CERCLA Contribution: Ninth Circuit Addresses Two Circuit Splits

In ASARCO LLC v. Atlantic Richfield Co., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed two Circuit splits regarding contribution claims under Section 113(f )(3)(B) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. This article addresses this latest development in CERCLA Section 113(f )(3)(B) caselaw.

In ASARCO LLC v. Atlantic Richfield Co., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently addressed two Circuit splits regarding contribution claims under Section 113(f )(3)(B) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA").1 First, the Ninth Circuit joined the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and Environ- mental Protection Agency ("EPA") in holding that settlement agreements under an authority other than CERCLA (e.g., state law; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA")) can give rise to a CERCLA Section 113 contribution claim.2 Second, the Ninth Circuit weighed