Publications
February 16, 2017 Article

Environmental Alert: Court Finds Consultant Not Liable to Prospective Purchaser Regarding ESA Performed for Lender

Environmental Alert

A California appeals court ruled on February 8, 2017 (Mao v. PIERS Envtl. Servs., Inc., 2017 BL 37928, No. H041214, Cal. App. 6th) that an environmental consultant had no duty to a prospective purchaser of contaminated property in circumstances where it had not conducted the Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the purchasing party.  While the result in the Mao case may not be surprising, there are several key takeaways for environmental consultants.

In 2000, Marlene Mao purchased a commercial site in Milpitas, California.  Her lender, Bank of Santa Clara, hired PIERS Environmental Services, Inc. (PIERS) to undertake a Phase I ESA of the property.  The Phase I report stated that it had “been prepared for the exclusive use of Bank of Santa Clara and/or its agents” and recommended that a “limited Phase II” be conducted due to the presence of a former gas station with a previously repaired gas pump leak at the site.  (At trial, a PIERS representative testified that the bank had requested the “least expensive screening” and that this did not allow for comprehensive sampling throughout the property.)  The Phase II  also was conducted on behalf of the bank.  No detectable levels of contamination were found and the Phase II recommended no further investigation for the site.  Mao then closed on her purchase of the property. 

In 2005, Mao hired PIERS to perform an update of its prior Phase I assessment following a fire that destroyed the commercial retail building on the property.  The Phase I update noted the former presence of a gas station and repeated the finding from the Phase II assessment that there was no evidence of impacts to groundwater.  In 2006, she transferred the property to AIM Integrated Matrix Developer Enterprises, Inc. (AIM), a closely held corporation of which she was the majority shareholder and president.  A subsequent Phase II study conducted for AIM by a different consultant in 2010 found petroleum contamination and recommended monitored natural attenuation.  AIM conducted this work and the site was closed with regulatory approval in October 2013.

In the lawsuit, Mao alleged that PIERS had failed to meet the appropriate standard of care in its performance of the Phase I and II assessments in 2000 prior to her purchase of the property. 

The court found that PIERS did not owe Mao a professional duty in connection with the Phase I and Phase II work because its contract was with her lender.  “It is … not enough that a prospective buyer of a property who read and relies on environmental reports prepared for the lender’s due diligence purposes may foreseeably be harmed by inaccuracies in the report…. The intent to affect or protect Mao as a prospective purchaser or future owner was at best secondary.”  The court was not persuaded that a “policy of preventing future harm” compelled a finding of duty to Mao.

There are several key takeaways for environmental consultants regarding this decision:

  • A consulting firm’s contract language as well as its ESA reports should clearly specify who may rely on environmental site assessments, especially those ESAs that are conducted on behalf of parties other than prospective purchasers (e.g., lenders).  In addition, the reports should contain specific language noting that third parties (i.e., anyone other than the contracting client-recipient of the ESA) may not rely on any aspect of the ESA without written approval by the entity performing the ESA (a so-called “Reliance Letter”).
  • The record in the Mao case indicates that the scope of the PIERS Phase II was substantially limited by the lender.  A more extensive Phase II might have identified the contamination that was eventually found.  Documentation of such client decisions regarding scope limitations should be included in any final ESA reports delivered by a consulting firm to its client.

The foregoing precautions alone will not prevent a lawsuit from being filed against a consultant in the event of later-discovered contamination.  However, a thorough review of standard ESA contracts and templates for ESA reports to ensure that these issues are proactively addressed in those documents will be of significant benefit in defending claims in such lawsuits.  In addition, these risk management techniques may positively impact professional liability coverage/premiums for those consulting firms that undertake a higher volume of ESAs.

Firm Highlights

Publication

Helping Employers Navigate the New Independent Contractor Rule and Compliance Challenges

On March 11 th , the United States Department of Labor’s (DOL) new Independent Contractor Rule goes into effect.  As your organization readies itself for compliance, it’s imperative to scrutinize your independent contractor classifications...

News

Attorney Jeffrey Thaler Named to 2024 Lawdragon Green 500: Leaders in Energy Law

Preti Flaherty’s attorney Jeffrey Thaler has been recognized by  Lawdragon  as one of the top 500 Leaders in Energy Law. This is Jeff’s third time named to this prestigious list since the first publication...

Publication

Failure to Follow Your Contract's Notice Requirements Can be Costly

In Kinetic Systems, Inc. v. IPS-Integrated Projects Services, LLC et. al., No.: 20-cv-1125 (D.N.H. February 6, 2024), the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire granted summary judgment for a general contractor...

Publication

USCIS Announces H-1B Registration Period for FY2025: New “Beneficiary Centric” Registration Process and Increased Fees

USCIS has recently announced a series of changes that will impact the FY2025 H-1B registration system and cap filing season. H-1B Registration Period and Organizational Accounts As in prior years, under this process, prospective petitioners...

News

Preti Attorneys File Suit Against Al-Generated Robocalls in the 2024 NH Presidential Primary

Representing the League of Women Voters of New Hampshire, the League of Women Voters of the United States, and individual voters, Preti Flaherty, with co-counsel, filed a federal lawsuit against Steve Kramer, Lingo Telecom...

Event

When to Say Goodbye: Navigating Leave and Terminations

As an HR professional, hiring the right talent, addressing employee needs, and managing terminations are just a few of the most challenging problems that arise. During this year's three-part Employment Breakfast Webinar Series, we'll...

Publication

Important Updates to American Arbitration Association Construction Industry Rules and Mediation Procedures

The American Arbitration Association (AAA) updated its Construction Industry Rules and Mediation procedures (AAA Rules), effective March 1, 2024, marking the first update since 2015. The updates are important because the AAA Rules are...

Event

Sigmund Schutz to moderate panel at 36th Annual Media and the Law Seminar: Under Attack! Existential Threats to Journalism and Free Speech

From unlawful searches and seizures of newsrooms and highly contentious litigation to physical harassment and calls for violence online, journalists and news organizations are under attack like never before. At the 36 th Annual...

Event

Building a Strong Discipline and Performance Management Framework

As an HR professional, hiring the right talent, addressing employee needs, and managing terminations are just a few of the most challenging problems that arise. During this year's three-part Employment Breakfast Webinar Series, we'll...

News

Benchmark Litigation Names Preti Flaherty 2024 “Maine Firm of the Year"

Benchmark Litigation has named Preti Flaherty as 2024 Litigation Firm of the Year in the State of Maine. Through extensive peer- and- client reviewed research, as well as analysis of casework; the Benchmark Awards...