Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448
Florida Statute 376.308 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
Link to State of Florida Official Statute
Statute is currently reporting as:
F.S. 376.308 Case Law from Google Scholar Google Search for Amendments to 376.308

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title XXVIII
NATURAL RESOURCES; CONSERVATION, RECLAMATION, AND USE
Chapter 376
POLLUTANT DISCHARGE PREVENTION AND REMOVAL
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 376.308
376.308 Liabilities and defenses of facilities.
(1) In any suit instituted by the department under ss. 376.30-376.317, it is not necessary to plead or prove negligence in any form or matter. The department need only plead and prove that the prohibited discharge or other polluting condition has occurred. The following persons shall be liable to the department for any discharges or polluting condition:
(a) Any person who caused a discharge or other polluting condition or who owned or operated the facility, or the stationary tanks or the nonresidential location which constituted the facility, at the time the discharge occurred.
(b) In the case of a discharge of hazardous substances, all persons specified in s. 403.727(4).
(c) In the case of a discharge of petroleum, petroleum products, or drycleaning solvents, the owner of the facility, the drycleaning facility, or the wholesale supply facility, unless the owner can establish that he or she acquired title to property contaminated by the activities of a previous owner or operator or other third party, that he or she did not cause or contribute to the discharge, and that he or she did not know of the polluting condition at the time the owner acquired title. If the owner acquired title subsequent to July 1, 1992, or, in the case of a drycleaning facility or wholesale supply facility, subsequent to July 1, 1994, he or she must also establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she undertook, at the time of acquisition, all appropriate inquiry into the previous ownership and use of the property consistent with good commercial or customary practice in an effort to minimize liability. The court or hearing officer shall take into account any specialized knowledge or experience on the part of the defendant, the relationship of the purchase price to the value of the property if uncontaminated, commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information about the property, the obviousness of the presence or likely presence of contamination at the property, and the ability to detect such contamination by appropriate inspection. In an action relating to a discharge of petroleum, petroleum products, or drycleaning solvents under chapter 403, the defenses and definitions set forth herein shall apply.
(2) In addition to the defense described in paragraph (1)(c), the only other defenses of a person specified in subsection (1) are to plead and prove that the occurrence was solely the result of any of the following or any combination of the following:
(a) An act of war;
(b) An act of government, either state, federal, or local, unless the person claiming the defense is a governmental body, in which case the defense is available only by acts of other governmental bodies;
(c) An act of God, which means only an unforeseeable act exclusively occasioned by the violence of nature without the interference of any human agency; or
(d) An act or omission of a third party, other than an employee or agent of the defendant or other than one whose act or omission occurs in connection with a contractual relationship existing, directly or indirectly, with the defendant, except when the sole contractual arrangement arises from a published tariff and acceptance for carriage by a common carrier or by rail, and the defendant establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that:
1. The defendant exercised due care with respect to the pollutant concerned, taking into consideration the characteristics of such pollutant, in light of all relevant facts and circumstances.
2. The defendant took precautions against any foreseeable acts or omissions of any such third party and against the consequences that could foreseeably result from such acts or omissions.
(3) For purposes of this section, the following additional defenses shall apply to sites contaminated with petroleum or petroleum products:
(a) The defendant is a lender serving as a trustee, personal representative, or other type of fiduciary, provided the defendant did not otherwise cause or contribute to the discharge;
(b) The defendant is a lender which holds indicia of ownership in the site primarily to protect a security interest, and which has not divested the borrower of, or otherwise engaged in, decisionmaking control over site operations, particularly with respect to the storage, use, or disposal of petroleum or petroleum products, or which otherwise caused or contributed to the discharge; provided, that the financial institution may direct or compel the borrower to maintain compliance with environmental statutes and rules and may act to prevent or abate a discharge; or
(c) The defendant is a lender which held a security interest in the site and has foreclosed or otherwise acted to acquire title primarily to protect its security interest, and seeks to sell, transfer, or otherwise divest the assets for subsequent sale at the earliest possible time, taking all relevant facts and circumstances into account, and has not undertaken management activities beyond those necessary to protect its financial interest, to effectuate compliance with environmental statutes and rules, or to prevent or abate a discharge; however, if the facility is not eligible for cleanup pursuant to s. 376.305(6), s. 376.3071, or s. 376.3072, any funds expended by the department for cleanup of the property shall constitute a lien on the property against any subsequent sale after the amount of the former security interest (including the cost of collection, management, and sale) is satisfied.
(4) Liability pursuant to this chapter shall be joint and several. However, if more than one discharge occurred and the damage is divisible and may be attributed to a particular defendant or defendants, each defendant is liable only for the costs associated with his or her damages. The burden shall be on the defendant to demonstrate the divisibility of damages.
(5) Effective July 1, 1996, and operating retroactively to March 29, 1995, notwithstanding any other provision of law, judgment, consent order, order, or ordinance, no person who owns or operates a facility or who otherwise could be responsible for costs as a result of contamination eligible for restoration funding from the Inland Protection Trust Fund shall be subject to administrative or judicial action, brought by or on behalf of the state or any local government or any other person, to compel rehabilitation in advance of commitment of restoration funding in accordance with a site’s priority ranking pursuant to s. 376.3071(5)(a) or to pay for the costs of rehabilitation of environmental contamination resulting from a discharge of petroleum products that is eligible for restoration funding from the Inland Protection Trust Fund. For purposes of chapter 95, a cause of action to compel rehabilitation of environmental contamination at a facility resulting from a discharge of petroleum products that is eligible for restoration funding, or to compel payment of costs for environmental contamination resulting from a discharge of petroleum products that is eligible for restoration funding, shall not accrue until restoration funding can be committed to the facility or environmental contamination in accordance with the priority ranking. In the event of a new release, the facility operator shall be required to abate the source of the discharge. If free product is present, the operator shall notify the department, which may direct the removal of free product where prior approval of the scope of work and costs has been granted by the department. Nothing herein shall preclude any person from bringing civil action for damages or personal injury, not to include the cost of restoration or the compelling of restoration in advance of the state’s commitment of restoration funding in accordance with a site’s priority ranking pursuant to s. 376.3071(5)(a). The Legislature’s intent in establishing the limitations in this subsection is to recognize that on March 29, 1995, the Legislature enacted chapter 95-2, Laws of Florida.
(6) This section may not be construed to affect cleanup program eligibility under ss. 376.305(6), 376.3071, 376.3072, 376.3078, and 376.3079. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this chapter, nothing in this chapter shall affect, void, or defeat any immunity of any real property owner or nearby real property owner under s. 376.3078.
History.s. 84, ch. 83-310; s. 11, ch. 84-338; s. 18, ch. 86-159; s. 10, ch. 92-30; s. 4, ch. 94-311; s. 8, ch. 94-355; s. 1019, ch. 95-148; s. 5, ch. 95-239; s. 11, ch. 96-277; s. 11, ch. 98-189; s. 5, ch. 2003-276; s. 66, ch. 2007-5; s. 90, ch. 2008-4.

