Court Hears ARCO's Bid for Discretionary Review in Property Contamination Dispute

The court heard oral argument on ARCO's motion for discretionary review in a dispute over whether an environmental-declaration waiver (Section 6) bars Myovi's cost‑recovery claim. Fabio Dvorak, representing Atlantic Richfield, told the court that "this case turns on the purely legal issues arising from the unambiguous words of the environmental declaration" and asked the panel to grant review under Rule 2.3(b)(1).

Dvorak framed three primary legal questions for the court: whether the Section 6 waiver precludes the claim at issue, how exception 6(c) should be read, and whether the definition of "pre‑closing contamination" in the declaration controls resolution of the dispute. The judge probed whether those issues are purely legal or include material factual disputes, particularly about causation and the baseline reports that define pre‑closing contamination.

The court took the motion under advisement and said it will issue a written ruling. Counsel were also asked to confirm scheduling implications: the parties reported a November 30 trial date had been struck and that any new trial date will be set after this court's decision.