Rick Pinto, Lyn Broom, and Britney Millisor teamed up over several years at the trial court level and the appellate level to win a large oil spill clean-up claim brought by the clean-up company against the trucking company (their client) that caused the spill.  Their win at the appellate level occurred last week in Fulp Wrecker Service, Inc v. Finishline Trucking, L.L.C., Case No. COA24-753.

Finishline’s truck was in an accident that resulted in an oil spill. Plaintiff Fulp was hired by Davie County to handle the “clean-up.” Fulp proceeded to “handle” the clean-up to the tune of $300,000. Fulp thereafter sent a bill to Finishline for payment, alleging there was strict liability under certain state statutes. Finishline balked, at first over the exorbitant alleged cost, and then, after hiring counsel, on the theory that there is no strict liability for oil spills and that there was no privity of contract between Fulp and Finishline.

Finishline prevailed at the trial court level in its motion for summary judgment, with the Trial Court finding no strict liability existed and that there was no privity of contract between the parties. The Court of Appeals agreed, reviewing each of the statutes Fulp claimed should apply and distinguishing those statutes.

Plaintiff, in the alternative, argued that Finishline should be liable on the theory of unjust enrichment. On that claim, the Court found: “Plaintiff performed the remediation at the direction of government agencies, and the evidence does not indicate defendant requested, authorized, or knowingly accepted the benefit. Since unjust enrichment requires conscious acceptance of a benefit, . . . plaintiff has failed to establish an essential element of its claim. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant.”

After this multi-year litigation, Plaintiff was left with no recovery, since the statute of limitations had long run on any claim it may have had against Davie County for payment.