## Facts

- The Union Corp. owned industrial property in Philadelphia that became contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from transformer recycling activities in the 1970s.
- Union’s property was placed on the National Priorities List under CERCLA (Superfund).
- Stewart R. Golen owned adjacent property used as a waste transfer station, including some hazardous-waste treatment.
- Golen learned of the neighboring Superfund listing in 1983 and later attempted to sell his property in 1991.
- Golen alleged he could not find a buyer, attributing the reduced marketability to Union’s contamination and Superfund listing.
- There was no evidence the PCB contamination migrated onto Golen’s property.
- Golen admitted his property was not contaminated and that, aside from alienability, his use of the property was unchanged.

## Issues

1. Whether a private nuisance claim lies where neighboring environmental contamination allegedly impairs the plaintiff’s ability to sell the plaintiff’s property, but does not physically affect the plaintiff’s land or interfere with its use and enjoyment.
2. Whether purely economic loss from “market stigma” constitutes a compensable nuisance injury under Pennsylvania law.

## Decision

- The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed summary judgment for Union.
- The court held that the alleged inability to sell, without contamination or interference with use and enjoyment of the plaintiff’s land, is not a compensable injury in private nuisance.
- Because the record showed no physical invasion, migration, or functional impairment of Golen’s property, Union was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- Private nuisance protects against non-trespassory interferences with the use and enjoyment of land; diminished marketability alone does not satisfy this requirement.
- A plaintiff may suffer financial harm yet lack a legally cognizable injury (damnum absque injuria) when the protected property interest has not been invaded.
- In reviewing summary judgment, the court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, but summary judgment is proper where no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The court refused to extend Pennsylvania private nuisance law to “stigma-only” claims based on proximity to a Superfund site, holding that economic loss from reduced marketability is not recoverable absent contamination of the plaintiff’s property or an actual interference with its use and enjoyment.


Golen v. Union Corp., 718 A.2d 298 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998)