Utah Supreme Court
When does a cause of action accrue under Utah's Underground Storage Tank Act? Utah Dept. of Environmental Quality v. Redd Explained
Summary
The Utah Department of Environmental Quality sought to recover cleanup costs for petroleum contamination at a Monticello gas station under the Underground Storage Tank Act. The district court granted partial summary judgment, finding that costs incurred before September 15, 1995, were time-barred but costs incurred after that date were recoverable.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In Utah Department of Environmental Quality v. Redd, the Utah Supreme Court addressed a critical question about when statute of limitations periods begin to run in environmental cost recovery actions under Utah’s Underground Storage Tank Act (USTA).
Background and Facts
In 1991, petroleum contamination was discovered at a Monticello gas station during tank removal. The Utah Department of Environmental Quality ordered the property owners, including K. Brent Redd and Woody’s Enterprises, to clean up the released petroleum. When the defendants failed to take corrective action, the state began its own cleanup efforts in early 1995 and continued incurring costs through at least November 1999. The state filed its cost recovery action on September 16, 1998, seeking reimbursement for past and future cleanup expenses.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was determining when the state’s cause of action accrued under the USTA for purposes of applying the three-year statute of limitations in Utah Code section 78-12-26(4). The defendants argued the entire action accrued when the state first incurred cleanup costs, while the state contended that each cleanup payment created a separate cause of action.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court established a three-part test for determining when a cause of action accrues under the USTA. The court held that no cause of action exists until: (1) the state orders responsible parties to remedy petroleum contamination, (2) the responsible parties fail to take corrective action, and (3) the state actually incurs cleanup costs. Importantly, the court ruled that each cleanup payment creates a new cause of action with its own three-year limitations period. Applying this framework, the court affirmed the district court’s ruling that costs incurred before September 15, 1995, were time-barred, but costs incurred between September 16, 1995, and September 16, 1998, remained recoverable.
Practice Implications
This decision establishes important precedent for environmental litigation in Utah. Practitioners representing state agencies should carefully document the timing of cleanup orders, defendants’ refusal to act, and actual cost expenditures to maximize recovery potential. Defense counsel should closely scrutinize the timing of each claimed expense to identify potential statute of limitations defenses. The ruling also clarifies that environmental cost recovery actions can involve multiple accrual dates, requiring careful case management to track various limitations periods throughout ongoing cleanup efforts.
Case Details
Case Name
Utah Dept. of Environmental Quality v. Redd
Citation
2002 UT 50
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
Nos. 20010070, 20010105
Date Decided
May 17, 2002
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A cause of action for statutory cost recovery under the Underground Storage Tank Act accrues when the state orders cleanup, the responsible party refuses to act, and the state incurs cleanup costs, with each cleanup payment creating a new cause of action subject to a three-year limitations period.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law and statutory interpretation
Practice Tip
When representing clients in environmental cost recovery actions, carefully document the timing of cleanup orders, refusal to comply, and actual cost incurrence to properly calculate statute of limitations periods for each recoverable expense.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.