Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-452

(Formerly Sec. 25-54ff). Reimbursement for containment or removal costs. Liability for certain acts or omissions

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Any person, firm, corporation or municipality which contains or removes or otherwise mitigates the effects of oil or petroleum or chemical liquids or solid, liquid or gaseous products or hazardous wastes resulting from any discharge, spillage, uncontrolled loss, seepage or filtration of such substance or material or waste shall be entitled to reimbursement from any person, firm or corporation for the reasonable costs expended for such containment, removal, or mitigation, if such oil or petroleum or chemical liquids or solid, liquid or gaseous products or hazardous wastes pollution or contamination or other emergency resulted from the negligence or other actions of such person, firm or corporation. When such pollution or contamination or emergency results from the joint negligence or other actions of two or more persons, firms or corporations, each shall be liable to the others for a pro rata share of the costs of containing, and removing or otherwise mitigating the effects of the same and for all damage caused thereby.

(b) No person, firm or corporation which renders assistance or advice in mitigating or attempting to mitigate the effects of an actual or threatened discharge of oil or petroleum or chemical liquids or solid, liquid or gaseous products or hazardous materials, other than a discharge of oil as defined in section 22a-457b, to the surface waters of the state, or which assists in preventing, cleaning-up or disposing of any such discharge shall be held liable, notwithstanding any other provision of law, for civil damages as a result of any act or omission by him in rendering such assistance or advice, except acts or omissions amounting to gross negligence or wilful or wanton misconduct, unless he is compensated for such assistance or advice for more than actual expenses. For the purpose of this subsection, “discharge” means spillage, uncontrolled loss, seepage or filtration and “hazardous materials” means any material or substance designated as such by any state or federal law or regulation.

(c) The immunity provided in this section shall not apply to (1) any person, firm or corporation responsible for such discharge, or under a duty to mitigate the effects of such discharge, (2) any agency or instrumentality of such person, firm or corporation or (3) negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle.

(1969, P.A. 765, S. 5; 1971, P.A. 872, S. 105; P.A. 79-605, S. 6, 17; P.A. 83-374, S. 1, 2; P.A. 86-239, S. 12, 14; P.A. 91-289, S. 2.)

History: 1971 act replaced reference to water resources commission in Subsec. (b) with reference to environmental protection commissioner; P.A. 79-605 clarified provisions by adding references to containment or mitigation of pollutants, to “solid, liquid or gaseous” products, to hazardous wastes, etc.; Sec. 25-54ff transferred to Sec. 22a-452 in 1983; P.A. 83-374 replaced existing provisions re liability of persons, firms and corporations assisting in cleaning up or disposing of discharges with new provisions and defined “discharge” and “hazardous material” and added Subsec. (c), excluding from the immunities provided those responsible for the discharge or those who are negligent in the operation of a motor vehicle; P.A. 86-239 amended Subsec. (a) by authorizing municipalities to be reimbursed for clean-up expenses; P.A. 91-289 amended Subsec. (b) to add reference to discharge of oil to surface waters.

See Sec. 22a-457b re limited immunity for certain persons responding to oil spills.

Cited. 238 C. 800; 241 C. 466. Court upheld Appellate Court ruling against plaintiffs who claimed compensation based on argument that easement deprived them of their statutory right to remediate the property at defendant's expense. 276 C. 426.

Subsec. (a):

Trial court properly considered in its valuation of property the possibility of recovering remediation costs under Subsec. 272 C. 14. In order for plaintiff to recover under section, plaintiff must establish that it took action in specific ways to effectuate remediation of the contaminated land and that it expended costs to do so. 284 C. 537.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 39 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1991–2025 · leading case: Knight v. F. L. Roberts & Co.

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Knight v. F. L. Roberts & Co. (1997) conn · cites it 40× “, for reimbursement of alleged remediation costs under General Statutes § 22a-452 (a). 2 We conclude that *468 the trial court improperly granted the defendants’ motions to strike and, therefore, reverse the judgment of the trial court.”

