Legal Assistance for Asbestos Problems

Questioner

The following problem concerns asbestos in the soil: We bought our house about 2 years ago. The purchase contract states that the selling party is 'not aware of the presence of asbestos on the property', apart from the roof panels that were discovered during the building inspection. We recently had excavation work done in the garden (demolition of old shed incl. foundation). The shed itself did not contain asbestos. Two large piles of sand were dug up (approx. 50 m3) under the shed, one of which was spread directly over our pasture. In the other mountain we have now found pieces of asbestos sheet. In the pasture there are now also damaged pieces of asbestos sheet here and there. We believe that the selling party could reasonably have known that rubble/asbestos had been put in the ground during their own renovation at the time and therefore did not tell the truth when they stated 'that the selling party was not aware of this'. On the other hand, we ourselves did not have any research carried out after the ruling that the seller was not known and the ground did not necessarily have to be excavated for good habitability. To what extent can the selling party subsequently be held liable for (part of) the costs of remediation?

Lawyer

The statement in the purchase agreement that the seller was not aware of the presence of asbestos on the site meant that you had a heavier obligation to investigate whether the site was asbestos-free. You failed to do so and now, 2 years later, you have discovered that there is asbestos in the ground and on the site. In my opinion, this shortcoming is therefore at your expense and risk, unless you can demonstrate that the seller was or should have been aware of the presence of asbestos and deliberately concealed this. I think this would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove. I previously dealt with a similar case in which the court of appeal made a ruling (http://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:GHARL:2014:4235).