Sec. 3. (a) In resolving an environmental legal action,
a court shall allocate the costs of the removal or remedial action in
proportion to the acts or omissions of each party, without regard to any
theory of joint and several liability, using legal and equitable factors
that the court determines are appropriate, including the following:
(1) The degree of care exercised by each party with respect to the
release of the hazardous substance or petroleum caused or
contributed to by each party.
(2) The amount and characteristics of the hazardous substance or
petroleum that was released.
(3) The risks posed by the hazardous substance or petroleum
based on the use of the site at the time the hazardous substance or
petroleum was released into the environment and the cost
effectiveness of the removal or remedial action to address the
risks.
(4) Whether a party's acts or omissions violated a federal, state, or
local statute, rule, regulation, or ordinance.
(5) The extent to which each party exercised actual and direct
managerial control over the site where the hazardous substance or
petroleum was released at the time of the release.
(6) Whether an award of reasonable costs, including attorney's
fees, to a party involved in the environmental legal action is
appropriate.
(7) Other equitable factors, including unjust enrichment, that the
court determines are appropriate.
(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), if parties have entered into a
contract that allocates the costs or responsibility for the removal or
remedial action, the terms of the contract control the allocation of costs
between the parties to the contract. However, the terms of a contract
may not affect the recovery of costs by the state unless the state is a
signatory to the contract.
As added by P.L.59-1997, SEC.23.
Notes of Decisions
Armstrong Cleaners, Inc. v. Erie Ins. Exch., 364 F. Supp. 2d 797 (S.D. Ind. 2005).
· cites it 13× “However, the plaintiff, and especially the other potentially responsible parties, in the underlying environmental suit will have powerful incentives to attempt to show that the Armstrongs are liable for a high percentage of the costs pursuant to Ind.Code § 13-30-9-3. The other…”
Nyby v. Waste Mgmt., Inc., 725 N.E.2d 905 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “Ind.Code § 13-30-9-3 (1998) permits a court to award attorney’s fees to a party involved in an environmental legal action.”
Peniel Grp., Inc. v. Bannon, 973 N.E.2d 575 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “Accordingly, pursuant to Indiana Code section 13-30-9-3, which provides for the allocation of the “costs of the removal or remedial action in proportion to the acts or omissions of each party” in an environmental legal action, Beech Grove Holdings sought a judgment against the…”
Evansville Greenway & Remediation Trust v. S. Indiana Gas & Elec. Co., 661 F. Supp. 2d 989 (S.D. Ind. 2009).
· cites it 2× “” Ind.Code § 13-30-9-3(a). Although Frontier Kemper argues that the ELA leaves the issue open, the statutory language clearly states that the court shall allocate costs between the parties, and the parallels to CERCLA are apparent.”
Refined Metals Corp. v. Nl Indus., Inc. (S.D. Ind. 2020).
· cites it 2× “” Ind. Code § 13-30-9-3 (a). Refined Metals further argues that the temporal scope of the ELA claim is different, as it seeks only costs incurred after July 2007.”
Impact Holdings LLC v. Coupled Prods. LLC (N.D. Ind. 2025).
· cites it 2× “While Plaintiff is correct that attorneys’ fees in prosecuting an ELA claim may be awarded when a claim is resolved, see I.C. § 13-30-9-3(a)(6), an “interest in attorney’s fees is .”
The Peniel Grp., Inc. & Beech Grove Holdings, LLC v. Elizabeth Bannon, Kenneth G. Schaefer, Linda A. Schaefer, Norma Thinnes, Betty Benefiel, Janet Beeler, Charles Dodson & Beth Dodson (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “Accordingly, pursuant to Indiana Code section 13-30-9-3, which provides for the allocation of the “costs of the removal or remedial action in proportion to the acts or omissions of each party” in an environmental legal action, Beech Grove Holdings sought a judgment against the…”
Ind. Code § 13-30-9-3(a): 2 cases
Armstrong Cleaners, Inc. v. Erie Ins. Exch., 364 F. Supp. 2d 797 (S.D. Ind. 2005).
“However, the plaintiff, and especially the other potentially responsible parties, in the underlying environmental suit will have powerful incentives to attempt to show that the Armstrongs are liable for a high percentage of the costs pursuant to Ind.Code § 13-30-9-3. The other…”
Ind. Code § 13-30-9-3(a)(6): 1 case
Impact Holdings LLC v. Coupled Prods. LLC (N.D. Ind. 2025).
“While Plaintiff is correct that attorneys’ fees in prosecuting an ELA claim may be awarded when a claim is resolved, see I.C. § 13-30-9-3(a)(6), an “interest in attorney’s fees is .”
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.