Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund), a current owner of contaminated property (Superfund site) may be held liable for cleanup of the site and/or harm caused by the contamination even if the owner had nothing to do with the contamination that occurred i.e. it occurred prior to the current owner purchasing the property. This is often the case if the "contaminating owner" either cannot be located or is judgment proof. This has led to a hesitancy by companies to purchase properties designated as Superfund sites, and to expend company resources cleaning up the property, due to the liability the company may "inherit" simply by purchasing the land. Some have argued that current or new owners, ones that did not contribute to the contamination itself, should be insulated from liability and thereby encouraged to purchase and clean up these problematic properties.

Is the CERCLA liability standard too strict, and should companies be insulated from liability associated with contamination if the company had nothing to do with the contaminating act(s)? If new buyers are insulated from liability, is that a disincentive to clean up contaminated waste sites? Explain.