ÿWPCIS žÜŒ·#üÉ$Aé™'ãQj!<¬~¥äB^½ù¦Ï¹÷C¸8KLh÷žÒ“uÓzAT9f«d-ä„ NÚñì—R[N›ƒ)P&¾¼&Óîž—fÞ{ œêz­S˜~GM¡i–p‰£HnRfZ²?«ôˆ0dX²„cÿ‘n¸ãÏ?§më·Ýç…aɵÇ=T(z9ÙU£Iƒ'üÕµ†3‰¶3Vòž½s}R1ÔF/T%Ÿ†îeç4…šbWÍu[4=“ÊÀ)ö‹²$W'1OdÊ™«Ã”È1]úß]àÍx¥Rf$dñUÁzm Dfx½WÝq„•šMTÏFt?óÅ3œO¡ž˜‹ÿ>I„ƒödY,y¿e¸È™8M. 4ßUüN¬_‰#î}}쎢ÅÙ¼Óyº6¹Á!LgBÖlƒh»ãR8‘±ˆÔW›Dù>]+0®Å{Á‚ª,©ÍK­gÃêìß^íè߃nÙ5'%©ZÏ@À °•æÓûÕÏç<¾ ÷ís%öb’…÷ Ìò¡B3¤ÉÇ­¿—ÑòTìÛþ÷Êa6d²‚•ÖåÏ’ã>c”± ¡–£K¤½Ë•‰‰g43ŠÔÓëÛ+%ÜžTô3ïµÁ(qØM‚Îtí„V# ´ %¿U>Å 0mU$Npw@¾4þ 0~! 0xŸ 0k 0k‚ 0ší E‡ 0~‰ 0Ñ 0äØ 0¦¼ 0÷b 0 Y 0c 01 0C² 0Võ 0ÏK 0¤ 0¤¾ 0Ãb 0¼% 0»á 0Ùœ 0£u 0£ 0z» 0ä5 B 6 0=G 0F„ 0PÊ 1“ 0Ù­ 1† 0·‹ 0ˆB! 0DÊ! 0ù" 1·#n­¾#k$–s$U4 (Þ=(=(+q-ú..UN‰0÷×09Î2Û3«â;1?x¾B¾B¾Bñ6D§'G'G'G'G'GÎHÎHÎHÎHU7NOJOJOJYJJJèöNkÞP˜IBM Laser Printer 4019IBM4019ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 X<èÀ( 9Z &Courier Regular(E±$¡¡Ô€XõoXXXÔÓ  ÓÙ ñÔ€?Ù(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular ´DµD¶·D¸¹ºD»¼E½ñmÐ"3|x½V& ÿÿ8Document[8]Document Styleà0..àà8` ..` àÌVÿÿ8Document[4]Document Styleà..àò òòò.óó€€ó óV ÿÿ8Document[6]Document Styleà8..àÌV ÿÿ8Document[5]Document Styleà0..àÌV/ÿÿ8Document[2]Document StyleÌò òÔ2ÔA.Ô3  Ô€òòÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÌó óóóV& ÿÿ8Document[7]Document Styleà0..àà0` ..` àÌzU ÿÿ:Right Par[1]Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersàÐ.. àÔ2ÔI.Ô3  Ô€ˆà°..°àà0..àÌzh ÿÿ:Right Par[2]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersà..ààÐ` ..øàÔ2ÔA.Ô3  Ô€ˆà..àà0` ..` àÌV?ÿÿ8Document[3]Document StyleÌà..àò òÔ2Ô1.Ô3  Ô€Ô  ÔÔ  Ôó óz{ ÿÿ:Right Par[3]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersà..àà` ..` ààи ..P àÔ2Ô1.Ô3  Ô€ˆà` ..` àà0¸ ..¸ àÌzŽ ÿÿ:Right Par[4]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersà..àà` ..` àภ..¸ ààÐ..¨ àÔ2Ôa.Ô3  Ô€ˆà¸ ..¸ àà0..àÌz¢ ÿÿ:Right Par[5]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersà..àà` ..` àภ..¸ àà..ààÐh..ˆàÔ2Ô(1)Ô3  Ô€ˆà..àà0h..hàÌzµ ÿÿ:Right Par[6]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersà..àà` ..` àภ..¸ àà..ààh..hààÐÀ..ààÔ2Ô(a)Ô3  Ô€ˆàh..hàà0À..ÀàÌzÇ ÿÿ:Right Par[7]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersà..àà` ..` àภ..¸ àà..ààh..hààÀ..ÀààÐ..°àÔ2Ôi)Ô3  Ô€ˆàÀ..Ààà0..àÌzÚ ÿÿ:Right Par[8]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersà..àà` ..` àภ..¸ àà..ààh..hààÀ..Ààà..ààÐp..àÔ2Ôa)Ô3  Ô€ˆà..àà0p..pàÌVXÿÿ8Document[1]Document StyleÌÔ  Ôà@ì..^àòòò òÔ  ÔÔ2ÔI.Ô3  Ô€Ô  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔˆÌóóó ól2ÿÿ:Technical[5]Technical Document Styleà..àò òÔ2Ô(1)Ô3  Ô€.€€ó ól2ÿÿ:Technical[6]Technical Document Styleà..àò òÔ2Ô(a)Ô3  Ô€.€€ó ól/%ÿÿ:Technical[2]Technical Document StyleÌò òÔ2ÔA.Ô3  Ô€òòÔ  ÔÔ  ÔóóÌà..àó ól,!ÿÿ:Technical[3]Technical Document StyleÌò òÔ2Ô1.Ô3  Ô€Ô  ÔÔ  Ôà..àó ól(!ÿÿ:Technical[4]Technical Document Styleò òÔ2Ôa.Ô3  Ô€Ô  ÔÔ  Ôà..àó ól:0ÿÿ:Technical[1]Technical Document StyleÌòòò òÔ  ÔÔ2ÔI.Ô3  Ô€Ô  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÌóóà..àó ól1ÿÿ:Technical[7]Technical Document Styleà..àò òÔ2Ôi)Ô3  Ô€.€€ó ól1ÿÿ:Technical[8]Technical Document Styleà..àò òÔ2Ôa)Ô3  Ô€.€€ó óR& ÿÿ8BibliogrphyBibliographyà0..àà°..°àÌÌfpÿÿ2Doc InitInitialize Document StyleÓ€%ÓÈÓS€ )     I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)SÓØØ d&'((ÿÿ$˜˜Ìà0 àà à(ÿÿ$™™à0 àà0 àà à((ÿÿ$ššà0 àà0 àà0 àà à   ÿÿA_ekqw‡DocumentDocument StyleI.1.A.a.(1)(a)i)a)joÿÿ4Tech InitInitialize Technical StyleÓS€ + !  1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 þSÓØØ ! ÿÿCuy±ÉåTechnicalTechnical Document Style11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1x?ãt2PleadingHeader for numbered pleading paperÓÈÓÑ °ÑÑè°ÑÖ€3ÿÿÖ(`2è]$¨¨Ý ƒ±!ÝÔ€Xö XXXÔÓ  ÓÙ ñÔ€?ÙÝ  Ý(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(°!2•L$¤¤Ý ƒ±!ÝÔ€Xö XXXÔÓ  ÓÙ ñÔ€?ÙÝ  ÝÔ€NXÂXXXö ÔÔ€N&°Ó&XNXÂÔÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ÿÿCƒ‰•›£«±Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)«<þ6X9`(Courier 10Xôxþ6X@É2ÇÃ9X@ ŒÝ ƒ-/(ÝÝ  ÝÔ‡4f?XXXÔÓÈÓÒX°ÒÒ°°ÒÓÿÿÀ°œXÓß?€$'ü°ø*–dEü°ø*?ßß?€$'°ø*–dE°ø*?ßÌÌà\\Àà1ˆÌÌà\\Àà2ˆÌÌà\\Àà3ˆÌÌà\\Àà4ˆÌÌà\\Àà5ˆÌÌà\\Àà6ˆÌÌà\\Àà7ˆÌÌà\\Àà8ˆÌÌà\\Àà9ˆÌÌàøøÀà10ˆÌÌàøøÀà11ˆÌÌàøøÀà12ˆÌÌàøøÀà13ˆÌÌàøøÀà14ˆÌÌàøøÀà15ˆÌÌàøøÀà16ˆÌÌàøøÀà17ˆÌÌàøøÀà18ˆÌÌàøøÀà19ˆÌÌàøøÀà20ˆÌÌàøøÀà21ˆÌÌàøøÀà22ˆÌÌàøøÀà23ˆÌÌàøøÀà24ˆÌÌàøøÀà25ˆÌÌàøøÀà26ˆÌÌàøøÀà27ˆÌÌàøøÀà28Ô  à.À+Ô<þ6X9`(Courier 10 ÔÝ ƒ/•L$ÝÔ€Xö XXXÔÓ  ÓÙ ñÔ€?ÙÔ€NXÂXXXö ÔÔ€N&°Ó&XNXÂÔÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡&°Ó&&N&°ÓÔThe€original€version€of€13„7„20„21(b)€allowed€UST€owners€and€operators€to€recover€corrective€action€costsÐ ° Ðfrom€third€parties€who€were€alleged€to€be€responsible€for€a€release€of€petroleum.€€In€1991,€the€USTA€wasÏamended€to€permit€òòany€personóó€to€receive€a€contribution€for€corrective€action€costs€from€a€person€who€owned€orÐ `° Ðoperated€the€UST€at€the€time€the€release€occurred.€Ô#†N&°Ó&&&°ÓÑ#ÔÔ‡4&Ÿ &&N&°ÓÔ ùÝ ƒ/•L$ÝÔ€Xö XXXÔÓ  ÓÙ ñÔ€?ÙÔ€NXÂXXXö ÔÔ€N&°Ó&XNXÂÔÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡&°Ó&&N&°ÓÔThis€is€not€to€say€that€petroleum€refiners€and/or€suppliers€who€òòdo€notóó€have€the€ability€to€control€a€tankððs€dailyÐ ° Ðoperations€will€have€potential€liability€under€the€USTA.Ô#†N&°Ó&&&°ÓÑ#ÔÔ‡4&Ÿ &&N&°ÓÔ gÝ ƒ/•L$ÝÔ€Xö XXXÔÓ  ÓÙ ñÔ€?ÙÔ€NXÂXXXö ÔÔ€N&°Ó&XNXÂÔÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡&°Ó&&N&°ÓÔUnion€does€not€challenge€the€allocation€of€liability.Ô#†N&°Ó&&&°ÓÑ#ÔÔ‡4&Ÿ &&N&°ÓÔ ðÝ ƒ/•L$ÝÔ€Xö XXXÔÓ  ÓÙ ñÔ€?ÙÔ€NXÂXXXö ÔÔ€N&°Ó&XNXÂÔÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡&°Ó&&N&°ÓÔBy€the€time€the€trial€judge€was€to€make€his€preliminary€decision€regarding€Count€I,€the€Landowners€hadÐ ° Ðsettled€their€Count€II€claim€against€Smith's€widow€and€Van€Meter.€€Ô#†N&°Ó&&&°ÓÑ#ÔÔ‡4&Ÿ &&N&°ÓÔÖ6Times New Roman Regular íÝ ƒ/•L$ÝÔ€Xö XXXÔÓ  ÓÙ ñÔ€?ÙÔ€NXÂXXXö ÔÔ€N&°Ó&XNXÂÔÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡&°Ó&&N&°ÓÔWe€note€that€permitting€the€award€of€future€costs€is€not€a€new€concept.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòDayton€Walther›€Corp.€v.Ð ° ÐCaldwellóó,€402€N.E.2d€1252,€1256€(Ind.€1980).€€Ô#†N&°Ó&&&°ÓÑ#ÔÔ‡4&Ÿ &&N&°ÓÔ /Ñ#€;m;Xÿÿd#ÑÑ ° Ñ ÑÝ ƒ/•L$ÝÔ€Xö XXXÔÓ  ÓÙ ñÔ€?ÙÔ€NXÂXXXö ÔÔ€N&°Ó&XNXÂÔÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡&°Ó&&N&°ÓÔThere€was€evidence€of€a€general€nature€about€USTs€and€when€they€may€leak.€€For€example,€Ô#†N&°Ó&&&°ÓÑ#ÔÔ‡4&Ÿ &&N&°ÓÔÔ#†N&°Ó& &4&Ÿk#ÔÔ‡&°Ó&&N&°ÓÔð ð[t]ypically›Ð ° Ðstudies€show€that€after€about€five€years€to€ten€years€of€operation,€gas€stations€leak€in€one€way€or€another.ðð€€Ô#†N&°Ó&&&°Ó­#ÔÔ‡4&Ÿ &&N&°ÓÔÔ#†N&°Ó& &4&Ÿ†#ÔÔ‡&°Ó&&N&°ÓÔ(R.Ð ˆØ Ð4798).€€However,€as€demonstrated€by€the€following€colloquy,€there€was€no€evidence€as€to€when€the€USTs€at€theÏWest€Point€station€began€leaking:Ô#†N&°Ó&&&°ÓÈ#ÔÔ‡4&Ÿ &&N&°ÓÔÔ#†N&°Ó& &4&Ÿ°#ÔÔ‡&°Ó&&N&°ÓÔÐ 8ˆ ÐÒ°ÒÒ°ÒQ.€.€.€.€Is€it€not€true€that€you€have€no€specific€knowledge€about€the€tanks€at€this€station?€€Is€it€notÏtrue€that€you€do€not€know€specifically€that€these€tanks€were€leaking€in€1950?ÌA.€€Thatððs€correct.ÌQ.€€Is€it€not€true€that€you€do€not€know€specifically€whether€these€tanks€were€leaking€in€1965?ÌA.€€Thatððs€correct.ÌQ.€€Is€it€not€true€that€you€do€not€specifically€know€that€these€tanks€were€leaking€in€1975?ÌA.€€Thatððs€correct.ÌQ.€€Isnððt€it€true€that€you€really€have€no€specific€information€about€this€stationððs€tanks€as€to€whenÏthat€might€have€started€leaking?ÌA.€€The€summary€of€data,€the€entirety€of€data€as€I€see€them€today,€make€me€conclude€not€onlyÏthat€the€tank€and€the€pipelines€in€the€island,€in€the,€in€the€delivery€lines,€that€both€these€areasÏleaked.€€But€also€that€the€leak€had€happened€many€years€ago€in€order€for€the€contaminates€toÏhave€been€found€where€they€were€in€1989.ÌQ.€€Well€thatððs€not€my€question,€doctor.€€My€question€is€when,€can€you€tell€me€1950,€1960,Ï1970,€can€your€tell€me€when?ÌA.€€No,€I€cannot.ÌÌÒ°4ÒÒ°&Ò(R.€5142„43).€€€€ÌÔ#†N&°Ó&&&°Óò#ÔÔ‡4&Ÿ &&N&°ÓÔ ¡Ý ƒ/•L$ÝÔ€Xö XXXÔÓ  ÓÙ ñÔ€?ÙÔ€NXÂXXXö ÔÔ€N&°Ó&XNXÂÔÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡&°Ó&&N&°ÓÔNeither€Ô#†N&°Ó&&&°ÓÒ#ÔÔ‡4&Ÿ &&N&°ÓÔòòÔ#†N&°Ó& &4&Ÿ#ÔÔ‡&°Ó&&N&°ÓÔJohnsonóó,€557€N.E.2d€at€1344„45(holding€that€trial€court€erred€in€awarding€support€staff€costs€as€anÐ ° Ðelement€of€reasonable€attorneyððs€fees)€nor€òòMidland„Guardian€Co.