Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2012

Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

NOTE 18: COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

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 the first and third quarters of 2011, we were awarded $25,546,000 and $24,111,000, respectively, 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 have been involved in a number of legal proceedings related to Martin Marietta’s unsolicited exchange offer as described in Part II, Item 4, Legal Proceedings.

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.

SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION

¡ CLASS-ACTION COMPLAINTS — Four putative class-action complaints challenging Vulcan’s response to the Martin Marietta exchange offer have been filed against Vulcan and its directors. Three of these complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey: City of Southfield Police & Fire Retirement Systems v. Carroll, et al., No. 11-cv-07416 (the “Southfield Action”); Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System v. Carroll, et al., No. 11-cv-7571 (the “Louisiana Municipal Action”); and Stationary Engineers Local 39 Pension Trust Fund v. Carroll, et al., No. 12-cv-00349 (the “Stationary Engineers Action”). The fourth complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division: KBC Asset Management NV v. James, et al., No. 11-cv-04323 (the “KBC Action”). The Southfield and Louisiana Municipal Actions were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by the plaintiffs on July 19, 2012. Thus we will not report on these matters further.

The Stationary Engineers and KBC Actions were brought on behalf of a putative class of Vulcan shareholders and allege that the Company’s directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their response to the exchange offer. The complaints also purport to assert claims derivatively on behalf of Vulcan. Both complaints seek, among other things, an injunction barring the named defendants from adopting any defensive measures in connection with the exchange offer, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs.

On February 1, 2012, Vulcan filed a motion to transfer venue in the KBC Action to the District of New Jersey. On February 15, 2012, on stipulation of the parties, the New Jersey court ordered plaintiffs to file a consolidated complaint within a “reasonable time” after the actions were consolidated. On February 28, 2012, the Alabama court granted Vulcan’s motion and transferred the KBC Action to the District of New Jersey.

Various motions and related items (whether procedural, discovery-related and/or substantive in nature) occur from time to time with respect to these matters.

Vulcan and its directors believe the lawsuits are meritless.

¡ IRELAND LITIGATION — On May 25, 2012, another shareholder lawsuit was filed in state court in Jefferson County, Alabama, styled Glenn Ireland II, and William C. Ireland, Jr., Derivatively on behalf of Vulcan Materials Company v. Donald M. James, et al., Case No. CV-2012-901655. The lawsuit was amended to add the Charles Byron Ireland Trust. This lawsuit is brought as a derivative action against the current Board of Directors and two former directors. It makes claims of breaches of fiduciary duty and mismanagement by the defendants based primarily upon (i) Vulcan’s merger with Florida Rock, (ii) the compensation of the CEO of Vulcan, and (iii) the Martin Marietta hostile takeover bid. The Company and its directors believe the lawsuit is meritless and filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on July 20, 2012.

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 13. 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 May 6, 2013.

¡ 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.

¡ 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. The Court has entered a dismissal of all plaintiffs’ claims, with prejudice, in this case. All cross-claims against Vulcan have also been dismissed. Therefore, we will not report on this matter further.

¡ 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. In light of the fact that this matter has been dormant for more than a year, we will not report on this matter further until such time as there is a 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.

LOWER PASSAIC RIVER MATTERS

¡ 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 originally brought by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) in the New Jersey Superior Court. Vulcan was brought into 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. The EPA has not released the final FFS. As an interim step related to the 2007 AOC, Vulcan and sixty-nine (69) other companies voluntarily entered into an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent on June 18, 2012 with the EPA for remediation actions focused at River Mile 10.9 in the lower Passaic River. Estimated costs related to this focused remediation action are immaterial and have been accrued. On June 25, 2012, the EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order for Removal Response Activities to Occidental Chemical Corporation ordering Occidental to participate and cooperate in this remediation action at River Mile 10.9.

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 our most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K.