Facts

Carlton and Rita Sullins are the sole shareholders of Don-Sul, Inc, which acquired property in 1972. For 30 years the Sullins used the site for their equipment rental business. Prior to the Sullins' acquisition of the property, from at least 1951 to 1969, the property was the site of a gasoline service station operated by ExxonMobil Corporation's predecessor, Mobil Oil Company. When the Sullins acquired the property in 1972, they removed three of the five existing underground storage tanks prior to closing escrow. Sullins removed the remaining two tanks in 1984. The Sullins at that time also installed one new tank and used it until its removal in the early 1990s.

The property was discovered to be contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons, and the State Water Resources Control Board, the County of Alameda, and the City of Livermore designated the Sullins, and Exxon Mobil Corporation as responsible parties for the contamination. The Sullins undertook all efforts to investigate the contamination and commence the remediation process. Exxon Mobil Corporation refused to participate, citing a documented spill that occurred in 1985.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
The Sullins contended that historical releases occurred during Mobil Oil Company's occupation of the property, that this contamination far outweighed the 1985 release and sued Exxon Mobil Corporation to compel its compliance with the myriad of regulatory remediation orders. The Sullins alleged that, up to and including trial, they had complied with all regulatory orders on their own, including paying all non-reimbursed costs incurred for the investigation and commencement of remediation. The Sullins alleged that Exxon Mobil Corporation failed to take responsibility to pay for any portion of the investigation/remediation, rejected all requests to do so, and ignored the regulatory orders entirely. The Sullins further contended they were financially incapable of paying any further remediation costs. The Sullins alleged liability under the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act ("RCRA"), as well as nuisance, contribution and indemnity theories.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Exxon Mobil Corporation denied the allegations, contending it was not responsible for any of the contamination on the property, and by extension, any of the investigation/remediation costs.

Result

Trial was bifurcated. Though the jury concluded that Exxon Mobil Corporation did, in fact, contaminate the property, the jury rendered a verdict for the defense on the Sullins' nuisance theory finding the Sullins did not show a substantial interference to their use and enjoyment of the property. The Court likewise concluded that Exxon Mobil Corporation contributed to the contamination on the property, but also rendered judgment for the defense on the Sullins' RCRA, contribution and indemnity claims, finding the Sullins did not establish an imminent threat to human health or the environment, or that Sullins had paid more than their fair share of the remediation costs.