Hi ^redacted‌, interesting question. And my response is by necessity an overview of some of the issues. (1) What's the hazardous material, what are the known occupational risks, have employees sued employers elsewhere as a result of those risks, and , if so, what were the outcomes in those lawsuits? Proving harm from occupational exposure can be difficult. In certain cases, like asbestos, there is a clear causal link between exposure and disease. But that is rarely the case and many lawsuits fail on this basis. (2) Where's the business located? Tort law reform is real, and some jurisdiction have restrictions in place hampering the ability of plaintiffs to sue. These can include evidentiary and procedural standards, but also short statute of limitations periods. It may also limited the availability of joint and several liability. Additionally, claims based on successor liability typically turn on state law (even if related to a federal claim). Based on the above, the risk of occupational harm may be real. But the risk to you as the buyer may be minimal. As a starting point, the seller should indemnify the buyer. The degree to which you will want to give those indemnities teeth (e.g., through a long survival period and an indemnity escrow) will also depend on the above. Finally, you're interested in discussing how to protect yourself from historic activities. But you should also consider the ongoing risk of employee claims and how those claims could overlap. There is no bright-line from an employee's perspective. Was it pre or post sale exposure that caused their illness? The employee will sue both buyer and seller. The seller will fight the idea that it was exposure on his watch that caused the harm.