Belter v. City of Burlington (2025 VT 35): Refining Party-Joinder and Municipal-Immunity Doctrine in Vermont Environmental Tort Litigation

Introduction

Belter v. City of Burlington is a 2025 decision of the Vermont Supreme Court addressing liability for PFAS contamination emanating from Burlington International Airport onto neighboring farmland. The plaintiffs—four members of the Belter family and their family partnership—sued the City of Burlington (the Airport’s owner) on multiple tort and statutory theories. The trial court dismissed the action, reasoning that (1) the United States and the Vermont Air National Guard (VANG) were indispensable parties under V.R.C.P. 19 whose sovereign immunity barred their joinder, and (2) the City enjoyed municipal immunity for most counts.

On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the single negligence count tied directly to firefighting activities (Count 1) but revived the remaining claims (trespass, nuisance, de facto taking, Groundwater Protection Act violation, and direct-negligence drainage claims). The Court clarified how Rule 19 interacts with Vermont’s “no-contribution” rule among joint tort-feasors and refined the governmental/proprietary distinction central to municipal immunity.

Summary of the Judgment

• Counts and Dismissals: Trial court had dismissed all seven counts; Count 6 (surface-drainage) was later voluntarily dismissed, leaving Counts 1-5 & 7 on appeal.
• Rule 19 Holding: United States and VANG are necessary parties only for Count 1 (negligent firefighting). They are not necessary for claims premised on the City’s independent failure to contain existing contamination.
• Municipal Immunity: Court remanded for fact-specific analysis whether airport operation/maintenance is a proprietary function; firefighting itself remains governmental.
• Outcome: Count 1 dismissal affirmed; Counts 2-5 & 7 reinstated and remanded.

Detailed Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• American Trucking Ass’n v. NY Thruway Authority, 795 F.3d 351 (2d Cir. 2015) – Adopted abuse-of-discretion standard for Rule 19 dismissals.
• Laker Airways, Inc. v. British Airways, PLC, 182 F.3d 843 (11th Cir. 1999) – “Active-participant” test for joinder; applied only to Count 1.
• Haupt v. Triggs, 2022 VT 61 – Reaffirmed Vermont’s no-contribution among joint tortfeasors; decisive in holding U.S./VANG not necessary for other counts.
• Welsh v. Village of Rutland, 56 Vt. 228 (1883) & related Vermont immunity cases – Groundwork for governmental vs. proprietary distinction.
• Courchesne v. Town of Weathersfield, 2003 VT 62 – Proprietary conduct when municipality operates for its own pecuniary benefit; used by Court to cast doubt on immunity for airport operations.

These authorities collectively guided the Court: federal joinder jurisprudence set the procedural lens; long-standing Vermont immunity cases framed the substantive inquiry; and recent “no-contribution” precedent underscored plaintiffs’ right to pick their defendant without forced joinder.

2. Court’s Legal Reasoning

a. Rule 19 Analysis

1. Necessary Party Step (19(a)):
   • Count 1: Because it alleged negligent firefighting “on multiple occasions,” liability would turn on VANG/U.S. conduct; absence could prejudice them and risk inconsistent findings—thus necessary.
   • Counts 2-5 & 7: Claims focused on the City’s post-contamination conduct—storm-water management, containment, property maintenance—not on how PFAS originally entered the soil. Under Vermont’s no-contribution rule, the City couldn’t seek contribution from U.S./VANG; therefore no “substantial risk” of multiple/inconsistent obligations.
2. Indispensability Step (19(b)): Reached only for Count 1; court agreed non-joinable sovereign parties mandated dismissal of that count.

b. Municipal Immunity

The trial court’s blanket governmental-function label (firefighting) was too narrow. The Supreme Court emphasized that immunity hinges on the “purpose of the activity at the root of plaintiffs’ complaint.” Maintenance and operation of an airport—often revenue-generating—may be proprietary. The Court ordered fact-finding on:

• Extent to which the City profits from airport leases, concessions, or fees.
• Whether the challenged conduct (storm-water design, land upkeep) primarily serves municipal revenue goals versus public-at-large protection.
• Insurance coverage, which can waive immunity under Vermont law.

3. Anticipated Impact

• Joinder Doctrine: Clarifies that in Vermont environmental-tort suits, governmental co-polluters with sovereign immunity are not automatically indispensable; plaintiffs can target the landowner/operator alone when relief sought is containment or abatement.
• Municipal Liability: Signals closer scrutiny of immunity claims where municipalities operate quasi-commercial enterprises (airports, utilities, landfills). Courts must disaggregate discrete activities (e.g., firefighting vs. revenue leasing).
• PFAS Litigation: Provides a roadmap for state-court plaintiffs sidestepping federal multidistrict PFAS battles by focusing on local containment duties.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• PFAS: A family of man-made “forever chemicals” used in firefighting foam; persist in environment and linked to health risks.
• Rule 19 (Necessary vs. Indispensable Parties): Necessary – Party whose interests might be harmed if absent or whose absence risks conflicting obligations. Indispensable – If such a necessary party cannot be joined (e.g., sovereign immunity), the court must decide whether to dismiss the case.
• No-Contribution Rule: In Vermont, a defendant found liable in tort cannot seek to split the damages bill with other tortfeasors unless a statute allows it. This weakens arguments that absentee tortfeasors must be joined.
• Governmental vs. Proprietary Functions: Governmental acts serve the public at large with no profit motive (e.g., police, fire). Proprietary acts resemble private enterprise benefiting municipal coffers (e.g., utility sales, airport leases). Immunity generally attaches only to the former.

Conclusion

Belter v. City of Burlington reshapes two cornerstones of Vermont civil litigation: party-joinder under Rule 19 and the scope of municipal immunity. The Supreme Court’s nuanced approach distinguishes between contamination creation (linked to federal actors) and contamination containment (within municipal control), allowing plaintiffs to press forward on the latter without procedurally fatal joinder requirements. Simultaneously, the decision cautions municipalities that operating profit-oriented facilities may strip them of sovereign shields, particularly when environmental harms result. Practitioners should treat Belter as the leading Vermont authority when litigating local environmental torts intersecting with federal entities or when evaluating whether a municipality’s conduct is “governmental” or “proprietary.”