€v.€United€Consumers€Club,€Inc.óó,€499€N.E.2dÐ ˆØ Ð792,€801€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1986)(stating€reasonable€attorneyððs€fees€includes€only€those€amounts€as€paidÏcompensation€to€the€attorney)€concerned€fees€authorized€by€an€environmental€statute€in€Indiana€or€any€other€state.€ÏÔ#†N&°Ó&&&°Óa#ÔÔ‡4&Ÿ &&N&°ÓÔ 'Ô‡&°Ó&XXÔÝ ƒ/•LÿÝÔ€&Ÿ &&&°ÓÔÓ  ÓÙ ñÔ€?ÙÔ€N&°Ó& &&ŸÔÔ€N&°Ó&&N&°ÓÔÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡&°Ó&&N&°ÓÔThe€procedural€posture€of€this€case€was€a€bit€unusual.€€The€May€16€order€not€only€granted€the€LandownersððÐ ° Ðpartial€summary€judgment€motion€on€the€issues€of€collateral€estoppel€and€ð ðoperatorðð€status,€but€also€dealt€withÏseparate€issues,€one€of€which€was€the€allocation€issue.€€Four€months€later,€the€entire€May€16€order€wasÏincorporated€by€reference€into€the€September€27€findings,€conclusions,€and€judgment.Ô#†N&°Ó&&&°Óð#ÔÔ‡4&Ÿ &&N&°ÓÔÔ#†4Xö X &4&Ÿ#Ô nÝ ƒ/•L$ÝÔ€Xö XXXÔÓ  ÓÙ ñÔ€?ÙÔ€NXÂXXXö ÔÔ€N&°Ó&XNXÂÔÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡&°Ó&&N&°ÓÔOur€plain€reading€is€neither€narrow€nor€particularly€broad.Ô#†N&°Ó&&&°ÓÒ#ÔÔ‡4&Ÿ &&N&°ÓÔ çÝ ƒ/•L$ÝÔ€Xö XXXÔÓ  ÓÙ ñÔ€?ÙÔ€NXÂXXXö ÔÔ€N&°Ó&XNXÂÔÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡&°Ó&&N&°ÓÔIn€reaching€this€result,€we€are€unpersuaded€by€the€non„binding€and€distinguishable€authority€of€òòZabkowiczÐ ° Ðv.€West€Bend€Co.,€Div.€Dart€Industriesóó,€789€F.2d€540,€548€(7th€Cir.€1986).€€òòZabkowiczóó,€a€Title€VII€case,Ð ˆØ Ðconcerned€a€courtððs€discretion€to€grant€reasonable€attorneyððs€fees€to€ð ðthe€prevailing€partyðð€as€authorized€by€42Ð `° „ ÐU.S.C.€ðð€200e›„5(k).€Ô#†N&°Ó&&&°ÓÒ#ÔÔ‡4&Ÿ &&N&°ÓÔ Ý ƒ/•L$ÝÔ€Xö XXXÔÓ  ÓÙ ñÔ€?ÙÔ€NXÂXXXö ÔÔ€N&°Ó&XNXÂÔÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡&°Ó&&N&°ÓÔUndoubtedly,€an€award€of€approximately€$1.5€million€in€attorneys€fees€could€not€be€called€inconsequential.Ô#†N&°Ó&&&°ÓÒ#ÔÔ‡4&Ÿ &&N&°ÓÔ wÝ ƒ/•L$ÝÔ€Xö XXXÔÓ  ÓÙ ñÔ€?ÙÔ€NXÂXXXö ÔÔ€N&°Ó&XNXÂÔÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡&°Ó&&N&°ÓÔSee€full€òòPantryóó€quote€in€Part€II,€Subpart›€C€of€this€opinion.€Ô#†N&°Ó&&&°ÓÒ#ÔÔ‡4&Ÿ &&N&°ÓÔ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular OÝ ƒ/•L$ÝÔ€Xö XXXÔÓ  ÓÙ ñÔ€?ÙÔ€NXÂXXXö ÔÔ€N&°Ó&XNXÂÔÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡&°Ó&&N&°ÓÔÔ‡XÂX&&°ÓÔÔ#†&°Ó&XXÂð#ÔòòCf.óó€òòSidney€S.€Arst€Co.€v.€Pipefitters€Welfare€Educational€Fundóó,€25€F.3d€417,€420„22€(7th€Cir.€1994);Ð ° ÐòòDonahey€v.€Bogleóó,€987€F.2d€1250,€1254€(6th€Cir.€1993),€òòvacated€on€another€issueóó,€òòLivingstone€v.€Donaheyóó,€512Ð ˆØ ÐU.S.€1201€(1994);€and€òòLangsford„United€States€v.€Kayser„Roth€Corp.óó,€910€F.2d€24€(1st€Cir.€1990),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€Ð `° Ð491€U.S.€1084€(1991).€€In€each€of€these€cases,€the€courts€were€asked€to€determine€the€extent€of€protectionÏprovided€by€a€corporate€structure€and€the€courts€used€an€actual€control€test€in€resolving€issues€of€operator€liability.€ÏIn€contrast,€the€present€case€is€not€a€corporate€veil€type€case,€thus€the€aforementioned€cases€are€inapposite.Ô#†N&°Ó&&&°ÓÑ#Ô ÞÝ ƒ/•L$ÝÔ€Xö XXXÔÓ  ÓÙ ñÔ€?ÙÔ€NXÂXXXö ÔÔ€N&°Ó&XNXÂÔÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡&°Ó&&N&°ÓÔIn€view€of€our€resolution€in€Part€II,€Subpart›€C€regarding€control,€the€Landownersðð€argument€about€the€controlÐ ° Ðinstruction€is€even€less€compelling.€Ô#†N&°Ó&&&°ÓÒ#ÔÔ‡4&Ÿ &&N&°ÓÔ aÝ ƒ/•L$ÝÔ€Xö XXXÔÓ  ÓÙ ñÔ€?ÙÔ€NXÂXXXö ÔÔ€N&°Ó&XNXÂÔÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡&°Ó&&N&°ÓÔòòState€ex€rel.€Gary€Taxpayers€v.€Lake€Superior€Couróót,€76€N.E.2d€254€(Ind.€1947),€òòoverruled€on€other€groundsóó,Ð ° Ð399€N.E.2d€356€(Ind.€1980),€and€the€other€cases€cited€by€the€Oil€Companies€are€distinguished€in€that€they€do€notÏinvolve€the€interpretation€of€a€remedial€statute.€Ô#†N&°Ó&&&°ÓÑ#ÔÔ‡4&Ÿ &&N&°ÓÔÝ ƒ±!ÝÔ€Xö XXXÔÓ  ÓÙ ñÔ€?ÙÝ  ÝÑаÑÑ€°ÑÓ-°,X°Úp’X°œX-ÓÑ  ÑÔ€XÂXXXö Ôò òÔ‡R’9RXXÂÔÑ€=›ÑFOR€PUBLICATIONÔ#†XÂXRR’9×#ÔÐ € Ðó óòòÌATTORNEYS€FOR€APPELLANTSóó:à  àòòATTORNEYS€FOR€APPELLEESóó:Ð ´ 4 ÐÌò òKARL€L.€MULVANEYó óà  àò òROBERT€M.€BAKER€IIIó óÐ Œ  Ðò òNANA€QUAY„SMITHà  àTHOMAS€A.€BARNARDÐ x ø ÐLARRY€J.€KANEó óà  àJohnson,€Smith,€Pence,€DensbornÐ d ä Ðò òPHIL€L.€ISENBARGERó óà  àWright€&€HeathÐ TÔ ÐBingham€Summers€Welsh€&€Spilmanà  àIndianapolis,€IndianaÐ DÄ ÐIndianapolis,€Indianaà  àÐ 0°  Ðà  àò òPETER€M.€RACHERó óÐ œ  Ðò òJAMES€A.€KNAUER€€€€€€€€à  àJEFFREY€D.€FEATHERSTUNÐ ˆ  ÐGREGORY€P.€CAFOUROSó óà  àPlews,€Shadley,€Racher€&€BraunÐ ôt  Ðò òMARCIA€E.€ROANó óà  àIndianapolis,€IndianaÐ äd  ÐKroger,€Gardis€&€RegasÌIndianapolis,€Indianaà  àòòATTORNEYS€OF€AMICUS€CURIAE:óóÐ À@ Ðà  àNatural€Resources€Defense€Council,€Inc.ÌòòATTORNEYS€OF€AMICUS€CURIAE:óóÐ ˜ ÐAmerican€Petroleum€Instituteà  àò òPETER€LEHNERó óÐ „ Ðà  àò òERIK€OLSONó óÐ tô Ðò òG.€WILLIAM€FRICKó óà  àNew€York,€New€YorkÐ `à Ðò òM.€ELIZABETH€COXó óÐ PÐ ÐWashington,€DCà  àòòATTORNEYS€OF€AMICUS€CURIAE:óóÐ <¼ Ðà  àNational€Coalition€of€Petroleum€RetailersÌò òFRANK€C.€CAPOZZAó óÐ ” ÐKatz€&€Korinà  àò òDIMITRI€G.€DASKALó óÐ € ÐIndianapolis,€Indianaà  àAnnapolis,€MarylandÐ ðp ÐÌò òTHOMAS€SAYRE€LLEWELLYNó óà  àò òMARK€R.€WATERFILLó óÐ È!H ÐWashington,€DCà  àLeagre€&€BarnesÐ ´"4 Ðà  àIndianapolis,€IndianaÌòòATTORNEYS€OF€AMICUS€CURIAE:óóÐ Œ$  ÐIndiana€Oil€Marketers€Associationà  àòòATTORNEYS€OF€AMICUS€CURIAE:óóÐ x%ø  Ðà  àHoosier€Environmental€CouncilÌò òLEWIS€E.€WILLIS,€JR.ó óÐ P'Ð" ÐStark,€Doniger€&€Smithà  àò òERIC€L.€MAYERó óÐ <(¼ # ÐIndianapolis,€Indianaà  àIndianapolis,€IndianaÐ ,)¬!$ ÐÌò òALPHONSE€M.€ALFANOó óà  àòòATTORNEYS€OF€AMICUS€CURIAE:óóÐ +„#& ÐBassman,€Mitchell€&€Alfano,€Chtd.à  àCity€of€IndianapolisÐ ô+t$' ÐWashington,€DCÌà  àò òSUE€A.€BEESLEYÐ Ì-L&) Ðà  àSHEILA€M.€O'BRYANó óà x àÐ ¸.8'* Ðà  àIndianapolis,€IndianaÐ ¤/$(+ ÐÑ=›ÑÑ7€;Â;XXdìXXdÈ7ÑѰ€ÑÑ  ÑÌßA€$) °°xdE°›xAßÐ œì ÐÌÔ€R’9RXXÂÔà@'ìàò òIN€THEˆÐ —ç Ðà@ø ø ìàCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€INDIANAó óˆÐ ß/ ÐÌÔ€R¶RRR’9ÔÔ€Xö XRR¶ÔßA€$) °°xdE°r xAßÐ s à ÐÌÔ€XÂXXXö ÔSHELL€OIL€COMPANY,€UNION€OIL€à  à)Ð J š ÐCOMPANY,€ROBERT€VAN€METER,€VAN'S€à  à)Ð 6 †  ÐWHOLESALE€AUTO€BODY€SHOP,€and€à  à)Ð " r  ÐMARGARET€G.€SMITH,€à  à)Ð ^  ÐÓ<°,XƒXÚp’X°,X°Úp’X<Óà  àà ` àà  à)Ìà  àAppellants/Cross„Appellees„Defendants,à  à)Ð æ6  Ðà  àà ` àà  à)Ìà  àà ` àvs.à  à)à Ú àNo.€79A04„9512„CV„470Ð ¾  Ðà  àà ` àà  à)ÌRICHARD€AND€KIM€MEYER,€GARY€ANDà  à)Ð –æ ÐBRIDGET€MCDANIEL,€JIM€AND€TERRIà  à)Ð ‚Ò ÐMCDONALD,€DAN€AND€VIVIAN€MCDANIEL,à  à)Ð n¾ ÐALVIN€AND€VERNA€MAE€CASAD,€andà  à)Ð Zª ÐHELENA€BYERS,à  à)Ð F– Ðà  àà ` àà  à)Ìà  àAppellees/Cross„Appellants„Plaintiffs.à  à)Ð n ÐÌÔ‡Xö XXXÂÔßA€$) °°xdÿÿE°õxAßÔ#†XÂXXXö F#ÔÐ öF ÐÌà@n n ìàAPPEAL€FROM€THE€TIPPECANOE€SUPERIOR€COURT€NO.€1ˆÌà@j j ìàThe€Honorable€Donald€C.€Johnson,€JudgeˆÌà@ââìàCause€No.€79D01„9305„CP„118ˆÌÌÔ‡Xö XXXÂÔßA€$) °°xdÿÿE° xAßÔ#†XÂXXXö Œ#ÔÐ ¡ñ ÐÌò òà@@@#ìàñ¼ñ(Handdownñ¼ññ½ñAugust€19,€1997ñ½ñÔ‡Xö XXXÂÔñ¼ñ€ñ¼ñÔ#†XÂXXXö f#Ôñ¼ñDate)ñ¼ñˆÐ œ ì! ÐÌà@88ìàOPINION€„€FOR€PUBLICATIONˆÌÌCHEZEM,€Judgeó óÐ L$œ% ÐÌÓÓÔ‡ŠÄ ŠXXÂÔ›à@``$ìàòòCase€SummaryóóˆÐ $&t!' Ðà  àDefendants„Appellants,€Shell€Oil€Company€("Shell")€and€Union€Oil€CompanyÏ("Union"),€(collectively,€the€"Oil€Companies"),€appeal€from€a€judgment€entered€by€the€trialÏcourt€in€favor€of€Plaintiffs„Appellees,€Richard€and€Kim€Meyer,€Gary€and€Bridget€McDaniel,ÏJim€and€Terri€McDonald,€Dan€and€Vivian€McDaniel,€Alvin€and€Verna€Mae€Casad,€andÐ .T)/ ÐHelena€Byers€(collectively,€the€"Landowners").€€Citing€an€allegedly€improper€juryÏinstruction,€the€Landowners€request€a€new€trial€regarding€the€issues€determined€by€the€jury.€ÏWe€affirm€in€part,€and€reverse€and€remand€in€part.òòÐ  ð Ðà@ææ'ìàIssuesóóˆÐ ˜ è Ðà  àThe€parties€present€various€issues€which€we€restate€as:ÓÓÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÌI.€€Whether€collateral€estoppel€bars€liability€against€the€Oil€Companies€underÏthe€Indiana€Underground€Storage€Tank€Act€("USTA");ÌÌII.€€Whether€Shell€and€Union€are€"operators"€as€the€term€is€defined€in€theÏUSTA;ÌÌIII.€€Whether€the€fact€that€the€Landowners€are€not€liable€for€corrective€actionsÏprecludes€them€from€having€a€cause€of€action€for€contribution€under€theÏUSTA;ÌÌIV.