Dry cleaning machine maker not liable in environmental claim

The maker of 1960s-era coin-operated dry cleaning machines cannot be held liable for decades-old environmental contamination found at the site of a one-time southside Indianapolis laundromat, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday.

The appellate panel affirmed a grant of summary judgment in favor of BorgWarner Morse TEC, Inc., successor-in-interest to Norge Corp., which built the dry cleaning machines that were put into service in the 1960s when George Kopetsky opened Norge Laundry & Dry Cleaning Village at 2915 S. Meridian St.

Kopetsky operated the business for a few years, after which it was transferred to a succession of owners, including Walter Williams, before closing in 1981. The site eventually was sold to D&E Enterprises, which with other parties filed an environmental legal action against Kopetsky, Williams and others in 2006. The suit aimed to recover costs of remediating chlorine solvent contamination and other expenses under Indiana Code § 13-30-9.

The instant case arises from Williams’ 2008 third-party complaint against Borg-Warner Morse TEC Corp., which he claimed was wholly liable for any discharge on the property. Marion Superior Judge Tim Oakes in August 2017 granted Borg-Warner Morse TEC summary judgment, which the COA affirmed Tuesday in Estate of Walter E. Williams v. BorgWarner Morse TEC Inc., et al., Chuck Markey, Markey's Audio Visual, Inc., and D&E Enterprises v. George F. Kopetsky, et al., 49A02-1710-PL-2224. 

Oakes ruled the parties had not cited to any environmental legal action case where an off-site manufacturer is alleged to be liable under the ELA, and there was evidence the machines had not been installed to Norge’s specifications.

“While Williams asserted in his responses to requests for admissions that it was his ‘understanding that the building was constructed specifically for the Norge Dry Cleaning System and that George Kopetsky worked with Norge on the installation of the Norge Dry Cleaning System,’ we observe that his August 26, 2011 deposition reveals that he was not present at the premises when the building was constructed or when the machines were installed, that he was not involved in the installation of any equipment, that at the time he acquired the Site all of the equipment was present, that he never had any conversations with Kopetsky at the time of the construction or about the equipment installation, and that he had never met, received a letter from, written to, or talked with ‘anyone from Norge,’” Judge Elaine Brown wrote for the panel.

“We further observe that, to the extent that the Estate argues Morse TEC ‘instructed’ the users of its machines to discharge chlorinated solvent-contaminated water down the drain, Williams indicated, in his supplemental responses to Morse TEC’s interrogatory items thirteen and fourteen, that he did not recall the names of any ‘employees or representatives of Norge’ with whom he, anyone who owned the Site, operated any dry cleaning business at the Site, or was employed by any such business, had communicated,” Brown wrote.

Because the COA affirmed Oakes’ summary judgment ruling, the panel in a footnote said it didn’t discuss Morse TEC’s argument on the applicability of the statute of limitations in the Indiana Products Liability Act.