Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Protections Under Federal and Ohio Law for Bona Fide Prospective Purchasers of Contaminated Property

Client Alert

Most industrial/commercial property developers are generally aware of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), often also referred to as “Superfund”. CERCLA, a United States federal law administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, was created, in part, because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recognized that environmental cleanup could help promote reuse or redevelopment of contaminated, potentially contaminated, and formerly contaminated properties, helping revitalize communities that may have been adversely affected by the presence of the contaminated properties. Commercial property developers should be aware that CERCLA provides for some important liability limitations for landowners that own contaminated property impacted by materials hazardous to the environment. It can also assist with landowners concerned about the potential liabilities stemming from the presence of contamination to which they have not contributed. In particular, CERCLA provides important liability limitations for landowners that qualify as (1) bona fide prospective purchasers (BFPPS), (2) contiguous property owners, or (3) innocent landowners. 

A relatively new Ohio law works in tandem with CERCLA to make purchasing contaminated properties in Ohio a bit less risky for the BFPPs. By way of a quick recap of CERCLA before discussing Ohio law, the 2002 amendments to CERCLA created landowner liability protections, including protection for BFPPs as mentioned above. The BFPP provision protects a party from Superfund owner/operator liability for a party that acquired property after January 11, 2002 by way of providing for available affirmative defenses to liability for said developers involved in certain remedial activities. These protections are immensely important as CERCLA imposes strict, joint, and several liabilities on property owners/operators for releases of hazardous substances into the environment, meaning that remediation costs can be overwhelming for parties that did not necessarily cause the contamination. BFPPs are able to purchase property with knowledge of contamination so long as the BFPP meets certain statutory criteria. The statutory criteria include conducting all appropriate inquiries into the previous ownership and uses of the property, disposal of hazardous substances at the property that occurred prior to the acquisition, providing all of the legally required notices regarding any releases, cooperating with those conducting response actions at the property, complying with any institutional land use or engineering controls, and taking the appropriate steps and care with regard to any hazardous substances at the property. 

The new Ohio law that went into effect on September 15, 2020 through the enactment of House Bill 168 has been codified in Ohio Revised Code 3746.122.  It is a new BFPP defense from liability that in large part mirrors the defense under CERCLA. It is available as a defense for any BFPP where the acquiring landowner qualifies under the same BFPP factors referenced above with a couple additional qualifications – the cause of action against the person must be due to the person’s status as an owner or operator of the facility, and the person must not impede the state’s actions in responding to a release or threatened release of hazardous substances. The main advantage of Ohio’s law is that prior to the Ohio law went into effect, there was not a similar defense to state-level liability for BFPPs. This often left BFPPs dealing with state-level liability with no choice other than to work through the Ohio Voluntary Action Program in order to obtain a Covenant Not to Sue from the State of Ohio, requiring a certified professional to issue a no Further Action Letter and for Ohio to issue a Covenant Not to Sue based on the No Further Action Letter.  This was frequently a very expensive and time-consuming process that was often avoided. The new Ohio law, however, requires no affirmative government approval to take effect. 

Ohio’s law pertaining to BFPP defense does differ, however, from CERCLA as it does not provide blanket immunity from liability in any action brought by the federal government or a private citizen. Instead, Ohio’s law only provides immunity in an action brought by the state to recover investigative or remedial costs, where the basis for liability is the person’s status as an owner or operator. This is obviously a narrower scope than CERCLA. Nonetheless, it is surely a welcome law for any individual or entity that has purchased commercial property in Ohio that may contain hazardous material. 

For additional questions, please contact Litigation Attorney Jack Hinneberg at jwhinneberg@bmdllc.com.


Employer Liability for COVID-19 Vaccine Side Effects

As employers encourage or require employees to obtain a COVID-19 vaccine, they should be aware of OSHA recording obligations and potential workers’ compensation liability. Though OSHA has yet to revise its COVID-19 guidance in response to the latest CDC recommendations, OSHA has revised its position regarding the recording of injury or illness resulting from the vaccine. Until now, OSHA required an employer to record an adverse reaction when the vaccine was required for employees and the injury or illness otherwise met the recording criteria (work-related, a new case, and meets one or more of the general recording criteria). OSHA has reversed course and announced that it will not require recording adverse reactions until at least May 2022, irrespective of whether the employer requires the vaccine as a condition of employment. In its revised COVID-19 FAQs, OSHA states:

The New Rule 1.510 - Radical Change for Summary Judgement Procedure in Florida

In civil litigation, where both sides participate actively, trial is usually required at the end of a long, expensive case to determine a winner and a loser. In federal and most state courts, however, there are a few procedural shortcuts by which parties can seek to prevail in advance of trial, saving time, money and annoyance. The most common of these is the “motion for summary judgment”: a request to the court by one side for judgment before trial, generally on the basis that the evidence available reflects that a win for that party is legally inevitable and thus required. Effective May 1, 2021, summary judgment procedure in Florida has radically changed.

Vacating, Modifying or Correcting an Arbitration Award Under R.C. 2711.13: Three-Month Limitation Maximum; Not Guaranteed Amount of Time

In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that neither R.C. 2711.09 nor R.C. 2711.13 requires a court to wait three months after an arbitration award is issued before confirming the award. R.C. 2711.13 provides that “after an award in an arbitration proceeding is made, any party to the arbitration may file a motion in the court of common pleas for an order vacating, modifying, or correcting the award.” Any such motion to vacate, modify, or correct an award “must be served upon the adverse party or his attorney within three months after the award is delivered to the parties in interest.” In BST Ohio Corporation et al. v. Wolgang, the Court held the three-month period set forth in R.C. 2711.13 is not a guaranteed time period in which to file a motion to vacate, modify, or correct an arbitration award. 2021-Ohio-1785.

EEOC Provides Updated Guidance Regarding Employer COVID-19 Vaccine Policies

On May 28, 2021, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission updated its guidance regarding employer COVID-19 vaccination policies. The new guidance provides much-needed clarification of expectations for employers seeking to promote workplace safety and prevent the spread of COVID-19, including discussion of mandatory vaccination policies, voluntary vaccination incentives, and accommodation of employees based on disability or sincerely held religious beliefs. The full text of the update is found in Section K of the EEOC’s COVID Q&A document. You can also learn more about these and other developments from BMD's Bryan Meek and Monica Andress through the Employment Law After Hours YouTube channel, available here.

What Telemedical Barriers Practices Face and How They Can Manage Them

The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic has led to many businesses and industries having to rapidly adapt new practices in order to stay profitable, and the healthcare industry is no exception. Although telehealth tools and practices have existed and been used since the Vietnam War, the pandemic has caused many individual healthcare practices to heavily rely on telehealth as a large portion of their service mix in order to continue to provide care for patients. Because of this rapid adoption of telehealth practices in order to combat the restrictions of COVID-19, the telemedicine industry’s revenue has exploded in the last year. Experts predict that telehealth will continue to grow in use beyond the current pandemic, estimating the industry’s worth to be $25 billion by 2025. However, this rapid adoption of telehealth was prompted out of need and has not been without its own barriers that practices now face.