Price Trucking Corp. v. Norampac Industries, Inc., 748 F.3d 75

Norampac owned a contaminated Erie County, NY parcel and entered a Brownfield Site Cleanup Agreement with the NYDEC, then contracted AAA Environmental to perform remediation.
AAA subcontracted soil transport/disposal to Price Trucking; Price completed work consistent with contracts and regs but AAA stopped paying in Oct 2008.
Norampac had paid AAA over $3 million in progress payments and made some direct payments to Price after AAA defaulted; DEC certified the cleanup complete.
Price sued Norampac under CERCLA § 9607 seeking unpaid response costs when Price could not recover the balance from AAA; Price obtained partial recovery in state mechanic’s-lien litigation but pursued the federal claim for the remainder.
The district court granted Price summary judgment on liability under CERCLA; the Second Circuit reversed, holding CERCLA does not obligate an owner who has paid its contractor to pay subcontractors a second time.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CERCLA § 9607 permits a subcontractor to recover direct response costs from an owner who already paid the general contractor in full	Price: CERCLA imposes strict liability for necessary response costs and so owner remains liable until all participants are made whole	Norampac: Liability is discharged when owner pays for the cleanup per its contracts and the cleanup is completed; CERCLA does not make the owner a surety to subcontractor claims	Held: Reversed. CERCLA does not create a right for subcontractors to recover from an owner who has paid the contractor for the work; owner’s payments discharged its § 9607 liability in these circumstances

W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn. v. Zotos Int’l, Inc., 559 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2009) (response costs are liberally construed under CERCLA)
Marsh v. Rosenbloom, 499 F.3d 165 (2d Cir. 2007) (CERCLA does not preempt state law where statute is silent)
B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Murtha, 958 F.2d 1192 (2d Cir. 1992) (elements for CERCLA cost-recovery liability)
Key Tronic Corp. v. United States, 511 U.S. 809 (1994) (CERCLA encourages private cost recovery but does not displace all state-law rules)
New York v. Shore Realty Corp., 759 F.2d 1032 (2d Cir. 1985) (CERCLA imposes strict liability)
Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 596 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 2010) (discussing CERCLA’s strict-liability purpose and legislative history)
Schiavone v. Pearce, 79 F.3d 248 (2d Cir. 1996) (CERCLA’s remedial purpose: place cleanup costs on responsible parties)
Commander Oil Corp. v. Barlo Equip. Corp., 215 F.3d 321 (2d Cir. 2000) (CERCLA cost-recovery is not absolute)