€€Whether€the€trial€court's€allocation€of€liability€between€Shell€and€UnionÏis€proper;ÌÌV.€€Whether€the€Landowners€are€barred€from€recovering€costs€for€futureÏcorrective€action€under€the€USTA;ÌÌVI.€€Whether€medical€monitoring€costs€are€corrective€action€costs€recoverableÏunder€the€USTA;€ÌÌVII.€€Whether€the€attorneysðð€fee€award€is€appropriate;€and,ÌÌVIII.€€Whether€the€Landowners€are€entitled€to€a€new€trial€because€of€theÏtrademark€œinstruction.Ì›ÌÓÓÒ°ÒÒ°Òòòà@ìàFacts€and€Procedural€HistoryˆÐ (&x!" Ðà  àóóThe€facts€favorable€to€the€judgment€indicate€that€in€1946,€Fred€Smith€("Smith")Ð  (p#$ Ðpurchased€property€in€West€Point,€Indiana,€on€the€northwest€corner€of€Washington€and€Main,Ïto€be€used€as€a€gas€station.€€From€the€time€of€purchase€until€1971,€Smith€leased€the€WestÏPoint€gas€station€to€various€people€who€operated€it€as€a€Shell€station,€complete€with€ShellÐ .X)* Ðsignage€and€Shell€gasoline.€€During€the€next€twenty„five€years€Smith€owned€the€gas€station,Ïhe€also€drove€the€tank€truck€that€transported€the€Shell€gasoline€from€a€bulk€plant€in€LafayetteÏto€his€station,€filled€the€three€underground€storage€tanks€beneath€the€station€with€gasoline,Ïheld€himself€out€as€a€Shell€agent,€wore€a€Shell€uniform,€displayed€the€Shell€name€and€logoÏon€his€tank€truck,€and€attended€Shell„sponsored€sales€meetings€and€conferences.Ìà  àIn€1971,€the€bulk€plant€from€which€Smith€had€been€acquiring€gasoline€switched€fromÏproviding€Shell€gasoline€to€providing€Union€76€gasoline.€€Thus,€Smith's€station€changed€fromÏbeing€a€Shell€station€to€a€Union€76€station€that€year.€€As€a€result,€Union€paid€to€have€theÏShell€signs€removed€from€the€station€and€replaced€with€Union€signs,€and€paid€for€500€bottlesÏof€Coca„Cola€to€help€celebrate€its€grand€opening.€€From€1971€until€his€death€in€1979,€SmithÏwore€a€Union€76€uniform,€displayed€the€Union€name€and€logo€on€his€tank€truck,€andÏdelivered€Union€gasoline€to€the€station.€€From€1979€through€1981,€the€final€two€years€theÏUnion€station€was€in€business,€another€Union€distributor€supplied€the€station€with€gasoline.Ìà  àIn€early€1989,€West€Point€resident€Kim€Meyer€first€noticed€the€smell€of€petroleum€inÏher€family's€drinking€water.€€She€reported€the€odor€to€the€Tippecanoe€County€HealthÏDepartment,€which€sampled€and€tested€the€Meyers'€water.€€Laboratory€results€showed€theÏpresence€of€benzene€at€a€concentration€of€180€parts€per€billion.€€The€Health€DepartmentÏwarned€the€Meyers€to€stop€drinking€or€washing€with€the€water€because€it€was€unsafe.€ÏMeyers,€her€husband,€and€their€three€children€avoided€baths€at€home,€began€using€bottledÏwater€for€cooking€and€drinking,€and€purchased€filters€to€screen€out€contaminants€in€their€wellÏâ âwater.Ð ,`'( Ðà  àSeveral€months€later,€the€Indiana€Department€of€Environmental€ManagementÏâ â("IDEM")€installed€carbon€filters€in€4„foot„high€canisters€in€the€Meyers'€home.€€Upon€furtherÏtesting,€IDEM€found€that€residential€water€in€the€neighborhood€contained€quantities€ofÏbenzene,€1,2„dichloroethane,€and€other€gasoline€constituents.€€After€determining€that€drinkingÏor€being€exposed€to€the€unfiltered€water€would€be€unsafe,€IDEM€installed€similar€filters€inÏthe€homes€of€the€other€Landowners€who€lived€nearby.€€Thereafter,€IDEM€hired€anÏenvironmental€consulting€firm€to€conduct€a€study€of€the€groundwater€in€the€Landowners'Ïneighborhood,€in€the€hopes€of€finding€the€contaminant€source.Ìà  àIn€1992,€the€consulting€firm€finally€determined€that€the€contamination€was€comingÏfrom€the€property€that€had€formerly€been€the€West€Point€Shell/Union€76€gas€station.€€ByÏthen,€the€underground€storage€tanks€at€the€gas€station€had€been€excavated€pursuant€to€IDEM'sÏrequest€of€the€current€site€owner,€Robert€Van€Meter€("Van€Meter").€€Soil€in€the€pit€where€theÏtanks€had€been€buried€was€tested€and€found€to€be€heavily€contaminated€with€petroleumÏhydrocarbons.€€The€contaminated€soil€had€not€been€removed,€and€the€excavation€pit€had€beenÏrefilled€with€contaminated€backfill€after€the€tanks€were€excavated.Ìà  àAfter€making€unsuccessful€demands€for€clean€up€of€the€contamination,€theÏLandowners€filed€suit€on€May€4,€1993€against€Shell,€Union,€Van€Meter€and€his€œautobody›Ïshop,€and€Smith's€widow.€€The€complaint€consisted€of€six€counts:€€Count€I€(liability€underÏthe€USTA),€Count€II€(liability€under€anti„dumping€statute,€Ind.€Code€ðð€13„7„11„6(c)),€CountÏIII€(negligence),€Count€IV€(trespass),€Count€V€(nuisance),€and€Count€VI€(strict€liability€forÏâ âan€abnormally€dangerous€activity).€€Although€originally€named€as€defendants€only€underÐ ,`'( ÐCounts€III€„VI,€Shell€and€Union€were€later€added€by€the€Landowners€as€defendants€under€theÏUSTA€count€as€well.Ìâ âà  àAt€a€pre„trial€conference€in€September€of€1994,€the€parties€suggested€that€the€USTAÏclaim€was€equitable€in€nature€and€should€be€decided€separately€by€the€court€after€dispositionÏof€the€Landowners'€common€law€claims€by€a€jury.€€The€court€agreed€and€a€jury€trial€wasÏscheduled€for€Counts€III„VI.€€Following€an€unsuccessful€attempt€by€the€Oil€Companies€toÏhave€the€case€removed€to€a€federal€district€court,€the€jury€trial€began€in€Tippecanoe€County.€ÏThe€jury€trial€lasted€from€October€3,€1994€through€October€16,€1994€when€the€jury€returnedÏa€general€verdict€in€favor€of€the€Oil€Companies€on€all€four€counts.Ìà  àOn€February€7,€1995,€Shell,€Union,€and€the€Landowners€each€filed€a€separate€motionÏfor€summary€judgment.€€The€trial€judge€denied€each€one€and€set€the€claim€for€bench€trial€onÏJuly€5,€1995.€€When€the€parties€made€it€clear€that€they€had€no€further€evidence€on€the€USTAÏissue,€the€judge€agreed€to€make€a€preliminary€determination€of€liability.€€On€May€16,€1995,Ïthe€trial€court€issued€an€opinion׃9×Ý ƒ.#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€adjudging€that€the€Landowners€"are€not€estopped€fromÐ H˜ Ðlitigating€their€claim€under€the€UST€Act,€and€further€œdetermin[ing›]€that€Shell€and€Union€areÏliable€under€the€UST€Act€as€UST€operators."€€(R.€2676).€€The€trial€judge€then€ordered€theÏfollowing:ÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÓÓà ` à1.€[The€Landowners']€motion€for€partial€summary€judgment€on€CountÏI€of€the€Second€Amended€Complaint€is€granted.Ìà ` à2.€[The€Oil€Companies']€motions€for€summary€judgment€on€Count€I€areÏâ âdenied.Ð )l$% Ðà ` à3.€€Shell€and€Union€shall€pay€the€reasonable€corrective€action€expensesÏâ âas€may€be€incurred€by€[the€Landowners]€in€cleaning€up€groundwater€and€soilÏcontamination€emanating€from€the€former€West€Point€station.€€Shell€and€UnionÏshall€divide€the€expenses€based€on€their€respective€duration€of€operation€of€theÏformer€station€over€the€35€years€spanning€1946€through€1981.€€Shell€(1946€toÏ1971€=€25€years)€shall€pay€70€percent€of€the€expenses;€Union€(1971€to€1981Ï=€10€years)€shall€pay€30€percent.Ìà ` à4.€€Shell€and€Union€shall€pay€the€reasonable€attorney€fees€and€expensesÏincurred€by€[the€Landowners]€in€bringing€that€action,€pursuant€to€the€UST€Act.€ÏShell€and€Union€shall€divide€the€attorney€fees€and€expenses€on€a€70:30€basis,Ïas€set€forth€in€the€preceding€paragraph.Ìà ` à5.€€Within€30€days€of€the€date€of€this€Order,€[the€Landowners]€shall€fileÏa€proposed€Work€Plan€setting€forth€the€corrective€action€to€be€performed€byÏ[the€Landowners]€to€remediate€the€groundwater€and€soil€contamination€inÏWest€Point,€consistent€with€applicable€environmental€statutes€and€rules.€€TheÏWork€Plan€shall€include€a€detailed€description€of€the€investigation€conductedÏby€[the€Landowners]€in€preparing€the€Work€Plan€and€shall€identify€asÏspecifically€as€possible€all€tasks€to€be€accomplished€in€conducting€theÏcorrective€action;€the€timetable€for€completion€of€each€task;€and€the€estimatedÏcost€of€each€task.Ìà ` à6.€[The€Landowners]€also€shall€file€within€30€days€of€the€date€of€thisÏOrder€an€application€for€attorney€fees€incurred€in€bringing€this€action€forÏcontribution,€pursuant€to€the€UST€Act.€€The€application€shall€itemize€allÏcorrective€action€expenses€[the€Landowners]€have€thus€far€incurred.Ìà ` à7.