Friday, September 2, 2016

Alaska Supreme Court reverses statute of limitations for off-property sulfolane contamination, upholds on-property, equitable conclusions in Flint Hills Resources Alaska, LLC v. Williams Alaska Petroleum, Inc.






Flint v. Williams remanded to Superior Court

Supreme Court reverses statute of limitations for off-property sulfolane contamination, upholds on-property, equitable conclusions

The Alaska Supreme Court has partially reversed and partially affirmed Superior Court rulings in the case Flint Hills Resources brought against Williams Alaska Petroleum and The Williams Companies over sulfolane contamination at the Flint Hills North Pole refinery and on adjacent property.


Flint Hills Resources Alaska, LLC v. Williams Alaska Petroleum, Inc.

Williams Alaska Petroleum owned the North Pole refinery until 2004. 


Williams knew that the then-unregulated chemical sulfolane was present in refinery property groundwater, but it did not know that the sulfolane had migrated off the refinery property via underground water flow. 

Flint Hills Resources Alaska bought the North Pole refinery from Williams in 2004 pursuant to a contract that contained detailed terms regarding environmental liabilities, indemnification, and damages caps. Almost immediately the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation informed Flint Hills that sulfolane was to be a regulated chemical and that Flint Hills needed to find the source of the sulfolane in the groundwater. 

The Department contacted Flint Hills again in 2006. Flint Hills’s environmental contractor repeatedly warned Flint Hills that sulfolane could be leaving the refinery property and that more work was necessary to ascertain the extent of the problem. 

In 2008, Flint Hills drilled perimeter wells and discovered the sulfolane was migrating beyond its property and had contaminated drinking water in North Pole. A North Pole resident sued Flint Hills and Williams, and Flint Hills cross-claimed against Williams for indemnification. 

After extensive motion practice the superior court dismissed all of Flint Hills’s claims against Williams as time-barred. Flint Hills appealed. 

After review, the Supreme Court held that the superior court correctly applied the contract’s damages cap provision, but concluded that the court erred in finding Flint Hills’s contractual indemnification claims and part of its statutory claims were time-barred. 

The Court also affirmed the court’s dismissal of Flint Hills’s equitable claims.