Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2011

Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

NOTE 12: COMMITMENTS AND

CONTINGENCIES

We have commitments in the form of unconditional purchase obligations as of December 31, 2011. These include commitments for the purchase of property, plant & equipment of $3,745,000 and commitments for noncapital purchases of $67,532,000. These commitments are due as follows:

in thousands	Unconditional Purchase Obligations
Property, Plant & Equipment
2012		$3,745
Thereafter		0
Total		$3,745
Noncapital
2012		$18,907
2013–2014		19,790
2015–2016		7,497
Thereafter		21,338
Total		$67,532

Expenditures under the noncapital purchase commitments totaled $89,407,000 in 2011, $111,142,000 in 2010 and $99,838,000 in 2009.

We have commitments in the form of minimum royalties under mineral leases as of December 31, 2011 in the amount of $215,043,000, due as follows:

in thousands	Mineral Leases
Mineral Royalties
2012		$19,598
2013–2014		39,182
2015–2016		29,090
Thereafter		127,173
Total		$215,043

Expenditures for mineral royalties under mineral leases totaled $45,690,000 in 2011, $43,111,000 in 2010 and $43,501,000 in 2009.

We provide certain third parties with irrevocable standby letters of credit in the normal course of business. We use commercial banks to issue such letters of credit to back our obligations to pay or perform when required to do so according to the requirements of an underlying agreement. The standby letters of credit listed below are cancelable only at the option of the beneficiaries who are authorized to draw drafts on the issuing bank up to the face amount of the standby letter of credit in accordance with its terms. Our standby letters of credit as of December 31, 2011 are summarized in the table below:

in thousands
Standby Letters of Credit
Risk management requirement for insurance claims	$41,083
Payment surety required by utilities	133
Contractual reclamation/restoration requirements	8,186
Financing requirement for industrial revenue bond	14,230
Total	$63,632

Since banks consider standby letters of credit as contingent extensions of credit, we are required to pay a fee until they expire or are canceled. Substantially all of our standby letters of credit have a one-year term and are automatically renewed unless cancelled with the approval of the beneficiary. All of our outstanding standby letters of credit as of December 31, 2011 are backed by our $600,000,000 bank line of credit which expires December 15, 2016.

As described in Note 2, we may be required to make cash payments in the form of a transaction bonus to certain key former Chemicals employees. The transaction bonus is contingent upon the amounts received under the two earn-out agreements entered into in connection with the sale of the Chemicals business. Amounts due are payable annually based on the prior year’s results. Based on the total cumulative receipts from the two earn-outs, we paid $1,228,000 in transaction bonuses during 2011. Future expense, if any, is dependent upon our receiving sufficient cash receipts under the remaining (5CP) earn-out and will be accrued in the period the earn-out income is recognized.

As described in Note 9, our liability for unrecognized income tax benefits is $13,488,000 as of December 31, 2011.

In September 2001, we were named a defendant in a suit brought by the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) alleging damage to a 0.9-mile section of Joliet Road that bisects our McCook quarry in McCook, Illinois, a Chicago suburb. In 2010, we settled this lawsuit for $40,000,000 and recognized the full charge pending arbitration with our insurers. In 2011, we were awarded a total of $49,657,000 in payment of the insurers’ share of the settlement amount, attorneys’ fees and interest.

In December 2011, Martin Marietta made public an unsolicited exchange offer to acquire Vulcan and subsequently commenced an exchange offer for all outstanding shares of our common stock and initiated a proxy fight to elect a slate of directors to our Board. We are involved in a number of legal proceedings related to Martin Marietta’s unsolicited exchange offer.

We are subject to occasional governmental proceedings and orders pertaining to occupational safety and health or to protection of the environment, such as proceedings or orders relating to noise abatement, air emissions or water discharges. As part of our continuing program of stewardship in safety, health and environmental matters, we have been able to resolve such proceedings and to comply with such orders without any material adverse effects on our business.

We have received notices from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or similar state or local agencies that we are considered a potentially responsible party (PRP) at a limited number of sites under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) or similar state and local environmental laws. Generally we share the cost of remediation at these sites with other PRPs or alleged PRPs in accordance with negotiated or prescribed allocations. There is inherent uncertainty in determining the potential cost of remediating a given site and in determining any individual party’s share in that cost. As a result, estimates can change substantially as additional information becomes available regarding the nature or extent of site contamination, remediation methods, other PRPs and their probable level of involvement, and actions by or against governmental agencies or private parties.

We have reviewed the nature and extent of our involvement at each Superfund site, as well as potential obligations arising under other federal, state and local environmental laws. While ultimate resolution and financial liability is uncertain at a number of the sites, in our opinion based on information currently available, the ultimate resolution of claims and assessments related to these sites will not have a material effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows, although amounts recorded in a given period could be material to our results of operations or cash flows for that period. Amounts accrued for environmental matters are presented in Note 8.

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 legal proceedings are 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. Discovery has commenced on dry cleaners in the vicinity of the wells. At this time, plaintiffs have not established 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 October 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. The court recently ruled that any detectable amount of perc in a well constitutes a legal injury. Discovery is ongoing. 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.

§ 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. The trial court recently denied plaintiffs’ motions to certify both the direct and the indirect plaintiffs’ lawsuits as class actions, and dismissed the class allegations. Trial is scheduled for July 2012.

LOWER PASSAIC RIVER MATTER

NJDEP LITIGATION — In 2009, Vulcan and over 300 other parties were named as third-party defendants 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 (NJDEP) in the New Jersey Superior Court. Vulcan was named in the suit due to alleged discharges to the Lower Passaic River (River) from the former Chemicals Division - Newark Plant. This suit by the NJDEP 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. This case is in the discovery stage, and a liability trial is scheduled for April 2013, and a separate damages trial, if required, is scheduled for January 2014. At this time, we cannot reasonably estimate our liability related to this case because it is unclear what contaminants and legal issues will be presented at trial and the extent to which the Newark operation may have impacted the River.

LOWER PASSAIC RIVER STUDY AREA (SUPERFUND SITE) — Vulcan and approximately 70 other companies are parties to a May 2007 Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to perform a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) of the lower 17 miles of the River. Separately, the EPA issued a draft Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) that evaluated early action remedial alternatives for a portion of the River. The EPA’s range of estimated cost for these alternatives was between $0.9 billion and $2.3 billion, although estimates of the cost and timing of future environmental remediation requirements are inherently imprecise. As of February 2012, the EPA has not released the final FFS. At this time, we cannot reasonably estimate our liability related to this matter because the RI/FS is ongoing; the ultimate remedial approach and associated cost has not been determined; and the parties that will participate in funding the remediation and their respective allocations are not yet known.

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. Legal costs incurred in defense of lawsuits are expensed as incurred. 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 Note 1 under the caption Claims and Litigation Including Self-insurance.