€€Within€20€days€following€the€filing€of€[the€Landowners']€proposedÏWork€Plan€and€application,€Shell€and€Union€shall€file€such€objections€to€[theÏLandowners']€Work€Plan€and€application€as€[the€Oil€Companies]€deemÏappropriate.Ìà ` à8.€€The€Court€will€review€[the€Landowners']€proposed€Work€Plan€andÏapplication€and€such€objections€thereto€as€may€be€filed€by€[the€OilÏCompanies],€and€the€Court€shall€take€such€further€action€as€is€appropriate.€ÏThis€Order€shall€not€be€final€until€the€Court€has€determined€the€appropriateÏscope€of€the€corrective€action€to€be€conducted€in€West€Point€and€has€enteredÏan€order€directing€Shell€and€Union€to€pay€specific€amounts€as€contribution€toÏfund€the€corrective€action.ÌÌÒ°1ÒÒ°'1ÒÓ51Ó(R.€2677„78).Ìà  àIn€response,€the€Landowners€filed€a€petition€requesting€legal€fees€of€$845,588.75Ïthrough€May€31,€1995,€and€litigation€expenses€of€$109,028.28.€€The€Landowners€alsoÏrequested€that€Shell€and€Union€pay€for€the€corrective€action€identified€in€their€proposedÐ .X)* Ðcorrective€action€work€plan€for€remediation€of€groundwater€and€soil€contamination.€€TheÏLandowners'€plan€allocated€$2.4€million€for€environmental€corrective€action,€$132,124.00Ïfor€human€health€corrective€action,€$91,070.00€for€corrective€action€performed€to€date,€andÏ$250,000.00€as€a€conservative€estimate€of€future€legal€fees€for€implementing€futureÏcorrective€action.Ìà  àShell€and€Union€filed€a€joint€objection€to€the€Landowners'€petition€for€attorneys'€feesÏand€expenses,€and€to€their€environmental€plan.€€Shell€and€Union€also€submitted€their€ownÏproposed€environmental€plan€which€estimated€cleanup€costs€to€be€$209,300.00.€€The€trialÏjudge€held€a€bench€trial€on€these€issues€on€July€11„13,€and€19,€1995.€€On€July€13,€1995,€ShellÏfiled€a€motion€for€reconsideration€of€the€trial€courtððs€May€16,€1995€order,€specificallyÏchallenging€the€70/30€liability€breakdown.€€No€formal€ruling€on€Shellððs€motion€forÏreconsideration€was€issued.€€On€August€23,€1995,€the€Landowners€filed€a€supplement€to€theirÏpetition€for€attorneys'€fees€and€expenses,€which€raised€the€total€to€$976,799.50€for€attorneys'Ïfees€and€$179,322.40€for€costs.€€Shell€and€Union€objected€to€this€latest€petition.Ìà  àOn€September€27,€1995,€the€trial€court€issued€extensive€findings€of€fact,€conclusionsÏof€law€and€judgment€in€favor€of€the€Landowners€on€Count€I.€€In€its€order,€the€trial€courtÏincorporated€by€reference€its€May€16€opinion,€found€Shell€and€Union€liable€under€the€USTA,Ïand€ordered€them€to€pay€the€following€amounts:ÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÓÓà ` à1.€€To€[the€Landowners],€the€sum€$2,743,660.21,€representing€theÏestimated€cost€of€corrective€action€required€in€West€Point,€Indiana,€as€a€resultÏof€the€release€of€gasoline€from€USTs€at€the€former€Shell/Union€gas€station€site.Ìà ` à[The€Landowners]€shall€keep€these€funds€on€deposit€in€an€interest„¼bearing€account€at€a€federally€insured€depository€institution,€such€funds€to€beÏused€solely€and€exclusively€for€the€environmental€and€human€health€correctiveÏaction€tasks€described€in€[the€Landowners']€corrective€action€plans€andÐ .X)* Ðdiscussed€in€this€decision.€€[The€Landowners]€may€draw€upon€the€funds€forÏcorrective€action€tasks€without€notice€to€the€Court€or€to€[the€Oil€Companies].€ÏHowever,€[the€Landowners]€shall€file€detailed€status€reports€once€eachÏcalendar€month€with€the€Court,€with€copies€served€upon€all€counsel€of€record,Ïidentifying€(1)€all€amounts€withdrawn€during€the€prior€month,€(2)€the€amountÏof€money€remaining€on€deposit,€(3)€all€anticipated€tasks€and€purposes€forÏwhich€the€monies€will€be€expended,€(4)€the€status€of€the€implementation€of€theÏsoil€and€groundwater€remediation€systems€discussed€in€[the€Landowners']Ïcorrective€action€plan,€(5)€the€status€of€[the€Landowners']€implementation€ofÏa€plan€of€medical€monitoring€for€themselves€and€their€children,€(6)€theÏanticipated€timetable€for€further€corrective€action€tasks,€and€(7)€such€otherÏinformation€as€may€be€relevant€and€useful€to€the€Court€in€overseeing€theÏimplementation€of€[the€Landowners']€corrective€action€plans.Ìà ` à2.€€To€[the€Landowners']€counsel,€the€sum€$1,459,721.25€representingÏ[the€Landowners']€counsel's€reasonable€fees,€and€the€sum€$179,350.70Ïrepresenting€reimbursement€for€litigation€expenses€incurred€to€and€includingÏAugust€23,€1995.Ìà ` à3.€€Costs€shall€be€allowed€in€favor€of€[the€Landowners]€and€against€[theÏOil€Companies]€in€the€70:30€proportion€set€forth€in€the€Court's€May€16,€1995Ïorder.ÌÌÒ°#CÒÒ°1CÒÓ?CÓ(R.€3986„87).Ì€€€€€€€€€€€All€parties€appeal,€but€for€different€reasons.€€€Ìà  àòòà@¾¾ìàDiscussion€and€DecisionóóˆÐ Lœ Ðà@ìàòòI.€€€Collateral€EstoppelóóˆÐ D” Ðà  àThe€Oil€Companies€assert€that€the€essential€element€of€Count€I€„„€the€Oil€Companies'Ïoperator€status€„„€was€fully€and€fairly€litigated€before€the€jury,€and€was€decided€adversely€toÏthe€Landowners.€€Specifically,€their€argument€is€as€follows:€(1)€the€jury€found€in€favor€of€theÏOil€Companies€on€all€common€law€counts,€including€Count€VI€(strict€liability€for€anÏabnormally€dangerous€activity);€(2)€unless€the€jury€believed€that€Shell€and€Union€did€notÏcontrol€the€West€Point€gas€station,€it€could€not€have€found€for€the€Oil€Companies€on€CountÏVI;€(3)€in€order€to€be€an€operator€under€the€USTA,€a€party€must€have€control€over€the€gasÐ  -\() Ðstation;€(4)€under€the€doctrine€of€collateral€estoppel,€the€jury's€implicit€determination€aboutÏcontrol€on€Count€VI€precludes€a€finding€that€Shell€and€Union€are€liable€as€operators€underÏthe€USTA.Ìà  àThe€doctrine€of€res€judicata€consists€of€two€concepts,€claim€preclusion€and€issueÏpreclusion.€€òòBiggs€v.€Marshóó,€446€N.E.2d€977,€981€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1983).€€The€issue€preclusionÐ  à Ðbranch€of€res€judicata€is€also€referred€to€as€collateral€estoppel.€€òòProgressive€Casualty€Ins.€Co.Ð ˆØ  Ðv.€Morrisóó,€603€N.E.2d€1380,€1382€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1992).€€Issue€preclusion€bars€the€subsequentÐ €Ð  Ðrelitigation€of€the€same€fact€or€issue€where€that€fact€or€issue€was€òònecessarily€adjudicatedóó€inÐ xÈ  Ða€former€suit€and€the€same€fact€or€issue€is€presented€in€a€subsequent€action.€€òòKieler€v.€œC.A.T.›Ð pÀ Ðby€Trammelóó,€616€N.E.2d€34,€36€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1993),€òòtrans.€deniedóó,€(emphasis€added);Ð h¸ ÐòòSullivan€v.€American€Casualty€Co.€of€Reading,€Pa.óó,€605€N.E.2d€134,€137€(Ind.€1992).€€WhereÐ `° Ðissue€preclusion€applies,€the€previous€judgment€is€conclusive€only€regarding€those€issuesÏòòactually€litigated€and€determinedóó€therein.€€òòKieleróó,€616€N.E.2d€at€36€(emphasis€added).Ð P  ÐÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÓÓThe€estoppel€of€a€judgment€does€not€extend€to€matters€not€expresslyÏadjudicated€and€which€can€be€inferred€only€by€argument,€except€where€thereÏare€necessary€and€inevitable€inferences,€in€the€sense€that€the€judgment€couldÏnot€have€been€rendered€as€it€was€without€deciding€such€points.€€€There€is€noÏestoppel€where€anything€is€left€to€conjecture€as€to€what€was€necessarilyÏinvolved€and€decided,€as€where€the€judgment,€which€might€have€been€basedÏupon€one€of€several€grounds,€does€not€show€upon€which€ground€it€was€based.ÌÌÒ°áSÒÒ°ÓSÒÓïSÓòòPeterson€v.€Culver€Educational€Foundationóó,€402€N.E.2d€448,€461€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1980).€€AÐ (&x!" Ðtrial€judge's€decision€to€disallow€the€use€of€collateral€estoppel€will€be€reversed€only€upon€aÏshowing€of€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòWilcox€v.€Stateóó,€664€N.E.2d€379,€381€(Ind.€Ct.€App.Ð *h%& Ðâ â1996).Ð ,`'( Ðà  àHere,€in€order€for€issue€preclusion€to€apply,€the€USTA's€definition€of€"operator"€mustÏâ âhave€been€adjudicated€in€the€jury€trial.€€It€was€not.€€Indisputably,€the€jury€was€not€instructedÏon€Count€I€(the€USTA€claim).€€Specifically,€the€jury€was€not€advised€regarding€the€definitionÏof€an€"operator"€under€the€USTA,€nor€was€it€instructed€regarding€Indiana's€environmentalÏpolicies.€€Instead,€the€jury€was€instructed€regarding€the€common€law€actions.€€The€court'sÏstrict€liability€instruction€never€mentioned€"control"€or€"responsibility."