ATC Partnership v. Coats North America Consolidated, Inc. (2007) conn · cites it 36× “The plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly: (1) concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to obtain reimbursement from the defendant pursuant to General Statutes § 22a-452 (a) 3 because the plaintiff had not expended any funds for the remediation of the property;…”

Calabrese v. McHugh (2001) ctd · cites it 24× “§ 22a-452 In Count VI, plaintiff seeks to recover remediation costs, brought under Conn. Gen.Stat. §§ 22a-452. 11 The Connecticut courts have repeatedly held that § 22a-452 is limited to claims for recoupment of remediation costs from others responsible for the contamination.”

Doty v. Mucci (1996) conn · cites it 12× “The trial court did not determine which of the statutes of limitations advanced by the parties was applicable, reasoning that “[Regardless of which statute of limitations applies to actions brought pursuant to General Statutes § 22a-452, the action [in the present case] must…”

Durham Manufacturing Co. v. Merriam Manufacturing Co. (2003) ctd · cites it 34× “, and reimbursement for containment or removal costs under Conn. Gen.Stat. § 22a-452. Durham also seeks a declaratory judgment that Defendants are responsible for the existence of hazardous substances at, on or under the Merriam Premises and other portions of the Durham Meadows…”

OBG Technical Services, Inc. v. Northrop Grumman Space & Mission Systems Corp. Ex Rel. TRW, Inc. (2007) ctd · cites it 13× “Because § 22a-452 does not provide its own statute of limitations, the parties agree that the statute of limitations set forth in § 52-577c applies to claims brought under § 22a-452.”

McCann Real Equities Series XXII, LLC v. David McDermott Chevrolet, Inc. (2006) connappct · cites it 9× “The plaintiffs sought common-law and statutoiy indemnification pursuant to General Statutes § 22a-452 in counts six and seven, respectively.”

Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority v. Refuse Gardens, Inc. (1993) connsuperct · cites it 23× “The plaintiff claims that under General Statutes § 22a-452 (a) 1 it is entitled to reimbursement for amounts it has expended and will expend to contain, remove or mitigate the effects of leachate and methane gas.”

Coastline Terminals of Connecticut, Inc. v. USX Corp. (2001) ctd · cites it 11× “, Connecticut General Statute Section 22a-452, and common law negligence.”

Northeast Ct. Economic Alliance, Inc. v. ATC Partnership (2004) conn · cites it 7× “, or General Statutes § 22a-452, that a prudent investor would consider the possible recovery of moneys from prior landowners responsible for the property’s environmental defects, namely, American Thread; (3) violated this court’s remand order in Northeast I by failing to adopt…”

Arawana Mills Co. v. United Technologies Corp. (1992) ctd · cites it 12× “The re *1242 maining eight counts of the Complaint are based on a variety of state common law and statutory theories: reimbursement of costs pursuant to Conn.Gen.Stat. § 22a-452 (Second Count); breach of contract (Third Count); specific performance (Fourth Count); waste (Fifth…”

Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority v. Refuse Gardens, Inc. (1994) conn · cites it 11× “The sole issue in this environmental case is whether General Statutes § 22a-452 (a) 1 imposes *456 strict liability upon a prior landowner for a subsequent landowner’s costs of cleaning up a contaminated landfill.”

Show all 39 citing cases →

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-452(a) — 11 cases

Durham Manufacturing Co. v. Merriam Manufacturing Co. (2003) ctd “, and reimbursement for containment or removal costs under Conn. Gen.Stat. § 22a-452. Durham also seeks a declaratory judgment that Defendants are responsible for the existence of hazardous substances at, on or under the Merriam Premises and other portions of the Durham Meadows…”

OBG Technical Services, Inc. v. Northrop Grumman Space & Mission Systems Corp. Ex Rel. TRW, Inc. (2007) ctd “Because § 22a-452 does not provide its own statute of limitations, the parties agree that the statute of limitations set forth in § 52-577c applies to claims brought under § 22a-452.”

Schiavone v. Pearce (1999) ctd

Durham Manufacturing Co. v. Merriam Manufacturing Co. (2001) ctd

Abb Industrial Systems, Inc. v. Prime Technology, Inc., General Resistance, Inc., Zero-Max, Inc., Barry Wright Corporati (1997) ca2

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.