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

District Court of Appeal of Florida

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

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

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 8, 1997·No. No. 96-2969·Published

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

In entering summary judgment for the defendant Eastman Chemical Company, the trial court held as a matter of law that the manufacturer of a hazardous or toxic chemical is not liable under Florida’s mini-CERCLA Acts, sections 376.308 and 403.727, Florida Statutes (1995), for groundwater contamination which occurs when its product is shipped to a purchaser in trucks operated by independent contractors, arrives at the purchaser’s location — when, according to the sales agreement, the title passes to the buyer — and is then spilled while being unloaded from the trucks by the drivers and the buyer’s employees. We agree. ES Robbins Corp. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 912 F.Supp. 1476 (N.D.Ala.1995); Amcast Indus. Corp. v. Detrex Corp., 779 F.Supp. 1519 (N.D.Ind.1991), aff'd in part, rev’d in part, 2 F.3d 746 (7th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1044, 114 S.Ct. 691, 126 L.Ed.2d 658 (1994). See generally Florida Power & Light Co. v. Allis Chalmers Corp., 85 F.3d 1514 (11th Cir.1996).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

In entering summary judgment for the defendant Eastman Chemical Company, the trial court held as a matter of law that the manufacturer of a hazardous or toxic chemical is not liable under Florida’s mini-CERCLA Acts, sections 376.308 and 403.727, Florida Statutes (1995), for groundwater contamination which occurs when its product is shipped to a purchaser in trucks operated by independent contractors, arrives at the purchaser’s location — when, according to the sales agreement, the title passes to the buyer — and is then spilled while being unloaded from the trucks by the drivers and the buyer’s employees. We agree. ES Robbins Corp. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 912 F.Supp. 1476 (N.D.Ala.1995); Amcast Indus. Corp. v. Detrex Corp., 779 F.Supp. 1519 (N.D.Ind.1991), aff'd in part, rev’d in part, 2 F.3d 746 (7th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1044, 114 S.Ct. 691, 126 L.Ed.2d 658 (1994). See generally Florida Power & Light Co. v. Allis Chalmers Corp., 85 F.3d 1514 (11th Cir.1996).

Affirmed.

State, Department of Environmental Protection v. Eastman Chemical Co., 699 So. 2d 1051, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 11224, 1997 WL 614994 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

699 So. 2d 1051 (State, Department of Environmental Protection v. Eastman Chemical Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related