€€While€it€is€true€thatÏthe€respondeat€superior€instruction€mentioned€"control,"€control€in€that€sense€is€notÏnecessarily€the€same€as€control€or€responsibility€under€the€USTA.Ìà  àMoreover,€the€jury€rendered€a€general€verdict€in€favor€of€the€Oil€Companies.€€By€itsÏnature,€a€general€verdict€does€not€allow€us€to€know€exactly€why€the€jury€reached€its€verdict.€ÏAccordingly,€we€do€not€know€precisely€why€the€jury€determined€that€the€Landowners'Ïcommon€law€claims€should€fail.€€Regarding€the€strict€liability€count,€the€control€element€mayÏnot€have€been€the€deciding€factor.€€The€jury€might€have€concluded€that€Shell€and€Union€wereÏnot€carrying€on€an€abnormally€dangerous€activity.€€The€instruction€defined€such€an€activityÏas€"the€storage€of€gasoline€in€underground€storage€tanks€in€close€proximity€to€drinking€well."€ÏPerhaps€the€jury€did€not€think€the€Oil€Companies€stored€gasoline,€but€rather€only€suppliedÏgasoline.€€Alternatively,€the€jury€may€have€determined€that€the€underground€tanks€were€notÏsufficiently€close€to€the€Landowners'€home€to€be€in€close€proximity€to€their€wells.€€ThisÏtheory€is€supported€by€the€fact€that€the€jury€requested€the€use€of€a€dictionary€in€order€to€lookÏup€the€meaning€of€"proximity."€€In€any€event,€there€is€no€estoppel€where€anything€is€left€toÏâ âconjecture€as€to€what€was€necessarily€involved€and€decided,€as€where€the€judgment,€whichÐ ,`'( Ðmight€have€been€based€upon€one€of€several€grounds,€does€not€show€upon€which€ground€itÏwas€based.€€òòSeeóó€òòPetersonóó,€402€N.E.2d€at€461.Ð ¨ø Ðâ âà  àFurther,€the€Oil€Companies'€present€contention€of€collateral€estoppel€is€directlyÏcontrary€to€what€they€argued€to€the€district€court€in€attempting€removal.€€At€the€district€court,Ïthe€parties€debated€whether€Shell's€and€Union's€removal€petition€was€timely€in€light€ofÏfederal€statutes€imposing€an€absolute€requirement€in€diversity€cases€that€the€removal€occurÏno€later€than€one€year€following€"commencement€of€the€action."€€Shell€and€Union€argued€thatÏby€amending€the€complaint€on€August€26,€1994€to€add€Shell€and€Union€as€defendants€underÏCount€I,€the€Landowners€had€launched€an€"entirely€new€and€distinct€cause€of€action"€thatÏtriggered€a€fresh€12„month€period€in€which€to€remove€the€case€on€diversity€grounds.€€In€theirÏjoint€notice€of€removal,€the€Oil€Companies€stated:ÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÓÓUnder€well€established€Indiana€law,€the€Second€Amended€ComplaintÏconstituted€the€commencement€of€a€new€action€(the€"New€Action")€againstÏShell€Oil€Company€and€Union€Oil€Company€because€the€Second€AmendedÏComplaint€contained€an€entirely€new€and€distinct€cause€of€action,€notÏpreviously€contained€in€any€pleading€in€the€Lawsuit,€against€the€Defendants.ÌÌÒ°!cÒÒ°cÒÓ/cÓ(R.€2330).€€In€their€brief€in€support€of€their€joint€notice€of€removal,€the€Oil€Companies€added:ÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÓÓPlaintiffs'€Second€Amended€Complaint€stated€a€cause€of€action€against€ShellÏOil€Company€and€Union€Oil€Company,€not€previously€contained€in€any€otherÏcomplaint€or€pleading,€demanding€contribution€and€attorney's€fees€under€theÏIndiana€Underground€Storage€Tank€Act.€.€.€.€To€support€their€claim€under€theÏIndiana€Underground€Storage€Tank€Act,€Plaintiffs€must€establish€(1)€that€ShellÏOil€Company€and€Union€Oil€Company€are€responsible€parties€under€the€Act;Ï(2)€the€actual€corrective€action€costs€incurred;€(3)€the€attorney's€fees€incurredÏin€advancing€the€contribution€claim;€(4)€the€reasonableness€of€those€attorney'sÏfees;€and€[5]€the€proper€allocation€of€the€corrective€costs€between€theÏdefendants€and€any€responsible€non„parties.€€The€same€evidence€will€notÏsupport€Plaintiffs'€original€claims€against€Shell€Oil€Company€and€Union€OilÏCompany,€and€their€newly€asserted€equitable€claim€against€the€two€defendants.€ÏòòFurthermore,€a€judgment€on€the€claims€originally€asserted€against€Shell€OilÐ .X)* ÐCompany€and€Union€Oil€Company€will€not€be€a€bar€to€Plaintiffs'€claim€underÏthe€Indiana€Underground€Storage€Tank€Act.óó€€Moreover,€the€same€measure€ofÐ ¬ü Ðdamages€does€not€govern€Plaintiffs'€original€claims€and€their€contributionÏclaim,€and€the€claims€are€not€subject€to€the€same€defenses.€€Therefore,ÏPlaintiffs'€Second€Amended€Complaint€stated€a€new€and€different€cause€ofÏaction.ÌÌÒ°JeÒÒ°×Ý ƒ.#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€view€of€theÐ xÈ  Ðabove,€the€allocation€issue€should€be€remanded€for€briefing€and€an€evidentiary€œhearing.Ð  pÀ Лà@ìàòòV.€€Future€Corrective€Action€CostsóóˆÐ ° Ðà  àThe€Oil€Companies€next€contend€that€ð ðthe€costs€of€future€corrective€action,€which€areÏwholly€speculative,€may€not€be€recovered€under€the€guise€of€contribution.ðð€€They€claim€thatÏtheir€liability€must€be€limited€to€the€costs€actually€incurred€by€the€Landowners€to€date.€€InÏsupport,€they€rely€upon€the€common€law€meaning€of€contribution,€the€testimony€of€certainÏlegislators,€the€òòPantryóó€case,€and€general€notions€of€efficiency.Ð ˆØ  Ðà  àHaving€already€determined€that€the€meaning€of€contribution€as€used€in€the€USTA€isÏdifferent€than€the€common€law€idea€of€contribution,€and€recognizing€the€problems€inherentÏin€imputing€the€opinions€of€legislators€to€the€entire€legislature,€we€review€the€USTAððsÏœlanguage.›€€In€relevant€part,€the€USTA€provides€that€a€person€who€ð ðundertakes€correctiveÏaction€.€.€.€€is€entitled€to€receive€a€contribution€.€.€.€.ðð€€Ind.€Cod€ðð€13„23„13„8(b).€€ð ðInÏresolving€a€contribution€claim,€a€court€may€allocate€the€cost€of€a€corrective€action€among€theÏparties€to€the€action€using€equitable€factors€that€the€court€determines€are€appropriate.ðð€€òòId.óó€Ð P  ÐThe€statute€as€written€does€not€limit€contribution€to€past„incurred€costs.׃<×Ý ƒ.#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð H˜ Ðà  àThe€relevant€section€does€not€state€œthat›€a€person€who€undertakes€corrective€action€isÏentitled€to€receive€a€contribution€òòonly€after€the€actions€are€takenóó.€€Yet,€that€type€of€languageÐ 8"ˆ Ðmust€be€read€into€the€USTA€in€order€to€interpret€the€USTA€as€the€Oil€Companies€do.€ÏAccording€to€œthe›€Oil€Companiesðð€approach,€various€results€are€possible.€€A€person€withÏsubstantial€funds€available€could€remediate€the€entire€contaminated€site,€then€attempt€to€sueÏfor€contribution€„„€which€may€or€may€not€be€successful.€€Those€who€do€not€have€at€theirÐ *h%& Ðdisposal€the€considerable€monetary€resources€necessary€to€remediate€the€entire€site€couldÏattempt€to€remediate€and€collect€contribution€in€a€piece„meal€fashion,€returning€to€court€eachÏtime€a€bit€more€was€remediated.€€The€more€likely€result€is€that€cleanup€of€contaminated€sitesÏsimply€would€not€happen.€€Thus,€once€again,€the€Oil€Companiesðð€reading€of€the€œUSTA›Ïcontravenes€the€explicit€purposes€of€Indianaððs€environmental€statutes.€€Shellððs€and€UnionððsÏreading€of€the€USTA€would€not€ð ðpreserve,€protect,€[or]€enhance€the€quality€of€theÏenvironment€so€that,€to€the€extent€possible,€future€generations€will€be€ensured€clean€air,€cleanÏwater,€and€a€healthful€environment.ðð€€òòSeeóó€Ind.€Code€ðð€13„12„3„1;€òòcf.óó€òòMedical€DisposalÐ xÈ  ÐServicesóó,€669€N.E.2d€at€1060.€Ð pÀ Ðà  àœAs›€for€the€Oil€Companiesðð€argument€that€òòPantryóó,€777€F.€Supp.€at€720„21,׃J×Ý ƒ.#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€supportsÐ h¸ Ðthe€view€that€contribution€may€only€be€sought€after€corrective€action€costs€have€beenÏincurred,€we€are€not€persuaded.€€The€district€court€was€not€presented€with€the€futureÏcorrective€costs€question.€€We€are€unwilling€to€accept€òòPantryóóððs€dicta€as€binding€precedent€onÐ P  Ðthis€issue€„„€especially€when€it€is€neither€supported€by€the€explicit€words€of€the€USTA€norÏby€the€legislative€intent€as€set€out€in€the€Indiana€Code.Ìà  àRegarding€the€Oil€Companiesðð€efficiency€argument,€Shell€and€Union€are€concernedÏthat€if€a€person€need€not€personally€incur€the€expense€of€cleanup€before€attempting€to€collectÏcontribution,€there€will€be€no€incentive€to€seek€out€the€most€efficient€method€of€remediation.€ÏThat€is,€if€the€person€doing€the€remediation€does€not€have€a€vested€interest€in€keeping€costsÏdown,€Shell€and€Union€worry€that€their€money€will€be€wasted€or€perhaps€even€used€forÐ *h%& Ðpurposes€unrelated€to€remediation.