United States v. Dico, Inc., No. 17-3462 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's finding, on remand, that Dico and Titan violated the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). The court held that the clear error standard of review governed this appeal and that ample evidence supported the district court's factual findings that defendants intended to dispose the PCB contamination by selling contaminated buildings to SIM.
The court affirmed the punitive damages award because it now could affirm the finding that the sale violated CERCLA. The court held that the district court properly held that Dico and Titan were jointly and severally liable for enforcement costs where defendants failed to establish that the harm was divisible.
Court Description: Benton, Author, with Melloy and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Environmental law. For the court's prior opinion affirming summary judgment on defendant Dico's violations of the district court's 1994 order and civil penalties, but holding that questions of fact precluded summary judgment on arranger liability and punitive damages, see U.S. v. Dico, Inc. 808 F.3d 342 (8th Cir. 2015). On remand, the district court found defendants arranged to dispose of a hazardous substance in violation of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and were jointly and severally liable for response costs in the amount of $5.45 million. The court further found that they were liable for all costs not yet reported, all future costs, all enforcement costs and attorneys' fees. Held: Substantial evidence supported the district court's conclusion that defendants intended to arrange for the disposal of a hazardous substance by selling a contaminated building to a third party, without telling that party of the contamination or the EPA orders in the matter; the district court did not err in awarding punitive damages against defendant Dico. No error in including enforcement costs in the arranger award made against defendants.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.