- RCRA – Lead counsel in defense of state enforcement action seeking $250 million remedy to address mercury contaminated soils, sediments, and groundwater at RCRA and Maine Uncontrolled Hazardous Substances Site. Two week state administrative hearing led to modified order requiring $120 million remedy. Case is currently on appeal. (Maine Department of Environmental Protection v. United States Surgical Corporation and Mallinckrodt US LLC).
- CERCLA/Superfund – Counsel in numerous Superfund/uncontrolled sites cases across the nation including: Conservation Chemical Co. Site in Missouri, Saco Municipal Landfill Site and Portland Bangor Waste Oil Site in Maine, Rocky Hill Municipal Wellfield Site in New Jersey, Bosch Braking System Site in Michigan, Beede Waste Oil Site and Coakley Landfill Site in New Hampshire, American Drum & Pallet Site in Tennessee; Rocky Flats Industrial Park Site in Colorado; Recticon/Allied Steel and Taylor Borough Sites in Pennsylvania; Philips Services Site in South Carolina.
- Endangered Species Act – Lead counsel in defense of citizen suit against hydro power project alleging that the project was "taking" Atlantic Salmon in violation of the Endangered Species Act. (Friends of Merrymeeting Bay et al. v. Miller Hydro Group)
- Clean Water Act – Lead counsel for EPA in largest Clean Water Act permit enforcement case ever brought by EPA and DOJ. Civil action against fourth largest coal company in U.S. involving more than 100 mining facilities with operations in numerous states and dozens of Clean Water Act and SMCRA permits. (United States v. Massey Energy Company)
- Clean Air Act – Co-counsel for EPA in first Clean Air Act case brought pursuant to EPA's Pulp & Paper Initiative under the federal New Source Review Program. First phase of this case involved a week-long trial in Maryland U.S. District Court regarding the availability of Best Available Control Technology for alleged violations of EPA's Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program. (United States v. MeadWestvaco Corporation).
- Natural Resource Damages/Park Services Resource Protection Act – Counsel representing large multinational corporation in defense of Natural Resource Damage claim by Maine Department of Environmental Protection. Co-counsel representing the U.S. Department of Interior in civil action to recover natural resource damages for harm to Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado. Case settlement obtained on eve of trial for the largest natural resource damages recovery to date under the Park Services Resource Protection Act (United States v. Water Supply and Storage Company).
Preti Flaherty also has significant experience in environmental toxic tort and property damage cases and has represented plaintiffs and defendants in such litigation.
Representative Environmental Toxic Tort and Property Damage Matters & Experience
- Cancer Cluster – Defend Fortune 500 consumer products company in multi-plaintiff toxic tort lawsuit involving alleged cancer cluster.
- Uranium Contamination – Represented homeowner in case involving uranium contamination in residential drinking water.
- Landfill Property Damage – Resolved multimillion dollar property damage claims against municipality for residential and commercial landowners located on top of former municipal landfill.
- Oil Spill - Resolved property damage claims by lakefront property owners arising from No. 6 oil spill into Maine lake.
- Residential Oil Spills – Represent homeowners in oil spill contamination of residential property.
- Mold – Represented parties in multiple cases involving allegations of mold damage to residences, condominium complexes and office buildings.
- Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule –David negotiated the settlement of a first-in-the-nation enforcement action brought by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concerning alleged liability of a Maine landowner under the Toxic Substances Control Act's Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule (RRP Rule). EPA's complaint sought up to $225,000, but the alleged liability (relating to scraping and sanding of the exterior of a pre-1978 rental housing unit) was fully resolved via consent order requiring a $10,000 penalty payable in installments over a two year period. This case presented novel evidentiary proof issues. The alleged violations were captured on video by an unknown individual and posted to YouTube. The website address for the YouTube posting was then forwarded to the EPA. While the posting was subsequently removed from YouTube, EPA had interviewed the individual who posted the video but refused to disclose the identity of that person to the Respondent. In addition, the Respondent had tested the paint on the housing unit prior to doing the work, but the test result was a false negative.