Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

NOTE 19: COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

We are a defendant in various lawsuits in the ordinary course of business. It is not possible to determine with precision the outcome, or the amount of liability, if any, under these lawsuits, especially where the cases involve possible jury trials with as yet undetermined jury panels.

In addition to these lawsuits in which we are involved in the ordinary course of business, certain other material legal proceedings are more specifically described below. At this time, we cannot determine the likelihood or reasonably estimate a range of loss pertaining to these matters.

PERCHLOROETHYLENE CASES

We are a defendant in cases involving perchloroethylene (perc), which was a product manufactured by our former Chemicals business. Perc is a cleaning solvent used in dry cleaning and other industrial applications. These cases involve various allegations of groundwater contamination or exposure to perc allegedly resulting in personal injury. Vulcan is vigorously defending all of these cases, which are listed below:

■ CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY — On June 6, 2008, we were served in an action styled California Water Service Company v. Dow, et al., now pending in the San Mateo County Superior Court, California. According to the complaint, California Water Service Company “owns and/or operates public drinking water systems, and supplies drinking water to hundreds of thousands of residents and businesses throughout California.” The complaint alleges that water wells in a number of communities have been contaminated with perc. The plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages and punitive damages. As a result of the discovery to date, which has focused principally on issues such as legal injury (as defined by the maximum contaminant level for perc) and the statute of limitations, the number of wells at issue has been reduced from 244 to 14. Recently, plaintiffs identified 63 dry cleaners that allegedly used perc in the vicinity of the 14 wells at issue, and discovery has commenced on those dry cleaners. At this time, plaintiffs have not established that our perc was used at any specific dry cleaner or that we are liable for any alleged contamination of a specific well.

■ CITY OF SUNNYVALE CALIFORNIA — On January 6, 2009, we were served in an action styled City of Sunnyvale v. Legacy Vulcan Corporation, f/k/a Vulcan Materials Company, filed in the San Mateo County Superior Court, California. The plaintiffs are seeking cost recovery and other damages for alleged environmental contamination from perc and its breakdown products at the Sunnyvale Town Center Redevelopment Project. Based on the discovery to date, we do not believe that plaintiffs can meet their burden of proof to establish that our perc was used at sites in a redevelopment project area or that we are liable for any alleged contamination. Discovery is ongoing. Trial is scheduled for September 2012.

■ SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY — On July 29, 2010, we were served in an action styled Suffolk County Water Authority v. The Dow Chemical Company, et al., in the Supreme Court for Suffolk County, State of New York. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff “owns and/or operates drinking water systems and supplies drinking water to thousands of residents and businesses, in Suffolk County, New York.” The complaint alleges that perc and its breakdown products “have been and are contaminating and damaging Plaintiff’s drinking water supply wells.” The plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages. At this time, plaintiffs have not established that our perc was used at any specific dry cleaner, much less that we are liable for any alleged contamination. Discovery is being phased, with the initial focus on legal injury and the statute of limitations. Phase One discovery is now closed and we have filed a partial motion for summary judgment on these issues.

■ ADDAIR — This is a purported class action case for medical monitoring and personal injury damages styled Addair et al. v. Processing Company, LLC, et al., pending in the Circuit Court of Wyoming County, West Virginia. The plaintiffs allege various personal injuries from exposure to perc used in coal sink labs. By Order dated September 20, 2011, the Court denied class action certification.

■ WEST VIRGINIA COAL SINK LAB LITIGATION — This is a mass tort action consisting of over 100 cases filed in 17 different counties in West Virginia from September 1 to October 13, 2010, for medical monitoring and personal injury damages for exposure to perc and carbon tetrachloride used in coal sink labs. The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, in an order entered January 19, 2011, transferred all of these cases (referred to as Jeffrey Blount v. Arkema, Inc., et al.) to the West Virginia Mass Litigation Panel. Discovery is ongoing. The panel has scheduled a trial of some or all of this matter for September 2012.

■ SANTARSIERO — This is a case styled Robert Santarsiero v. R.V. Davies, et al., pending in Supreme Court, New York County, New York. We were brought in as a third-party defendant by original defendant R.V. Davies. The plaintiff, who was alleging perc exposure, is now deceased. The case has been stayed pending further information about this development.

