This case involved a CERCLA site in NY that was contaminated with excessive amounts of lead and defendant (landowner) entered into agreement with NY Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC) to cleanup the parcel; defendant contracted with third party to perform cleanup work, and third party subcontracted with plaintiff to transport and dispose of contaminated soil. The third party ultimately stopped paying plaintiff and plaintiff insisted that defendant pay plaintiff directly for all subsequent services which was done. When the project was complete, plaintiff couldn't recover balance of payments owed to it from third party and sued defendant for that balance based on 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9607 (liability for CERCLA response costs) which plaintiff claimed pinned liability on the landowner until all parties who contributed to cleanup were made whole for all costs of their work. The court determined that CERCLA did not require the landowner to ensure that a subcontractor was made whole for their work and noted that the defendant had already borne the cost of its actions; court noted that there was no privity of contract between contractor and subcontractor). Price Trucking Corp v. Norampac Industries, Inc., No. 11-2917-cv, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5093 (2d Cir. Mar. 18, 2014).