Vidiot said: Almost makes it sound like just another attempted money grab.
I doubt there is any 'Almost' about it.
If either of the colleges had proceeded with construction, they would have needed to hire engineers, bore test and monitoring wells, and hire site cleanup contractors at full going rates.
While WT would need to have of the same test and monitoring wells and specialty knowledge on site decontamination, most if not all of the work would be completed by volunteer labor utilizing excavation and hauling equipment already owned by WT for development of the site. Though the actual cost of cleanup would probably be a fraction of the cost of that charged by an outside contractor, if there is a claim due, I expect WT would then claim a marked-up price as though the work was completed by a hired contractor.
While some may consider that as dishonest, I think it makes good business sense. The WT is the contractor dealing with a contamination issue not caused by itself.
If you personally built the house you live in and later sustain a loss so that part of that house needs to be repaired through insurance, should insurance only reimburse the cost of materials since the labor was free initially? If you plan to complete repairs yourself, should you be paid the full repair value, just as though the repair was hired-out to an outside contractor as it would be under most circumstances?
The issue at hand is, IF WT purchased the property at a lower cost in compensation for the known contamination issues, is there any cause for a claim against any prior owner?