■ R.R. STREET INDEMNITY — Street, a former distributor of perc manufactured by us, alleges that we owe Street, and its insurer (National Union), a defense and indemnity in several of these litigation matters, as well as some prior litigation which we have now settled. National Union alleges that we are obligated to contribute to National Union’s share of defense fees, costs and any indemnity payments made on Street’s behalf. We have had discussions with Street about the nature and extent of indemnity obligations, if any, and to date there has been no resolution of these issues.

FLORIDA ANTITRUST LITIGATION — Our subsidiary, Florida Rock Industries, Inc., has been named as a defendant in a number of class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The lawsuits were filed by several ready-mixed concrete producers and construction companies against a number of concrete and cement producers and importers in Florida. There are now two consolidated amended complaints: (1) on behalf of direct independent ready-mixed concrete producers, and (2) on behalf of indirect users of ready-mixed concrete. The other defendants include Cemex Inc., Tarmac America LLC, and VCNA Prestige Ready-Mix Florida, Inc. The complaints allege various violations under the federal antitrust laws, including price fixing and market allocations. We have no reason to believe that Florida Rock is liable for any of the matters alleged in the complaint, and we are defending the case vigorously. Discovery is ongoing. Trial is scheduled for July 2012.

IDOT/JOLIET ROAD — In September 2001, we were named a defendant in a suit brought by the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT), in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, Illinois, alleging damage to a 0.9-mile section of Joliet Road that bisects our McCook quarry in McCook, Illinois, a Chicago suburb. On May 18, 2010, we settled this lawsuit for $40,000,000 and recognized the full settlement as a charge to operations in the second quarter of 2010. Under the terms of the settlement we paid IDOT $20,000,000 in May 2010 and we paid the second installment of $20,000,000 on February 17, 2011. We have taken appropriate actions, including participating in two arbitrations in 2011, to recover the settlement amount in excess of the self-insured retention of $2,000,000, as well as a portion of our defense costs, from our insurers. In February 2011, we completed the first arbitration with two of our three insurers. The arbitration panel awarded us a total of $25,546,000 in payment of the insurers’ share of the settlement amount and attorneys’ fees. This award was recorded as income in the first quarter of 2011. In September 2011, we completed the second arbitration with the third and final insurer. The arbitration panel awarded us a total of $24,111,000 in payment of the third insurer’s share of the settlement amount, attorneys’ fees and interest. This award was recorded in the third quarter of 2011.

LOWER PASSAIC RIVER CLEAN-UP — We have been sued as a third-party defendant in New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, et al. v. Occidental Chemical Corporation, et al., a case brought by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection in the New Jersey Superior Court. The third-party complaint was filed on February 4, 2009. This suit by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection seeks recovery of past and future clean-up costs, as well as unspecified economic damages, punitive damages, penalties and a variety of other forms of relief arising from alleged discharges into the Lower Passaic River (the “River”) of dioxin and other unspecified hazardous substances. Our former Chemicals business operated a plant adjacent to the River and has been sued, along with approximately 300 other third-party defendants. This case is in the early stages of discovery. It is unclear at this time what contaminants and legal issues will ultimately be presented at trial or what parties will ultimately participate in the trial. It is also unknown at this time, what, if any, substances we may have discharged into the River. A liability trial is scheduled for April 2013. A separate damages trial, if required, is scheduled for January 2014. Additionally, Vulcan and approximately 70 other companies are parties to a May 2007 Administrative Order of Consent with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to perform a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study of the contamination in the lower 17 miles of the River. This study is ongoing and may take several more years to complete.

It is not possible to predict with certainty the ultimate outcome of these and other legal proceedings in which we are involved and a number of factors, including developments in ongoing discovery or adverse rulings, could cause actual losses to differ materially from accrued costs. No liability was recorded for claims and litigation for which a loss was determined to be only reasonably possible or for which a loss could not be reasonably estimated. In addition, losses on certain claims and litigation described above may be subject to limitations on a per occurrence basis by excess insurance, as described in our most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K.