€€While€we€understand€the€Oil€Companiesðð€concerns,€weÏdisagree€with€their€solution€(i.e.€reading€extra€words€into€the€USTA€which€would€requireÏremediation€before€seeking€contribution).Ìà  àOur€supreme€court€has€held,€ð ða€court€of€equity€has€the€power€to€require€that€to€beÏdone€which€should€have€been€done.ðð€€òòWalter€v.€œBalogh›óó,€619€N.E.2d€566,€568€(Ind.€1993).€Ð  à ÐSimilarly,€we€have€stated,€ð ð[œt]he›€trial€court€has€full€discretion€to€fashion€equitable€remediesÏthat€are€complete€and€fair€to€all€parties€involved.ðð€€òòHammes€v.€Frankóó,€579€N.E.2d€1348,€1355Ð €Ð  Ð(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1991),€òòtrans.€dismissedóó.€€We€examine€whether€the€trial€court€was€within€itsÐ xÈ  Ðdiscretion€with€its€resolution€of€the€future€corrective€action€problem.€Ìà  àAfter€the€bench€trial,€the€trial€judge€utilized€the€equitable€powers€granted€him€by€theÏUSTA€to€œapprove›€a€practical€remedy€for€the€future€corrective€action€problem.€€The€trial€courtÏordered€that€Shell€and€Union€pay€$2.7€million€into€a€federally€insured€bank€account.€€TheseÏfunds€were€then€ordered€to€be€used€ð ðsolely€and€exclusively€for€the€environmental€and€humanÏhealth€corrective€action€tasks€described€in€[the€Landownersðð]€corrective€action€plans€andÏdiscussedðð€in€its€September€27,€1995€decision.€€(R.€3986).€€While€the€Landowners€wereÏauthorized€to€draw€upon€the€account€without€notice€to€the€trial€judge€or€to€the€OilÏCompanies,€they€were€required€to€file€ð ðdetailed€status€reports€once€each€calendar€month,ððÏwith€copies€served€on€Shell€and€Union,€identifying€the€amount€withdrawn,€the€amountÏremaining€on€deposit,€all€anticipated€tasks€and€purposes€for€which€the€money€would€beÏexpended,€their€progress€in€carrying€out€the€court„ordered€corrective€action€plans,€theÏanticipated€timetable€for€future€corrective€action€tasks,€and€ð ðsuch€other€information€as€mayÏbe€relevant€and€useful€to€the€Court€in€overseeing€the€implementation€of€the€[Landownersðð]Ð .X)* Ðcorrective€action€plans.ðð€€(R.€3986„87).€€As€per€the€trial€courtððs€order,€the€Oil€Companies€canÏraise€whatever€objections€they€wish€with€respect€to€the€implementation€of€the€plan,€misuseÏof€the€money,€or€other€issues.€€If€the€site€is€remediated€and€funds€remain,€the€LandownersÏwill€refund€the€remainder€to€Shell€and€Union.Ìà  àThe€above€remedy€undoubtedly€achieves€the€statutesððs€purposes€and€is€a€completeÏremedy.€€However,€in€authorizing€the€Landowners€to€draw€upon€the€account€without€noticeÏto€the€trial€judge€or€to€the€Oil€Companies,€the€trial€courtððs€order€neither€fully€addresses€theÏœOil›€Companiesðð€concerns€nor€necessarily€sets€forth€a€fair€remedy.€€òòSeeóó€òòHammesóó,€579€N.E.2dÐ xÈ  Ð1348.€€Therefore,€to€the€extent€the€trial€courtððs€order€allows€œthe›€Landowners€to€draw€uponÏthe€account€without€notice€to€the€trial€judge€or€to€the€Oil€Companies,€we€conclude€that€theÏtrial€court€abused€its€discretion€and€that€it€must€revise€its€order€œaccordingly.›Ìà@´´ìàòòVI.€€Medical€Monitoring€CostsóóˆÐ X¨ Ðà  àShell€and€Union€also€contest€the€trial€courtððs€order€requiring€them€to€pay€for€the€costsÏof€implementing€the€Landownersðð€ð ðHuman€Health€Corrective€Action€Work€Plan.ðð€€The€OilÏCompanies€assert€that€the€HH€Work€Plan,€a€program€to€monitor€the€future€medical€conditionÏof€the€Landowners,€is€outside€the€scope€of€the€USTA,€thus€should€not€be€recoverable€underÏthe€statute.€€In€response,€the€Landowners€contend€that€under€the€deferential€standard€ofÏreview€of€findings€and€conclusions,€the€trial€judgeððs€award€of€corrective€action€costs€wasÏproper.€€Perhaps€recognizing€that€this€is€a€question€of€law,€the€Landowners€and€their€amiciÏalso€cite€parts€of€RCRA,€CERCLA,€the€Indiana€Code,€and€various€cases€in€an€attempt€toÏâ âsupport€their€view.Ð ,`'( Ðà  àAs€previously€noted,€the€USTA€authorizes€a€person€who€undertakes€corrective€actionÏâ âin€response€to€a€release€of€petroleum€from€a€UST€to€seek€contribution€for€the€correctiveÏaction€from€other€persons€who€owned€or€operated€the€tank€at€the€time€the€release€occurred.€ÏThus,€the€trial€courtððs€award€of€medical€monitoring€costs€was€proper€if€€medical€monitoringÏis€included€within€the€scope€of€ð ðcorrective€actionðð€as€that€term€is€employed€in€the€USTA.€€Ìà  àAlthough€ð ðcorrective€actionðð€is€not€defined€per€se€in€the€USTA,€under€certainÏcircumstances,€the€term€does€include€release€investigation,€mitigation€of€fire€and€safetyÏhazards,€tank€removal,€soil€remediation,€and€ground€water€remediation€and€[ground€water]Ïmonitoring.€€òòSeeóó€Ind.€Code€ðð€13„23„9„2(b).€€Moreover,€ð ð[a]€corrective€action€undertaken€orÐ pÀ Ðrequired€under€this€chapter€may€include€an€exposure€assessment.€€The€cost€of€any€exposureÏassessment€undertaken€under€this€chapter€may€be€recovered€under€section€8€of€this€chapterÏas€part€of€the€costs€of€corrective€action.ðð€€Ind.€Code€ðð€œ13„23„13„3.›€€ð ðMedical€monitoringðð€isÏnot€explicitly€included€as€a€corrective€action.€€However,€the€Landowners€claim€that€medicalÏmonitoring€is€an€exposure€assessment€which€is€recoverable€under€the€USTA.€€We€disagree.€Ïà  àAn€ð ðexposure€œassessment,ðð›ÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÓÓfor€purposes€of€IC€13„23,€means€an€assessment€to€determine€the€extent€ofÏexposure,€or€potential€for€exposure,€of€individuals€to€any€regulated€substanceÏfrom€a€release€from€an€underground€storage€tank€based€on€factors€such€as€theÏfollowing:ÌÒ°oÒÒ4°ÒÒ°aÒÒ4°Ò(1)€The€nature€and€extent€of€contamination€and€the€existence€of€orÏpotential€for€pathways€of€human€exposure,€including€ground€or€surfaceÏwater€contamination,€air€emissions,€and€food€chain€contamination.Ì€(2)€The€size€of€the€community€within€the€likely€pathway€of€exposure.Ì(3)€The€comparison€of€expected€human€exposure€levels€to€the€shortÏterm€and€long€term€health€effects€associated€with€identifiedÏcontaminants€and€any€available€recommended€exposure€or€toleranceÏlimits€for€those€contaminants.ÌÒ°4±ÒÒ°4‘ÒÒló°ÒÒŽó°ÒÐ .X)* ÐÒ°ÓÒÒ°åÒÓ}ÓInd.€Code€ðð€13„11„2„75.€€The€purpose€of€the€exposure€assessment€is€to€allow€for€aÏdetermination€of€whether€a€violation€has€occurred€and€what€corrective€action,€if€any,€isÏrequired.€€òòPantryóó,€777€F.€Supp.€at€735.€€As€indicated€by€Ind.€Code€ðð€13„11„2„75,€theÐ  ð Ðassessment€may€be€based€on€the€potential€for€exposure€of€individuals€to€contaminants.€€ThatÏis,€it€assesses€the€seriousness€of€the€site€contamination€and€how€that€contamination€mightÏresult€in€human€exposure.€€The€assessment€looks€at€the€number€of€persons€who€could€beÏexpected€to€be€exposed,€and€involves€a€comparison€of€expected€human€exposure€levels€ofÏthe€contaminants€to€the€health€effects€generally€associated€with€that€expected€exposure.€€AnÏexposure€assessment€does€not€appear€to€contemplate€baseline€evaluations€of€individuals,Ïsubsequent€periodic€evaluations,€cervical€and€breast€cancer€screening,€thyroid€function€tests,ÏX„rays,€œEKGs›,€secondary€diagnostic€testing,€or€œneurotoxicological›€examinations€as€the€trialÏcourtððs€order€would€provide.€€œ(R.›€3041„46).Ìà  àThe€above€conclusion€is€bolstered€by€the€section€which€provides€that€theÏcommissioner€may€undertake€corrective€action€ð ðif€that€action€is€necessary,€in€the€judgmentÏof€the€commissioner,€òòto€protect€human€health€and€the€environmentóó.ðð€€Ind.€Code€ðð€13„23„13„2Ð @  Ð(emphasis€added).€€Unlike€release€investigation,€mitigation€of€fire€and€safety€hazards,€tankÏremoval,€soil€remediation,€and€ground€water€remediation€and€monitoring,€the€battery€ofÏmedical€monitoring€examinations€on€individuals€as€set€out€in€the€trial€courtððs€order€wouldÏnot€serve€the€purpose€of€protecting€human€health€as€well€as€the€œenvironment.›Ìà  àFurther€confirmation€of€the€above€conclusion€is€found€in€the€EPAððs€explanation€of€theÏâ âintended€use€of€exposure€assessments€in€RCRA.€€Because€the€USTAððs€definition€ofÐ ,`'( Ðð ðexposure€assessmentðð€was€drawn€almost€verbatim€from€the€UST€portion€of€RCRA,€theÏEPAððs€discussion€is€especially€enlightening.€€The€EPA€explained:Ìâ âÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÓÓThe€second€approach€considered€by€the€Agency€uses€exposure€and€riskÏassessment€techniques€to€determine€the€risk€to€human€health€and€theÏenvironment€at€each€site€of€an€UST€release.