Justia U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Environmental groups obtained an injunction against timber harvest projects planned for the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest. The district court lifted the injunction after finding that the defendants took appropriate corrective action to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that a project proposed after presentation of draft environmental impact statements should have been included in the cumulative impacts analysis of the final EIS. The Forest Service's failure to supplement was not arbitrary; the agency complied with applicable rules by making clear that it lacked sufficient information to meaningfully discuss the subsequently-proposed project.

ESBC, billing agent for the Fire Department, determined that each of the individual defendants owned a vehicle involved in a collision to which the Fire Department responded and each had insurance coverage, and billed response costs incurred for each collision. The defendants refused to pay and ESBC sought a declaration that defendants were liable under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601. Under CERCLA, the owner of a “facility” from which hazardous substances have been released is responsible for response costs that result from the release. Insurer-defendants counterclaimed for injunctive relief from ESBC’s billing practices and alleging violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692, unjust enrichment, unlawful fee collection, fraud, constructive fraud, and insurance fraud. The district court granted defendants judgment on the pleadings and dismissed counterclaims without prejudice. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Motor vehicles for personal use fall under the "consumer product in consumer use” exception to CERCLA’s definition of facility

Plaintiffs' insurance policy indemnifies them against liability under several federal environmental protection laws or the state-law equivalents. They attempted to invoke their policy for up to $10 million in coverage following an explosion on one of their vessels that resulted in an oil spill in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. The district court granted the insurer judgment on the pleadings that: it owed $5,000,000 per vessel, per incident and had fully honored the policy with respect to one vessel; it owed no coverage for either two others for in rem liability. It granted the insureds summary judgment on their breach of contract claim, finding that the insurer owed $5,000,000 in coverage for a vessel, was obligated to pay defense costs up to that amount, and had breached its contract by not doing so. It denied summary judgment on a claim of breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.

In 2000 the conservancy purchased property, but allowed the farmer to remain as a tenant through 2003. The farmer/seller was required to perform removal of specified substances and warranted that there were no undisclosed underground tanks. The conservancy withheld funds pending clean-up. In 2006 the conservancy sued for breach of the warranty and failure to complete the clean-up. The district court allowed the conservancy to amend and claim damages with respect to newly-discovered contamination and entered judgment in favor of the conservancy. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The claim is within the Illinois 10-year limitations period for actions and written contracts; the doctrine of laches does not apply.

Asian carp have migrated up the Mississippi River and are at the brink of the man-made Chicago-Area Waterway System path to the Great Lakes. The carp are dangerous to the eco-system, people, and property. States bordering the Lakes filed suit, alleging that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago manage the system in a manner that will allow carp to move into the Great Lakes, in violation of the federal common law of public nuisance. The district court denied a preliminary injunction that would have required additional physical barriers, new procedures to stop invasive carp, and an expedited study of how best to separate the Mississippi and Great Lakes permanently. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Plaintiffs presented enough evidence to establish a likelihood of harm, a non-trivial chance that carp will invade Lake Michigan in numbers great enough to constitute a public nuisance and that harm to the plaintiff states would be irreparable. The defendants have, however, mounted a full-scale effort to stop the carp and has promised that additional steps will be taken in the near future. This effort diminishes any role that equitable relief would otherwise play and an interim injunction would only get in the way.

Original defendants wanted to build a power plant in southern Illinois. In the first appeal, the Seventh Circuit concluded that defendants' Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) permit (42 U.S.C. 7475(a)), had expired. After the ruling, the district court assessed a penalty of $100,000 on all defendants, jointly and severally, and awarded attorneys' fees to Sierra Club. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, first holding that defendant waived constitutional arguments by not raising them before the district court. The court acted within its discretion; it considered all of the relevant statutory factors and did not make any clearly erroneous findings of fact in assessing a penalty and awarding fees.

Defendant entered a plea of guilty to removing and disposing of asbestos in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 7413(c)(1) while replacing an apartment building heating system. He claimed that he had not known that asbestos was harmful and reserved his right to appeal the meaning of "knowingly," as used in the statute. He was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, three years of supervised release, $12,765 in restitution, and a $100 special assessment fee. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that an "as applied" vagueness challenge to the statute was not a challenge to the court's jurisdiction and was barred by the plea. Having already admitted guilt of the substantive crime and affirmed the underlying facts of the conviction, the defendant cannot re-argue the facts on appeal and challenge the statute as vague in application.

The Clean Air Act prohibits national and state officials from making changes that cause air quality to deteriorate in parts of the country that have yet to attain the required standard, 42 U.S.C. 7410(l), 7515. In 2002 the EPA changed the rules that determine when polluters need permits to modify existing facilities and what restrictions they carry. The EPAâs models project that the new approach will have neutral or beneficial effects on aggregate emissions; environmental groups disagree and challenged the EPA's approval of Wisconsin's plan that implements the 2002 changes. The Seventh Circuit dismissed the petition. Noting that the same arguments have been made in the past, the court stated that, as in 2002 and 2005, the models supply substantial evidence for the EPAâs decision and show that it is neither arbitrary nor capricious. Opponents have no better evidence.

The "American Bottom" is a 175-square-mile floodplain of the Mississippi River in southwestern Illinois, across the river from St. Louis and contains wetlands that provide habitat for birds, butterflies, and wildlife. The owner of a landfill in American Bottom proposed a new landfill on 180 acres of a 220-acre tract between the existing facility and a state park that contains a lake. The tract has 26.8 acres of wetlands and the owner wants to destroy 18.4 acres to obtain fill for daily cover at the existing facility while the application for a new permit is pending with the Illinois EPA. The Army Corps of Engineers issued a permit requiring creation of mitigation wetlands. The district court dismissed the conservation group's suit challenging the Corps permit for lack of standing. The Seventh Circuit reversed. Affidavits from group members, alleging that destruction of the wetlands will diminish their enjoyment of wildlife and bird-watching at the state park, were sufficient to establish standing.

As part of the cleanup of PCBs in Wisconsin's Fox River, the EPA filed suit against de minimus potentially responsible parties (PRPs) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9601). The district court approved a settlement and other PRPs appealed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the government's estimate of fault was supported by the record and accounted for all sources of PCB discharge. The district court properly approved the settlement before making a divisibility determination.