|
4756 REVIEW DENIED Ground contamination is abatable and therefore is properly the subject of an action for continuing nuisance; a claim of damage consisting of the differential between the interest rate plaintiff was paying and a lower interest rate that plaintiff could have been paying had a lender not refused to refinance because of the ground contamination is indistinguishable from a claim for diminution in property value and is not available in an action for continuing nuisance.CitationGEHR v BAKER HUGHES (Interest Rate Nuisance) 165 CA4 660 [See: Santa Fe Partnership v ARCO 46 CA4 967, T/AT 7/96; Mangini v Aerojet-General 230 CA3 1125]
|
|