€€Under€this€option,€the€degree€ofÏcleanup€sought€for€contaminated€ground€water€and€soil€would€reflect€the€site„¼specific€risk€presented.ÌÌÒ°ˆÒÒ°zÒÓ–Ó52€Fed.€Reg.€12681€(April€17,€1987).€€The€EPAððs€final€UST€rules€opted€for€and€utilized€theÏproposed€approach€in€which€an€exposure€assessment€would€provide€site„specific€informationÏon€the€risks€posed€by€the€release€for€use€in€determining€the€appropriate€corrective€action€forÏthe€release.€€53€Fed.€Reg.€37174€(Sept.€23,€1988).Ìà  àMoreover,€the€conclusion€that€exposure€assessment€does€not€include€medicalÏmonitoring,€is€supported€by€the€Conference€Report€on€the€Superfund€Amendments€andÏœReauthorization›€Act€(ð ðSARAðð)€of€1986,€P.L.€99„499,€House€Conference€Report€No.€99„962,Ï99th€Cong.,€2nd€œSess›.€1986,€reprinted€in€1986€œU.S.C.C.A.N.›€3276,€3360.€€SARA€amendedÏRCRA€to€include€a€corrective€action€program€for€addressing€releases€from€petroleum€USTs.€ÏThe€Conference€Committee€described€the€intent€of€exposure€assessments€as€correctiveÏaction:ÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÓÓThe€purpose€of€the€assessments€is€to€determine€which€individuals€have€beenÏexposed€to€the€released€petroleum€and€to€aid€in€the€design€of€appropriateÏcorrective€actions.€€Included€in€the€assessments€might€be€actions€such€as:Ïobtaining€and€analyzing€air,€water,€and€soil€samples;€determining€the€levels€ofÏpetroleum€substances€in€tap€or€well€water;€determining€the€direction€andÏspread€of€the€substances€through€various€pathways€of€exposure;€monitoringÏhomes€.€.€.€for€vapors€or€other€signs€that€the€substance€has€migrated€to€aÏparticular€location;€and€comparing€the€data€gathered€at€the€site€on€the€natureÏof€the€release€and€the€resulting€exposure€to€other€information€that€is€availableÏon€the€effects€of€and€risks€posed€by€exposure€to€the€released€substances.ÌÐ .X)* ÐÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÓÓœConf›.€œRpt›.€at€3361.€€The€Conference€Committee€then€explained€what€corrective€action€didÐ ° Ðòònotóó€include:Ð ¨ø ÐÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÓÓ[The€corrective€action€authority€of€42€U.S.C.€ðð€œ6991b›(h)(5)]€does€notÏauthorize€a€house„to„house€survey€to€determine€the€health€problemsÏœexperienced›€by€persons€living€or€working€in€the€surrounding€community,€norÏdoes€the€language€give€the€[EPA]€Administrator€the€authority€to€conductÏepidemiological€surveys€or€toxicological€tests€of€the€substances€released.€ÏAlthough€the€Administrator€may€conduct€health€surveys€and€studies€at€the€siteÏunder€other€authorities,€nothing€in€this€section€authorizes€the€Administrator€toÏpursue€cost€recovery€for€such€studies€from€the€owner€or€operator€of€the€tank.ÌÌÒ°›ÒÒ°ÒÓ©ÓòòId.óóÐ |Ì  Ðà  àAccordingly,€we€œñµñare›€inclined›€to›€ñµñorder›€the€exclusion€of€medical€monitoring€costs€from€the€list€ofÏrecoverable€corrective€action€costs.€Ìà@XX ìàòòVII.€€Attorneysðð€FeesóóˆÐ d´ Ðà  àFinally,€Shell€and€Union€contend€that€the€Landowners€failed€to€establish€reasonableÏattorneysðð€fees.€€The€Oil€Companies€contend:€(1)€that€the€attorneysðð€fees€were€inappropriateÏin€light€of€the€USTAððs€language€as€well€as€the€level€of€success€achieved;€(2)€that€paralegalÏfees,€œWestlaw›€time,€postage,€expert€witness€fees,€and€various€miscellaneous€litigationÏexpenses€are€not€recoverable€as€attorneysðð€fees€or€court€costs;€(3)€that€a€hearing€should€haveÏbeen€held€prior€to€allowing€supplemental€attorneysðð€fees;€and€(4)€that€the€application€of€aÏmultiplier€was€inappropriate.Ìà  àœThe›€amount€of€attorneysðð€fees€awarded€is€within€the€trial€courtððs€sound€discretion,€andÏwe€will€reverse€only€where€an€abuse€of€discretion€is€apparent.€€òòœStepp›€v.€Duffyóó,€654€N.E.2dÐ )l$% Ð767,€775€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1995),€òòtrans.€deniedóó.€€An€abuse€of€discretion€may€occur€if€the€trialÐ +d&' Ðcourtððs€decision€is€clearly€against€the€logic€and€effect€of€the€facts€and€circumstances€beforeÐ  -\() Ðthe€court€or€if€the€court€has€misinterpreted€the€law.€€òòMcCullough€v.€Archbold€Ladder€Co.óó,Ð ° Ð605€N.E.2d€175,€180€(Ind.€1993).€€Where€the€amount€of€the€fee€is€not€inconsequential,׃E×Ý ƒ.#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€thereÐ ¨ø Ðmust€be€objective€evidence€of€the€nature€of€the€legal€services€and€the€reasonableness€of€theÏfee.€€òòPosey€v.€Lafayette€Bank€and€Trust€Co.óó,€583€N.E.2d€149,€152€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1991),Ð ˜ è Ðòòtrans.€œdeniedóó.›Ð  à Ðà@vv"ìàòòA.€€USTA€LanguageóóˆÐ ˆØ  Ðà  àThe€Oil€Companies€argue€that€the€USTAððs€provision€regarding€attorneysðð€fees€shouldÏbe€construed€narrowly.€€In€support,€they€cite€òòBrowning€v.€Waltersóó,€616€N.E.2d€1040,€1046Ð xÈ  Ð(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1993),€òòmodified€on€other€groundsóó,€620€N.E.2d€29€(Ind.€1993)€and€òòJohnson€v.Ð pÀ МNaugle›óó,€557€N.E.2d€1339,€1345€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1990).€€They€assert€that€a€strict€constructionÐ h¸ Ðwould€preclude€recovery€for€attorneysðð€fees€for€work€unrelated€to€the€successful€contributionÏclaimÌà  àThe€USTA€provides:€€ð ð[a]€person€òòwho€brings€a€successful€action€to€receive€aÐ P  Ðcontributionóó€from€an€owner€or€operator€is€also€entitled€to€receive€òòreasonableóó€attorneyððs€feesÐ H˜ Ðand€court€costs€from€the€owner€or€operator.ðð€€Ind.€Code€ðð€13„23„13„8(b)(emphases€added).€ÏœOur›€Rules€of€Professional€Conduct€provide€a€non„exclusive€list€of€factors€to€be€consideredÏwhen€determining€the€reasonableness€of€a€fee.€€These€include:ÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÓÓ(1)€the€time€and€labor€required,€the€novelty€and€difficulty€of€the€questionsÏinvolved,€and€the€skill€requisite€to€perform€the€legal€service€properly;Ì(2)€the€likelihood,€if€apparent€to€the€client,€that€the€acceptance€of€the€particularÏemployment€will€preclude€other€employment€by€the€lawyer;Ì(3)€the€fee€customarily€charged€in€the€locality€for€similar€legal€services;Ì(4)€the€amount€involved€and€the€result€obtained;Ð +d&' Ð(5)€the€time€limitations€imposed€by€the€client€or€by€the€circumstances;Ì(6)€the€nature€and€length€of€the€professional€relationship€with€the€client;Ì(7)€the€experience,€reputation,€and€ability€of€the€lawyers€performing€theÏservices;€andÌ(8)€whether€the€fee€is€fixed€or€contingent.ÌÌÒ°)ÒÒ° )ÒÓ%)ÓInd.€Professional€Conduct€Rule€1.5.€€While€these€factors€provide€useful€guidelines€toÏdetermine€the€reasonableness€of€an€award€of€attorneyððs€fees,€evidence€is€not€required€on€eachÏfactor.€€òòPoseyóó,€583€N.E.2d€at€152.Ð ˆØ  Ðà  àThe€trial€courtððs€order€contains€extensive€discussion€regarding€the€above€factors.€€InÏsummary,€the€trial€court€detailed€the€complexity€of€this€case€and€concluded€that,€for€the€mostÏpart,€the€requested€attorneysðð€fees€were€reasonable.€€The€trial€court€determined€that€theÏLandownersðð€experts€offered€testimony€that€supported€their€requested€fees,€that€the€numerousÏissues€of€first€impression€made€this€an€unusually€difficult€lawsuit€to€prepare€and€try,€that€theÏLandownersðð€attorneysðð€level€of€experience€was€an€important€factor€in€their€success,€that€theÏrates€charged€per€hour€were€customary€for€the€market€and€the€type€of€case,€and€that€theÏLandownersðð€attorneys€incurred€a€significant€risk€of€nonreimbursement€when€they€acceptedÏthis€case€on€a€contingent€fee€basis.€€Also,€the€trial€court€determined€œthat,›€despite€prevailingÏon€only€one€of€six€counts,€the€result€achieved€was€exceptional€in€that€it€will€achieve€theÏultimate€purpose€of€cleaning€up€the€œsite.›Ìà  àIn€òòScott€v.€Anderson€Newspapers,€Inc.óó,€477€N.E.2d€553€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1985),€òòtrans.Ð (&x!" Ðdeniedóó,€a€panel€of€this€court€was€faced€with€a€claim€that€an€award€of€attorneysðð€fees€andÐ  (p#$ Ðexpenses€was€contrary€to€law€because€ð ð[œt]ime›€spent€on€unsuccessful€claims,€contentions€andÏlegal€theories€may€not€be€assessed.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€563.€€The€panel€responded€that€such€an€argumentÐ ,`'( Ðwas€ð ða€mere€invitation€to€us€to€weigh€the€evidence€on€appeal,ðð€something€an€appellate€courtÐ .X)* Ðmay€not€do.