F.S. 376.308 on Google Scholar

F.S. 376.308 on Casetext

Amendments to 376.308


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 376.308
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 376.308.



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 376.308

Total Results: 12

Charles L. Lieupo v. Simon's Trucking, Inc.

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2019-12-19

Snippet: of action shall be those specified in s. 376.308. (Emphasis added.) In this case, because

FT Investments, Inc. v. State Department of Environmental Protection

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2012-06-14

Citation: 93 So. 3d 369, 2012 WL 2138110, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 9601

Snippet: the “innocent purchaser defense” under section 376.308(1)(c), Florida Statutes, because it knew of the

General Dynamics Corp. v. Brottem

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2010-12-30

Citation: 53 So. 3d 334, 31 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1225, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 20129, 2010 WL 5391519

Snippet: action shall be those provided in s. 376.308.” Section 376.308 lists four basic defenses: “(a) An act

Curd v. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2010-06-17

Citation: 39 So. 3d 1216, 40 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20172, 2010 A.M.C. 2211, 35 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 341, 71 ERC (BNA) 1005, 2010 Fla. LEXIS 944, 2010 WL 2400384

Snippet: cause of action shall be those specified in s. 376.308. (Emphasis added.) The Second District Court of

ARAMARK UNIFORM AND APPAREL v. Easton

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2004-10-07

Citation: 894 So. 2d 20, 29 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 551, 34 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20115, 2004 Fla. LEXIS 1743, 2004 WL 2251847

Snippet: See § 376.302(2)-(3), Fla. Stat. (2002). Section 376.308 authorizes the DEP to sue polluters and force the

Easton v. Aramark Uniform and Career

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2002-08-06

Citation: 825 So. 2d 996, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 11184, 2002 WL 1790889

Snippet: cause of action shall be those specified in s. 376.308. (Emphasis added). Appellees argue that the trial

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. First Citizens Premises Co.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2002-02-20

Citation: 816 So. 2d 1124, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 1785, 2002 WL 237658

Snippet: not address the general applicability of section 376.308(5), Florida Statutes (1997), in that we conclude

State Department of Environmental Protection v. Allied Scrap Processors, Inc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1998-12-11

Citation: 724 So. 2d 151, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 15616, 1998 WL 852448

Snippet: applicable liability provisions of the WQAA, sections 376.308(l)(b) and 430.727(4)(a), were not intended to have

State, Department of Environmental Protection v. Eastman Chemical Co.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1997-10-08

Citation: 699 So. 2d 1051, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 11224, 1997 WL 614994

Snippet: liable under Florida’s mini-CERCLA Acts, sections 376.308 and 403.727, Florida Statutes (1995), for groundwater

Kaplan v. Peterson

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1996-05-31

Citation: 674 So. 2d 201, 1996 WL 283690

Snippet: required to clean up a polluted site.[10] Section 376.308 limits the defenses of a person who is responsible

Cunningham v. Anchor Hocking Corp.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1990-03-01

Citation: 558 So. 2d 93, 1990 WL 19935

Snippet: cause of action shall be those specified in s. 376.308.[[2]] We find no basis for holding the above-quoted

Sunshine Jr. Stores, Inc. v. STATE, DER

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1990-02-02

Citation: 556 So. 2d 1177, 1990 WL 7630

Snippet: held liable only for the damage he caused) and § 376.308(4) (providing a "third party polluter" defense