This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P sued D for contribution in the clean-up of a waste site. P had performed some cleanup work in a portion of the site that it concedes received waste for which it is responsible. D did the bulk of the work. P demanded that D contribute to the cost of cleanup in P's portion of the site. D made the same demand against P. P claims its responsibility is limited to a small portion of the site so that it need not bear any cleanup costs for the rest. The court ruled that the premises are a single site for CERCLA purposes. The court found it was not possible to trace pollutants from different sources to their destinations. The judge ordered P to reimburse D for 12.56% of the total costs that Aigner will incur in performing cleanup work, plus a cash award of about $1.5 million. P appealed, claiming it owes nothing, and that if it must pay anything its liability is limited to 9% of costs because it sent only 9% of the total volume of solvents processed. P claims wastes from P's solvents were deposited at discrete locations within the site, making it possible to ascertain the precise injury inflicted by these wastes.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.