| Commitments and Contingencies | NOTE 12. Commitments and Contingencies
Legal Proceedings:
T he Company and some of its subsidiaries are involved in numerous claims and lawsuits, principally in the United States, and regulatory proceedings worldwide. These include various products liability (involving products that the Company now or formerly manufactured and sold), intellectual property, and commercial claims and lawsuits, including those brought under the antitrust laws, and environmental proceedings. Unless otherwise stated, the Company is vigorously defending all such litigation. Additional information about the Company’s process for disclosure and recording of liabilities and insurance receivables related to legal proceedings can be found in Note 14 “Commitments and Contingencies” in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015 as updated by the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated May 17, 2016.
The following sections first describe the significant legal proceedings in which the Company is involved, and then describe the liabilities and associated insurance receivables the Company has accrued relating to its significant legal proceedings.
Respirator Mask/Asbestos Litigation
As of June 30, 2016 , the Company is a named defendant, with multiple co-defendants, in numerous lawsuits in various courts that purport to represent approximately 2,325 individual claimants, compared to approximately 2,130 individual claimants with actions pending at December 31, 2015 .
The vast majority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the Company allege use of some of the Company’s mask and respirator products and seek damages from the Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the workplace. A minority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the Company generally allege personal injury from occupational exposure to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the Company, which are often unspecified, as well as products manufactured by other defendants, or occasionally at Company premises.
The Company’s current volume of new and pending matters is substantially lower than it experienced at the peak of filings in 2003. The Company expects that filing of claims by unimpaired claimants in the future will continue to be at much lower levels than in the past. Accordingly, the number of claims alleging more serious injuries, including mesothelioma and other malignancies, will represent a greater percentage of total claims than in the past. The Company has prevailed in all ten cases taken to trial, including eight of the nine cases tried to verdict (such trials occurred in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2007, and 2015), and an appellate reversal in 2005 of the 2001 jury verdict adverse to the Company. The remaining case, tried in 2009, was dismissed by the court at the close of plaintiff’s evidence, based on the court’s legal finding that the plaintiff had not presented sufficient evidence to support a jury verdict. The plaintiff in the 2015 trial filed an appeal to the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District. In June 2016, the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment and jury verdict in favor of 3M, a decision that is final as the Plaintiff did not file an appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court.
The Company has demonstrated in these past trial proceedings that its respiratory protection products are effective as claimed when used in the intended manner and in the intended circumstances. Consequently the Company believes that claimants are unable to establish that their medical conditions, even if significant, are attributable to the Company’s respiratory protection products. Nonetheless the Company’s litigation experience indicates that claims of persons with malignant conditions are costlier to resolve than the claims of unimpaired persons, and it therefore believes the average cost of resolving pending and future claims on a per-claim basis will continue to be higher than it experienced in prior periods when the vast majority of claims were asserted by medically unimpaired claimants.
As previously reported, the State of West Virginia, through its Attorney General, filed a complaint in 2003 against the Company and two other manufacturers of respiratory protection products in the Circuit Court of Lincoln County, West Virginia and amended its complaint in 2005. The amended complaint seeks substantial, but unspecified, compensatory damages primarily for reimbursement of the costs allegedly incurred by the State for worker’s compensation and healthcare benefits provided to all workers with occupational pneumoconiosis and unspecified punitive damages. The case was inactive from the fourth quarter of 2007 until late 2013, other than a case management conference in March 2011. In November 2013, the State filed a motion to bifurcate the lawsuit into separate liability and damages proceedings. At the hearing on the motion, the court declined to bifurcate the lawsuit. No liability has been recorded for this matter because the Company believes that liability is not probable and estimable at this time. In addition, the Company is not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss given the lack of any meaningful discovery responses by the State of West Virginia, the otherwise minimal activity in this case and the fact that the complaint asserts claims against two other manufacturers where a defendant’s share of liability may turn on the law of joint and several liability and by the amount of fault, if any, a jury might allocate to each defendant if the case is ultimately tried.
