## Facts

- Allied Chemical Corp., through its agent, allegedly discharged toxic Kepone-related effluents into the James River, contaminating the Chesapeake Bay and nearby waters.
- Plaintiffs included commercial participants throughout the seafood chain: harvesters (fishermen, shellfishermen, oyster-bed lessors) and non-harvesters (wholesalers, retailers, processors, distributors, and restaurants).
- Plaintiffs alleged economic harm from fishery closures, reduced supply, and reduced demand for seafood associated with the contaminated waters.
- For the non-harvester plaintiffs targeted by the motion, the alleged injury was lost profits and related market losses rather than physical injury to person or property.
- Allied moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss multiple counts as to all plaintiffs other than those directly engaged in harvesting marine life.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs who allege only indirect economic loss from pollution, without physical injury to person or property and without a proprietary interest in the damaged resource, may recover in tort-based and related theories.
2. Whether the complaint states a claim for non-harvester plaintiffs whose damages are relational and downstream market losses tied to contamination of public waterways.

## Decision

- The court granted Allied’s motion to dismiss the challenged counts as to plaintiffs other than fishermen, shellfishermen, and oyster-bed lessors.
- The court allowed claims to proceed for plaintiffs directly engaged in harvesting, treating their connection to the damaged marine resources as sufficiently direct.
- The court held that allegations of purely economic, indirect injuries to non-harvester businesses failed to state a compensable claim under the asserted theories.

## Legal Principles

- Purely economic loss, unaccompanied by physical injury to person or property, is generally not recoverable in tort when the claimant’s injury is indirect and derivative of harm to others or to a resource the claimant does not own or possess.
- Remoteness limits tort liability where recognizing claims for market-wide ripple effects would expose a defendant to indeterminate liability to a broad class.
- Claimants with a direct harvesting relationship to the damaged marine resource may have a sufficiently direct interest to state claims for pollution-caused interference with that resource.
- Businesses positioned downstream in the distribution chain, asserting only lost profits from reduced supply or demand, are typically too remote to recover for pollution of public waters.

## Conclusion

The court limited recovery for Kepone-related pollution to plaintiffs directly engaged in harvesting marine life and dismissed claims by downstream seafood-industry businesses whose alleged injuries were only indirect economic losses without physical injury or a proprietary interest in the damaged resource.


Pruitt v. Allied Chem. Corp., 523 F. Supp. 975 (E.D. Va. 1981)