Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The Leasing Hotline

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
February 27, 2006

NEGLIGENT CONTAMINATION

Summary judgment may be denied where a reasonable trier of fact may find that the tenant was responsible for certain environmental reports and documentation, even though the lease does not specifically require it. Jaasma v. Shell Oil Company, No. 04-2095, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, June 28, 2005.

The landlord leased commercial premises to the tenant, who had been operating a gas station on the premises since 1961. The lease terminated on Oct. 31, 2001 and required that the tenant return the property to its original state. However, after the tenant vacated the premises, the landlord discovered certain environmental problems associated with the property that prevented the landlord from selling the property at fair market value. The landlord commenced an action against the tenant, claiming breach of lease and negligent contamination of the property. The district court granted summary judgment to the tenant, holding that as a matter of law, the market value of the property was not diminished. The court of appeals reversed. It held that although the lease did not specifically require the tenant to do so, a reasonable trier of fact could find that the tenant had breached the lease by failing to provide all necessary environmental reports to the state authorities because the lease required the tenant to comply with all applicable environmental laws. The court further considered that in light of the parties' course of conduct, it would be reasonable for the trier of fact to conclude that the tenant was responsible for dealing with all state environmental regulatory procedures.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Stranger to the Deed Rule Image

In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.