In the case of Freeman v. Glaxo Wellcome Inc., 189 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 1999), the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the seller of chemicals, Glaxo. The plaintiffs had purchased the chemicals from Glaxo when Glaxo abandoned its manufacturing facilities located adjacent to plaintiffs. Later, EPA had to clean up some of those chemicals from plaintiffs' site and sought reimbursement for its costs from plaintiffs. The District Court granted Glaxo summary judgment when the plaintiffs brought a third party action against it. The Circuit Court affirmed on the basis that the material was not a "waste" as included in the definition of "disposal." On the contrary, the record showed that Glaxo has sold "unused chemicals that it would ordinarily use in its laboratories ...so that [plaintiffs] would use or resell them in their unadulterated form."
Sell of Chemicals Not "Arranger" Under CERCLA
This article was edited and reviewed by FindLaw Attorney Writers | Last reviewed March 26, 2008
This article has been written and reviewed for legal accuracy, clarity, and style by FindLaw’s team of legal writers and attorneys and in accordance with our editorial standards.
The last updated date refers to the last time this article was reviewed by FindLaw or one of our contributing authors. We make every effort to keep our articles updated. For information regarding a specific legal issue affecting you, please contact an attorney in your area.
Was this helpful?