## Facts

- Ben and Frances Kalik owned a site in Swissvale, Pennsylvania, where Ben Kalik operated Swissvale Auto Surplus Parts Company, a scrap metal business.
- The business purchased and processed “junk electrical components,” including dismantling and related handling activities.
- Hazardous substances, including PCBs, allegedly leaked or were released onto the site during storage, handling, dismantling, and burning of components.
- Cleanup activities were undertaken and substantial response costs were incurred, including costs by governmental authorities and the site operator.
- The Kaliks sued multiple manufacturers and suppliers of electrical products alleged to have contained PCBs, including General Electric Company, seeking to shift cleanup costs and obtain damages under CERCLA and state law.

## Issues

1. Whether the site owners/operators could state a CERCLA § 107 claim for recovery of response costs against upstream manufacturers and suppliers whose products allegedly introduced hazardous substances to the site.
2. Whether the complaint adequately pleaded state-law claims (including negligence and strict products liability, such as failure to warn) against manufacturers of PCB-containing electrical components.
3. Whether, at the pleading stage, CERCLA displaced or barred parallel state-law tort and related claims arising from hazardous-substance contamination.

## Decision

- The court largely denied the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss.
- The CERCLA § 107 cost-recovery claim was permitted to proceed against the moving manufacturer defendants, including General Electric.
- Most state-law claims were also permitted to proceed under liberal pleading standards.
- The court dismissed only certain limited claims as insufficiently pleaded as to particular defendants (including certain claims against General Electric and Allis-Chalmers), without removing them from the case.

## Legal Principles

- A complaint alleging a facility, a release of hazardous substances, and incurred necessary response costs can survive a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge under CERCLA § 107.
- CERCLA § 107 may allow a site owner/operator that incurred response costs to pursue recovery against other allegedly responsible parties, with allocation of responsibility addressed later in the case.
- Manufacturers and suppliers whose products allegedly contained hazardous substances and contributed to contamination may fall within CERCLA’s reach at the pleading stage.
- State-law negligence and strict-liability theories, including failure-to-warn allegations tied to hazardous substances in products, generally should not be dismissed unless the pleading shows no possible set of facts entitling relief.
- CERCLA does not necessarily preempt parallel state-law claims seeking damages or other relief arising from the same contamination, absent a direct conflict.

## Conclusion

The court kept the manufacturer defendants in the case at the pleading stage, allowing CERCLA § 107 response-cost claims and most related state-law product-liability and negligence theories (including failure-to-warn) to proceed, while dismissing only limited portions of certain claims.


Kalik v. Allis-Chalmers Corp., 658 F. Supp. 631 (W.D. Pa. 1987)