There is an exception to this general rule, however, where the PRP seeking to recover cleanup costs is an “innocent landowner.” See Bedford Affiliates, supra, 156 F.3d at 425 (“... we hold that a potentially responsible person under § 107(a) that is not entitled to any of the defenses enumerated under § 107(b) ... cannot maintain a § 107(a) action against another potentially responsible person”); New Castle County v. Halliburton NUS Corp., 111 F.3d 1116, 1124 (3d Cir.1997) (“... a potentially responsible person under section 107(a), who is not entitled to any of the defenses enumerated under section 107(b), may not bring a section 107 action against another potentially responsible person”); Keystone Coke Co. v. Pasquale, No. CIV. A. 97-6074, 1999 WL 126917, * 2 (E.D.Pa. Mar.9, 1999) (<HOLDING>); Boyce v. Bumb, 944 F.Supp. 807, 812
holding officers proximately caused malicious prosecution even though innocent party made the decision to prosecute holding that a party who cannot satisfy the requirements of the innocent landowner defense set forth in  9607b cannot maintain a  9607a claim against another prp even if they are   innocent in the common sense meaning of that word  holding that purpose of the amendment was to clarify the definition of the word maintain holding that a plaintiff must comply with the notice of claim requirements in order to maintain an action against a government employee even if the plaintiff claims that the employee acted with fraud or malice holding that the word interest is to be understood in its ordinary senseto hold that congress intended to use the word in the sense of a penalty is contrary to all rules of interpretation and invokes a special definition of the word interest that is unwarranted citations omitted