Alcoa 2013 Annual Report Download - page 57

As previously reported, in August 2005, Dany Lavoie, a resident of Baie Comeau in the Canadian Province of Québec,
filed a Motion for Authorization to Institute a Class Action and for Designation of a Class Representative against Alcoa
Canada Ltd., Alcoa Limitée, Societe Canadienne de Metaux Reynolds Limitée and Canadian British Aluminum in the
Superior Court of Québec in the District of Baie Comeau. Plaintiff seeks to institute the class action on behalf of a
putative class consisting of all past, present and future owners, tenants and residents of Baie Comeau’s St. Georges
neighborhood. He alleges that defendants, as the present and past owners and operators of an aluminum smelter in Baie
Comeau, have negligently allowed the emission of certain contaminants from the smelter, specifically Polycyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbons or “PAHs,” that have been deposited on the lands and houses of the St. Georges neighborhood
and its environs causing damage to the property of the putative class and causing health concerns for those who inhabit
that neighborhood. Plaintiff originally moved to certify a class action, sought to compel additional remediation to be
conducted by the defendants beyond that already undertaken by them voluntarily, sought an injunction against further
emissions in excess of a limit to be determined by the court in consultation with an independent expert, and sought
money damages on behalf of all class members. In May 2007, the court authorized a class action suit to include only
people who suffered property damage or personal injury damages caused by the emission of PAHs from the smelter. In
September 2007, plaintiffs filed the claim against the original defendants, which the court had authorized in May.
Alcoa has filed its Statement of Defense and plaintiffs filed an Answer to that Statement. Alcoa also filed a Motion for
Particulars with respect to certain paragraphs of plaintiffs’ Answer and a Motion to Strike with respect to certain
paragraphs of plaintiffs’ Answer. In late 2010, the Court denied these motions. The Soderberg smelting process that
plaintiffs allege to be the source of emissions of concern have ceased operations and are being dismantled. No further
formal court proceedings or discovery has occurred, while technical advisors nominated by agreement of the parties
confer on potential health impacts of prior emissions. This protocol has been agreed to by the parties who have also
advised the court regarding the process. The plaintiffs have not quantified the damages sought. Without such amount
and given the various damages alleged, at this stage of the proceeding the Company is unable to reasonably predict an
outcome or to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss.
As previously reported, in January 2006, in Musgrave v. Alcoa, et al., Warrick Circuit Court, County of Warrick,
Indiana; 87-C01-0601-CT-0006, Alcoa Inc. and a subsidiary were sued by an individual, on behalf of himself and all
persons similarly situated, claiming harm from alleged exposure to waste that had been disposed in designated pits at
the Squaw Creek Mine in the 1970s. During February 2007, class allegations were dropped and the matter proceeded as
an individual claim. Alcoa filed a renewed motion to dismiss (arguing that the claims are barred by the Indiana
Workers’ Compensation Act), amended its answer to include Indiana’s Recreational Use Statute as an affirmative
defense and filed a motion for summary judgment based on the Recreational Use Statute. The court granted Alcoa’s
motion to dismiss regarding plaintiffs’ occupationally-related claims and denied the motion regarding plaintiffs’
recreationally-related claims. On January 17, 2012, the court denied all outstanding motions with no opinion issued. A
jury trial commenced on April 10, 2012 and on May 1, 2012 the jury returned a verdict in favor of defendants Alcoa
Inc. and its subsidiary. The court entered its judgment on May 14, 2012. On May 31, 2012, plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal. On August, 6, 2013, the Indiana Court of Appeals issued a unanimous opinion affirming the jury verdict in
favor of Alcoa. The Court of Appeals also affirmed the trial court’s pre-trial ruling dismissing Mr. Musgrave’s
work-related exposure claims as barred by Indiana’s Workers’ Compensation Act. The Musgraves’ petition for
rehearing filed on September 5, 2013 was denied by the Court of Appeals on October 16, 2013. On November 14,
2013, plaintiffs filed a petition for review at the Indiana Supreme Court. A decision on allowing the appeal has not
been rendered.
Also as previously reported, in October 2006, in Barnett, et al. v. Alcoa and Alcoa Fuels, Inc., Warrick Circuit Court,
County of Warrick, Indiana; 87-C01-0601-PL-499, forty-one plaintiffs sued Alcoa Inc. and a subsidiary, asserting
claims similar to the Musgrave matter, discussed above. In November 2007, Alcoa Inc. and its subsidiary filed motions
to dismiss both the Musgrave and Barnett cases. In October 2008, the Warrick County Circuit Court granted Alcoa’s
motions to dismiss, dismissing all claims arising out of alleged occupational exposure to wastes at the Squaw Creek
Mine, but in November 2008, the trial court clarified its ruling, indicating that the order does not dispose of plaintiffs’
personal injury claims based upon alleged “recreational” or non-occupational exposure. Plaintiffs also filed a “second
amended complaint” in response to the court’s orders granting Alcoa’s motions to dismiss. On July 7, 2010, the court
granted the parties’ joint motions for a general continuance of trial settings. Discovery in this matter is stayed pending
41