Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States, 556 U.S. 599 (2009)
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v.
Can Shell Oil Company be held liable as an 'arranger' under CERCLA for selling and delivering a product that leaked, and can the liability of potentially responsible parties be apportioned if evidence supports divisibility of harm?
Under CERCLA, an 'arranger' can be held liable for disposal of hazardous substances if they take intentional steps to dispose of a hazardous substance. Liability can be joint and several unless a party can demonstrate a reasonable basis for apportioning costs based on the divisible harm they caused.
The Supreme Court held that Shell was not liable as an 'arranger' because it did not intend for spills to occur and that the harm caused by contamination was reasonably capable of apportionment.
The case is significant for its clarification of arranger liability under CERCLA and its endorsement of apportionment, influencing future environmental litigation strategies. Entities can now potentially reduce CERCLA liability by presenting evidence of their limited contribution to contamination. The decision underscores the importance of tracing the origins and extent of contamination for cost allocation and represents a shift toward more equitable distribution of remediation costs based on fault.