United States v. Dico, Inc., No. 14-2762 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseThe government filed suit against Dico to recover damages for cleanup costs after Dico sold buildings to SIM, which were then torn down and stored in an open field where PCBs were later found. The government alleged that Dico violated the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9607(a)(3), and the EPA order governing use of the buildings at issue. The district court found Dico liable for both violations. The court reversed and vacated the district court's summary judgment order holding Dico "arranged" for disposal of hazardous materials as a matter of law where the evidence does not demonstrate that Dico was merely trying to get rid of a hazardous substance. The fact that some parts from the buildings were worthless after disassembly does not necessarily transform a potentially legitimate sale of the buildings in which Dico would receive some commercial value into a ploy to simply get rid of the buildings just to dispose of the hazardous substance. The court vacated the district court's order with respect to any response costs associated with the issue of "arranger" liability. The court also reversed the award of punitive damages because the Fund did not incur any costs as a result of Dico's violation of the EPA Order. The court affirmed in all other respects.
Court Description: Bye, Author, with Loken and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Environmental law. The district court erred in granting summary judgment to the EPA on its claims that Dico violated CERCLA by arranging for the disposal of PCB-contaminated buildings by selling them to a third party who disassembled the buildings and stored them in a way that permitted the PCBs to contaminate another site; the buildings had at least some commercial value based on which a fact finder could find that Dico did not intend to dispose of the PCBs by selling the buildings; there were a number of issues of material fact, including the usefulness and value of the buildings, and the record did not demonstrate as a matter of law that Dico was simply trying to get rid of a hazardous substance; award of civil penalties affirmed for violation of standing EPA order covering the site; however, the award of punitive damages is reversed because the Fund did not incur any costs to clean up the teardown site where the building once stood and the Fund did not, therefore, incur any costs as a result of Dico's violation of the standing EPA order. Judge Loken, concurring in part, and dissenting in part. Judge Kelly, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
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.