From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lansco v. Dept. of Environ. Protec. of State

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
Nov 30, 1976
145 N.J. Super. 433 (App. Div. 1976)

Opinion

Submitted November 16, 1976 —

Decided November 30, 1976.

Appeal from the Superior Court, Chancery Division.

Before Judges MATTHEWS, SEIDMAN and HORN.

Mr. Lawrence Weintraub, attorney for appellant.

Messrs. Breslin Breslin, attorneys for respondent Lansco, Inc. ( Mr. Paul A. Dykstra on the brief).

Mr. William F. Hyland, Attorney General, filed a statement in lieu of brief on behalf of State respondents ( Mr. Thomas P. Weidner, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel).


The judgment of the Chancery Division is affirmed essentially for the reasons expressed by Judge Gelman in his opinion which is reported in 138 N.J. Super. at 275.

The Legislature clearly has created only two exceptions to liability for the discharge or spillage of petroleum products in a situation such as is presented here:

No person shall be liable for the removal of any discharge of petroleum products, debris or hazardous substances which occur as a result of (a) an act of war or (b) an act of God, however this shall not relieve such person from the obligation of mitigating damages to the extent practicable. [N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.10; emphasis supplied]

Acts of third parties or vandals are not included.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Lansco v. Dept. of Environ. Protec. of State

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
Nov 30, 1976
145 N.J. Super. 433 (App. Div. 1976)
Case details for

Lansco v. Dept. of Environ. Protec. of State

Case Details

Full title:LANSCO, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. THE…

Court:Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division

Date published: Nov 30, 1976

Citations

145 N.J. Super. 433 (App. Div. 1976)
368 A.2d 363

Citing Cases

U.S. v. Conservation Chemical Co.

To support the second prerequisite, the OGDs point to decisions of several courts holding that environmental…

Technicon v. Am. Home Assur

The court held that there was no duty to defend the insured where the underlying complaint alleged that the…