In Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc. v. City of North Miami, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit addressed two significant issues involving the interrelationship between Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) cost recovery actions and contract law. These issues, and the way the court addressed them, highlight problems for drafters of both commercial contracts and partial settlement releases, which if not carefully done can frustrate the intentions of the parties and cause significant economic loss to at least one of them.

First, in reversing the trial court, the Eleventh Circuit refused to give effect to an express limitation on liability in a contract between the parties. Instead, the court held that one party could use a CERCLA cost recovery action to avoid the contractual limitation on liability and recover precisely the amounts that the parties had agreed in the contract were not to be recoverable.