€€òòId.óó€at€564.€€However,€since€then,€this€court€has€stated,€ð ð[œa]n›€award€of€attorneyÐ ° Ðfees€is€appropriately€limited€to€those€fees€incurred€because€of€the€basis€underlying€theÏaward.ðð€€òòBrant€v.€Hesteróó,€569€N.E.2d€748,€755€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1991);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòBaker€v.€R.€&Ð  ð ÐR.€Constr.,€Inc.óó,€662€N.E.2d€661,€667€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1996),€òòtrans.€deniedóó,€(remanding€to€trialÐ ˜ è Ðcourt€to€amend€its€judgment€in€mechanicsðð€lien€foreclosure€action€to€reflect€award€of€attorneyÏfees,€if€any,€based€on€mechanicsðð€lien€statute€alone,€after€appellate€court€reversed€judgmentÏon€other€theory);€òòNovak€v.€Apollo€Printing€and€Thermography,€Inc.óó,€562€N.E.2d€1305,€1308Ð €Ð  Ð(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1990)(affirming€attorney€fees€award€which€did€not€include€recovery€ofÏattorney€fees€incurred€in€bringing€factually€related€claims).€€A€plain€reading׃A×Ý ƒ.#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€of€the€wordingÐ pÀ Ðin€œInd.›€Code€ðð€œ13„23„13„8(b)›€indicates€the€latter€approach€is€appropriate.€€That€is,€the€USTAÏprovides€for€an€award€of€those€fees€reasonably€incurred€in€bringing€a€successful€contributionÏclaim.€€The€USTA€does€not€authorize€reimbursement€of€fees€incurred€in€pursuing€other€non„¼USTA€claims€(let€alone€unsuccessful€claims),€regardless€of€how€closely€related€those€claimsÏmight€be€to€the€USTA€claim.€Ìà  àWe€do€recognize€that€work€on€the€USTA€claim€may€have€overlapped€with€work€onÏthe€non„USTA€issues.€€To€the€extent€that€such€overlap€occurred,€we€would€not€disallowÏcompensation€for€the€attorneysðð€fees€earned€and€costs€expended.€€However,€providingÏreimbursement€for€work€done€exclusively€on€non„USTA€issues€is€not€appropriate€under€theÏœUSTA.›×ƒDh×Ý ƒ.#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€view€of€the€failure€to€separate€the€fees€according€to€issues,€we€remand.€€In€soÐ  (p#$ Ðdoing,€we€note€that€as€the€party€requesting€assessment€of€attorney€fees,€the€Landowners€bearÏthe€burden€of€proof€on€this€issue.€€òòSeeóó€òòChrysler€Motor€Corp.€v.€Resheteróó,€637€N.E.2d€837,Ð ¨ø Ð838€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1994),€òòtrans.€deniedóó.€€While€a€perfect€breakdown€is€neither€realistic€norÐ  ð Ðexpected,€a€reasonable,€good€faith€effort€is€anticipated.Ìà@ìàòòB.€€Paralegal€Fees€and€Other€CostsóóˆÐ  à Ðà  àœThe›€Oil€Companies€also€assert€that€paralegal€fees,€and€expenses€for€phone,€WestlawÏtime,€postage,€mileage,€depositions,€copies,€process,€and€expert€witnesses,€are€notÏrecoverable€as€attorneyððs€fees€or€court€costs.€€The€USTA€does€not€define€ð ðattorneyððs€fees€andÏcourt€costsðð€and,€judging€by€the€variety€of€case€law€in€other€contexts,€no€plain€meaning€isÏevident.€€Thus,€we€again€are€faced€with€a€novel€question,€and€we€again€look€to€IndianaððsÏenvironmental€intent.Ìà  àAs€set€out€in€Ind.€Code€ðð€13„12„3„1,€Indianaððs€policy€is€to€preserve,€protect,€andÏenhance€the€quality€of€the€environment€so€that,€to€the€extent€possible,€future€generations€willÏbe€ensured€clean€air,€clean€water,€and€a€healthful€environment.€€Ind.€Code€ðð€13„12„3„1.€Ïð ðBeing€necessary€for€the€public€health,€safety,€and€welfare,€this€[environmental]€title€shallÏbe€liberally€construed€to€effectuate€the€purposes€of€the€title.ðð€€Ind.€Code€ðð€13„12„2„1.€ÏLiberally€construing€ð ðattorneyððs€fees€and€court€costsðð€would€further€Indianaððs€environmentalÏpolicies.€€Permitting€a€broad€fee€award€would€ensure€that€claims€are€pursued€withoutÏâ âdiminishing€the€award€in€whole€or€in€part€by€legal€fees.€€Further,€recovery€would€be€anÐ  (p#$ Ðincentive€to€foster€environmental€cleanup€and€discourage€protracted€and€expensive€effortsÏto€evade€environmental€responsibility.€€€€€€€€€€Ìâ âà  àAllowing€recovery€of€paralegal€fees€is€not€unheard€of€when€such€fees€are€separatelyÏbilled.€€òòSee,€e.g.,óó€òòPoseyóó,€583€N.E.2d€at€152;€œòòSteppóó,›€654€N.E.2d€at€776.€€When€one€considersÐ ˜ è Ðthat€attorneys€utilize€œparalegals›€to€perform€tasks€which€might€otherwise€have€to€beÏaccomplished€by€a€lawyer€with€a€higher€billing€rate,€recovery€for€a€paralegalððs€fees€is€hardlyÏunreasonable.€€Regarding€the€other€miscellaneous€expenses,€œwe›€are€persuaded€by€anotherÏcourtððs€decision€and€reasoning€in€a€state€toxic€tort€case€addressing€the€issue€of€the€breadthÏof€attorneysðð€fees.ÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÓÓœñ¶ñ.€.€.€ñ¶ñthe›€phrase€ð ðreasonable€attorneysðð€feesðð€in€and€of€itself€may€support€[anÏaward€of€all€reasonable€out„of„pocket€expenses].€€In€real€life€the€attorneysððÏœbill[s›]€to€their€clients€invariably€include,€and€request€payment€for,€all€out„of„¼pocket€expenses€reasonably€attributed€to€the€specific€case.€€Often€attorneysÏhave€advanced€these€out„of„pocket€expenses€on€behalf€of€the€client€as€a€matterÏof€practical€and€legal€necessity€to€ensure€the€proper€presentation€of€the€clientððsÏposition.€€In€practice€attorneys€often€pay€these€out„of„pocket€expenses€beforeÏthey€pay€themselves,€and€consider€reimbursement€of€same€even€moreÏnecessary€than€payment€to€themselves€for€time€expended€on€the€clientððsÏbehalf.€€Any€dichotomy€in€ð ðreasonable€attorneysðð€feesðð€between€compensationÏfor€the€attorneyððs€time€and€reimbursement€for€the€attorneyððs€out„of„pocketÏexpenses€(or€reimbursement€to€the€client€who€has€previously€paid€the€out„of„¼pocket€expenses€directly)€is€artificial€and€illusory.Ìà ` àI€can€find€no€logic€in€the€practice€which€shifts€the€cost€of€a€reasonableÏattorneyððs€fee€when€calculated€on€an€hourly€rate€or€contingency€to€the€losingÏparty,€but€which€does€not€similarly€shift€the€burden€of€paying€those€out„of„¼pocket€expenses€necessarily€incurred.€€Were€such€the€rule,€prevailing€partiesÏwho€were€encouraged€to€litigate€by€legislative€promises€of€compensation€forÏð ðreasonable€attorneysðð€feesðð€would€not€be€made€whole€and,€in€many€instances,Ïwould€not€be€able€to€undertake€the€litigation,€much€less€prosecute€it€to€aÏsuccessful€conclusion.€€Failure€to€reimburse€expenses€would€often€eat€upÏwhatever€benefits€the€litigation€might€produce€and€additionally€impose€a€back„¼breaking€burden€upon€the€small,€but€justified,€litigants.Ìà ` àThis€is€an€access€to€justice€issue€which€the€Legislature€has€remediedÏthrough€the€statutory€right€to€recover€ð ðreasonable€attorneysðð€feesðð€in€types€ofÐ .X)* Ðlitigation€which€the€Legislature,€as€a€matter€of€public€policy,€has€deemedÏespecially€worthy.ÌÌÒ°EÒÒ°EÒÓ,EÓòòLouisiana„Pacific€Corp.€v.€œAsarco›€Inc.óó,€934€P.2d€685,€œ69ñ·ñ3„9ñ·ñ4›€(Wash.€1997)(Sanders,€J.Ð ¤ô Ðconcurring).€€Although€obviously€not€speaking€of€the€Indiana€legislature,€the€above€opinionÏis€in€keeping€with€the€policy€behind€Indianaððs€environmental€statutes,€including€the€USTA.׃?×Ý ƒ.#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ” ä Ðà  àAccordingly,€we€conclude€the€trial€courtððs€decision€as€to€the€paralegal€and€otherÏmiscellaneous€fees€was€neither€clearly€against€the€logic€and€effect€of€the€facts€andÏcircumstances€before€it€nor€a€misinterpretation€of€the€law.€œñºñ€ñºñ›œñºñBecause›€the›€trial›€court›€was›€within›€its›€discretion›€in›€including›€these›€expenses›€under›€ð ðattorneyððs›€fees›€and›€court›€costs,ðð›€we›€affirm›€its›€›judgment.›ñ¸ñ€€ñ¸ññºññ¹ñTo€the€extent€the€trial€courtÏincluded€these€expenses€under€ð ðattorneyððs€fees€and€court€costs,ðð€it€was€within€its€discretionÏand€we€affirm€its€judgment.€€However,€we€point€out€that,€like€the€other€attorneysðð€feesÏdiscussed€in€Part€VII,€Subpart€A,€these€fees€must€also€be€remanded€for€an€appropriateÏseparation€according€to€issues.Ô#†XÂX ŠŠÄ#ÔÔ‡ŠÄ ŠXXÂÔñ¹ñ›Ð \¬ Ðà@""ìàòòà@@""ìàC.€€Hearing€on€Supplemental€FeesóóˆÐ T¤ Ðà  àThe€Oil€Companies€next€contend€that€the€trial€courtððs€award€of€the€supplementalÏattorneysðð€fees€without€a€hearing€was€a€denial€of€due€process.€€In€support€they€cite€just€oneÏcase:€€òòœLeibowitz›€v.€Mooreóó,€436€N.E.2d€899,€900€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1982).€€The€LandownersÐ