New Jersey Dep’t of Environmental Protection v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 420 N.J. Super. 395 (App. Div. 2011). N.J.S.A. 58:10B-17.1(b) (“the extension statute”) extends the normal statute of limitations for environmental actions “commenced by the State pursuant to the State’s environmental laws.” The statute goes on to define “the State’s environmental laws” by listing a number of specific statutes and then adding “or any other law or regulation by which the State may compel a person to perform remediation activities on contaminated property.” The question in this case was whether a claim by the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) for common law strict liability fell within the definition of “any other law,” so as to defeat defendant’s motion to dismiss that claim based on the statute of limitations. Writing for the panel, Judge Carchman found that the extension statute did extend to a common law strict liability claim.
Judge Carchman observed that “as both parties assert, cases exist to support either side’s position regarding principles of statutory interpretation” where similar statutory language was used. The panel thus focused on the intent of the Legislature in adopting the extension statute. “The extension statute was enacted to provide DEP with a specific period of additional time within which to initiate natural resource damages litigation.” The text of the statute did not use words of limitation, but instead showed “breadth in applicability” and “breadth in duration.” Moreover, nothing in the legislative history indicated that DEP’s broad enforcement powers were intended to be curtailed by the extension statute.
Judge Carchman also agreed with DEP that defendant’s view of the statute would produce an absurd result. Common law claims would have to be brought before statutory claims, often before site remediation is complete and the full extent and nature of natural resource damage claims are known. That would turn a “rational procedure on its head.” Accordingly, the panel concluded that the phrase “any other law” in the extension statute includes common law strict liability claims.
In the course of the opinon, Judge Carchman rejected DEP’s reliance on unpublished state and federal trial level decisions. Three such decisions favored DEP, while one supported defendant. The panel observed that unpublished opinions are neither precedential nor binding, under Rule 1:36-3.