In U.S. v. Rohm and Haas Co., the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey held that CERCLA response costs reimbursed by third-party plaintiffs to the United States pursuant to consent decrees are presumed valid for purposes of third-party plaintiffs' claims for contribution against third-party Defendants. Therefore, the third-party plaintiffs are only required to prove that they actually reimbursed the United States pursuant to the consent decrees, and are not required to prove that the United States incurred recoverable response costs under CERCLA.
In reaching its decision, the Court found that the third-party plaintiffs were motivated to protect their own interests during extensive negotiations with the United States by making sure that they reimbursed the government only for recoverable response costs. For these reasons, the Court concluded that the United States' response costs had been thoroughly tested and held that they are presumed valid. U.S. v. Rohm and Haas Co., 4 ERC 1081 (D.N.J. 1999).
