an industrial parcel in Toledo, Ohio from Rivermark Holdings. The sale agreement contained a two-year environmental indemnity, but also stated that Cascade did not assume any other liabilities of Rivermark and that all contractual remedies were cumulative and not exclusive of remedies available at law or in equity.

Three years later, after entering a state-approved cleanup settlement for pre-sale contamination, Cascade seeks statutory contribution from Rivermark. Rivermark argues the expired indemnity bars any further claim between the parties. What is the best answer?

Explanation. The majority held that expiration of a time-limited contractual indemnity ends only the contractual indemnity right, not statutory contribution, where the agreement also includes a non-assumption-of-liabilities clause and a non-waiver/cumulative-remedies clause. Reading the agreement as a whole, those clauses preserve noncontractual remedies rather than transfer all liability after the indemnity period expires. (Derived from Trinity Industries, Inc. v. Greenlease Holding Co. (n.d.).)