Alcoa 2014 Annual Report Download - page 66

the substances alleged and that in any event the level of alleged exposure does not justify lifetime medical monitoring.
Alcoa and SCA turned over this matter to their insurance carriers who have been providing a defense. Glencore Ltd. is
jointly defending the case with Alcoa and SCA and has a pending motion to dismiss. In June 2008, the Court granted
defendants’ joint motion to decertify the original class of plaintiffs, and certified a new class as to the claim of ongoing
nuisance, insofar as plaintiffs seek cleanup, abatement, or removal of the red mud currently present at the facility. (The
named plaintiffs had previously dropped their claims for medical monitoring as a consequence of the court’s rejection
of plaintiffs’ proffered expert opinion testimony). The Court expressly denied certification of a class as to any claims
for remediation or cleanup of any area outside the facility (including plaintiffs’ property). The new class could seek
only injunctive relief rather than monetary damages. Named plaintiffs, however, could continue to prosecute their
claims for personal injury, property damage, and punitive damages. In August 2009, in response to defendants’
motions, the Court dismissed the named plaintiffs’ claims for personal injury and punitive damages, and denied the
motion with respect to their property damage claims. In September 2009, the Court granted defendants’ motion for
summary judgment on the class plaintiffs’ claim for injunctive relief. In October 2009, plaintiffs appealed the Court’s
summary judgment order dismissing the claim for injunctive relief and in March 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit dismissed plaintiffs’ appeal of that order. In September 2011, the parties reached an oral agreement to
settle the remaining claims in the case which would resolve the personal property damage claims of the 12 remaining
individual plaintiffs. On March 12, 2012, final judgment was entered in the District Court for the District of the Virgin
Islands. Alcoa’s share of the settlement is fully insured. On March 23, 2012, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of
numerous non-settled matters, including but not limited to discovery orders, Daubert rulings, summary judgment
rulings, as more clearly set out in the settlement agreement/release between the parties. Plaintiffs’ appellate brief was
filed in the Third Circuit Court on January 4, 2013, together with a motion seeking leave to file a brief of excess length.
The court has suspended the remainder of the briefing schedule, including the date for Alcoa’s reply brief, until it rules
on plaintiffs’ motion to file its brief of excess length. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued a new scheduling order
regarding briefing in the matter. The matter has been fully briefed with plaintiffs’ brief filed on November 25, 2013
and the matter is now before the court. On July 10, 2014, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal by
the district court and the case is now concluded. There will be no further reporting of this matter.
Abednego. As previously reported, on January 14, 2010, Alcoa was served with a complaint involving approximately
2,900 individual persons claimed to be residents of St. Croix who are alleged to have suffered personal injury or
property damage from Hurricane Georges or winds blowing material from the property since the time of the hurricane.
This complaint, Abednego, et al. v. Alcoa, et al. was filed in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, St. Croix
Division. The complaint names as defendants the same entities as were sued in the February 1999 action earlier
described and have added as a defendant the current owner of the alumina facility property. In February 2010, Alcoa
and SCA removed the case to the federal court for the District of the Virgin Islands. Subsequently, plaintiffs filed
motions to remand the case to territorial court as well as a third amended complaint, and defendants have moved to
dismiss the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On March 17, 2011, the court granted
plaintiffs’ motion to remand to territorial court. Thereafter, Alcoa filed a motion for allowance of appeal. The motion
was denied on May 18, 2011. The parties await assignment of the case to a trial judge.
Phillip Abraham. As previously reported, on March 1, 2012, Alcoa was served with a complaint involving
approximately 200 individual persons claimed to be residents of St. Croix who are alleged to have suffered personal
injury or property damage from Hurricane Georges or winds blowing material from the property since the time of the
hurricane in September 1998. This complaint, Abraham, et al. v. Alcoa, et al. alleges claims essentially identical to
those set forth in the Abednego v. Alcoa complaint. The matter was originally filed in the Superior Court of the Virgin
Islands, St. Croix Division, on March 30, 2011. By motion filed March 12, 2012, Alcoa sought dismissal of this
complaint on several grounds, including failure to timely serve the complaint and being barred by the statute of
limitations. That motion is still pending.
Other Matters
As previously reported, along with various asbestos manufacturers and distributors, Alcoa and its subsidiaries as
premises owners are defendants in several hundred active lawsuits filed on behalf of persons alleging injury
44