The remediation of decades-old hazardous waste sites has increasingly prompted defendants in CERCLA cases to assert the statute of limitations as a defense, revealing two inflection points that the CERCLA practitioner must navigate.  The first is whether a party has asserted a cost-recovery claim under CERCLA Section 107(a) or a contribution claim under Section 113(f).  Because the two causes of action contain different limitations periods, the application of CERCLA’s statute of limitations depends on which of these mutually exclusive remedies is sought. The second is when the statute of limitations accrues or starts to run, a seemingly simple question that has spawned a host of complex litigation.  Although some of these questions may be answered by the Supreme Court in Guam v. United States, many of these issues will continue to present difficulties for parties involved in the cleanup of legacy hazardous waste sites.

Read our analysis of this rapidly developing area of law HERE.