## Facts

- Residential property owners in Tiverton, Rhode Island owned homes in an area later found to contain toxic industrial waste in the soil.
- The defendant utility (and/or its predecessor) allegedly generated hazardous byproducts from historic gas/power operations and disposed of the waste on nearby property.
- The disposal site was later subdivided and developed for residential use, and contamination was discovered decades after disposal.
- State environmental authorities imposed a moratorium on excavation within the contaminated area, restricting construction and related uses.
- The owners alleged diminished property value and substantial interference with use and enjoyment of their land, and sought damages under Rhode Island common-law theories, including emotional distress and punitive damages.
- The defendant removed the actions to federal court and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).

## Issues

1. Whether the owners plausibly alleged a negligence duty running to later residential owners where hazardous waste disposal occurred decades earlier.
2. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged strict liability based on abnormally dangerous activity tied to manufactured-gas/power-plant waste generation and disposal.
3. Whether a private-nuisance claim can proceed where the alleged nuisance condition originated from the defendant’s conduct but is located on or migrated to property not currently owned by the defendant.
4. Whether the alleged contamination and regulatory excavation moratorium plausibly stated a public-nuisance claim involving interference with a right common to the general public.
5. Whether the allegations met Rhode Island’s requirements for intentional infliction of emotional distress, including extreme and outrageous conduct directed at the plaintiffs.
6. Whether the allegations were sufficient to support punitive damages under Rhode Island’s heightened standard (malice, recklessness, or wickedness).

## Decision

- The court largely denied the motion to dismiss as to the core property-based tort claims.
- The court allowed negligence to proceed, rejecting the argument that harm to later purchasers was categorically too remote at the pleading stage.
- The court allowed strict liability to proceed, treating “abnormally dangerous” characterization as fact-dependent and not ordinarily resolved on a motion to dismiss.
- The court allowed nuisance theories to proceed at least in substantial part, concluding the alleged creation or contribution to a contaminating condition could support interference-based claims.
- The court applied stricter scrutiny to intentional infliction of emotional distress and limited or dismissed that claim to the extent the allegations did not satisfy the “extreme and outrageous” and “directed at” requirements.
- The court limited or dismissed punitive-damages allegations to the extent they were conclusory and did not plead facts supporting the required aggravated state of mind.

## Legal Principles

- Foreseeability-based negligence principles can support a duty to later property owners when long-lasting hazardous waste disposal creates predictable risks to persons who may later reside on or near affected land.
- Whether an activity is “abnormally dangerous” for strict-liability purposes is commonly a fact-intensive inquiry; plausible allegations of toxic byproduct disposal may suffice to pass the pleading stage.
- Private nuisance focuses on substantial and unreasonable interference with another’s use and enjoyment of land; liability may rest on creating or contributing to a harmful condition even if the condition is located on or migrates to other property.
- Public nuisance requires interference with a public right; widespread environmental contamination coupled with regulatory restrictions can plausibly implicate public rights at the pleading stage.
- Intentional infliction of emotional distress in Rhode Island requires extreme and outrageous conduct aimed at the plaintiff (or undertaken with reckless disregard of causing severe distress); historic industrial disposal allegations may be insufficient without more.
- Punitive damages require more than negligence; conclusory assertions of malice or recklessness without supporting facts are inadequate at the pleading stage.

## Conclusion

The court permitted homeowners to proceed past the pleading stage on negligence, strict liability, and nuisance claims arising from alleged historic toxic waste contamination and resulting regulatory land-use restrictions, while restricting stand-alone emotional-distress and punitive-damages theories absent specific factual allegations meeting Rhode Island’s heightened standards.


Corvello v. New Eng. Gas Co., 460 F. Supp. 2d 314 (D.R.I. 2006)