## Facts

- Randy and Cynthia Edwards owned and lived on residential property downhill and adjacent to a commercial property used for decades as a gasoline station and later as the T & C Mini Market.
- The commercial property had underground storage tanks (USTs) used in connection with gasoline operations.
- First National Bank of North East held a mortgage on the commercial property and, after default, foreclosed and purchased the property at a foreclosure sale in May 1994, taking possession.
- Shortly after taking possession, the Bank arranged tank tightness testing; the tanks passed.
- The Bank hired a contractor to remove the USTs in October 1994 under state environmental oversight; petroleum odors were observed during removal, and later soil testing showed petroleum contamination above allowable levels.
- State environmental authorities installed monitoring wells and required additional testing.
- The Edwardses’ domestic well water later smelled of gasoline and tested positive for petroleum hydrocarbons.
- The Edwardses alleged contamination migrated from the commercial property onto their land and into their well.

## Issues

1. Whether the limited lender exemption in Md. Code, Environment Article § 4-401(i)(2)(i)2 (excluding certain foreclosing lenders from being treated as UST “owners” if tanks are abandoned within 180 days) abrogates common-law claims for negligence, nuisance, trespass, and strict liability arising from groundwater contamination.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the dismissal of the claims against the Bank and remanded.
- The court held that the lender exemption did not extinguish or preempt the Edwardses’ common-law causes of action.
- The exemption was construed as limited to statutory “owner” status for specified regulatory purposes, not as general civil tort immunity.

## Legal Principles

- Statutes are strictly construed when claimed to alter common law; common-law remedies remain available absent clear legislative intent to abrogate them.
- A statutory definition or exemption limiting who is an “owner” for environmental regulatory liability does not, without express language, eliminate common-law tort liability.
- A narrow lender protection aimed at limiting statutory UST “owner” responsibility after foreclosure does not preempt private suits seeking damages under negligence, nuisance, trespass, or strict liability theories.

## Conclusion

The court held that Maryland’s limited UST lender exemption does not bar neighboring landowners from pursuing common-law tort claims for contamination; without explicit legislative language, the statute affects only statutory “owner” status and related regulatory liability, not traditional civil remedies.


Edwards v. First Nat’l Bank of N.E., 122 Md. App. 96, 712 A.2d 33 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1998)