Respirator Mask/Asbestos Liabilities and Insurance Receivables: The Company estimates its respirator mask/asbestos liabilities, including the cost to resolve the claims and defense costs, by examining: (i) the Company’s experience in resolving claims, (ii) apparent trends, (iii) the apparent quality of claims ( e.g., whether the claim has been asserted on behalf of asymptomatic claimants), (iv) changes in the nature and mix of claims ( e.g., the proportion of claims asserting usage of the Company’s mask or respirator products and alleging exposure to each of asbestos, silica, coal or other occupational dusts, and claims pleading use of asbestos-containing products allegedly manufactured by the Company), (v) the number of current claims and a projection of the number of future asbestos and other claims that may be filed against the Company, (vi) the cost to resolve recently settled claims, and (vii) an estimate of the cost to resolve and defend against current and future claims.
Developments may occur that could affect the Company’s estimate of its liabilities. These developments include, but are not limited to, significant changes in (i) the number of future claims, (ii) the average cost of resolving claims, (iii) the legal costs of defending these claims and in maintaining trial readiness, (iv) changes in the mix and nature of claims received, (v) trial and appellate outcomes, (vi) changes in the law and procedure applicable to these claims, and (vii) the financial viability of other co-defendants and insurers.
As a result of the Company’s cost of resolving claims of persons who claim more serious injuries, including mesothelioma and other malignancies, the Company increased its accruals in the first six months of 2016 for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities by $29 million, $18 million of which occurred in the second quarter of 2016. In the first six months of 2016 , the Company made payments for legal fees and settlements of $26 million related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation, $12 million of which occurred in the second quarter of 2016. As of June 30, 2016 , the Company had accruals for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities of $147 million (excluding Aearo accruals). This accrual represents the low end in a range of loss.
The Company cannot estimate the amount or upper end of the range of amounts by which the liability may exceed the accrual the Company has established because of the (i) inherent difficulty in projecting the number of claims that have not yet been asserted or the time period in which future claims may be asserted, (ii) the complaints nearly always assert claims against multiple defendants where the damages alleged are typically not attributed to individual defendants so that a defendant’s share of liability may turn on the law of joint and several liability, which can vary by state, (iii) the multiple factors described above that the Company considers in estimating its liabilities, and (iv) the several possible developments described above that may occur that could affect the Company’s estimate of liabilities.
As of June 30, 2016 , the Company’s receivable for insurance recoveries related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation was $4 million. The Company estimates insurance receivables based on an analysis of its policies, including their exclusions, pertinent case law interpreting comparable policies, its experience with similar claims, and an assessment of the nature of each claim and remaining coverage. The Company then records an amount it has concluded is likely to be recovered. Various factors could affect the timing and amount of recovery of this receivable, including (i) delays in or avoidance of payment by insurers; (ii) the extent to which insurers may become insolvent in the future, and (iii) the outcome of negotiations with insurers and legal proceedings with respect to respirator mask/asbestos liability insurance coverage.
As a result of a final arbitration decision in June 2016 regarding insurance coverage under two policies, 3M reversed its receivable for insurance recoveries related to respirator mask/asbestos litigation by $35 million. The Company is seeking coverage under the policies of certain insolvent insurers. Once those claims for coverage are resolved, the Company will have collected substantially all of its remaining insurance coverage for respirator mask/asbestos claims.
Respirator Mask/Asbestos Litigation — Aearo Technologies
On April 1, 2008, a subsidiary of the Company purchased the stock of Aearo Holding Corp., the parent of Aearo Technologies (“Aearo”). Aearo manufactured and sold various products, including personal protection equipment, such as eye, ear, head, face, fall and certain respiratory protection products.
As of June 30, 2016 , Aearo and/or other companies that previously owned and operated Aearo’s respirator business (American Optical Corporation, Warner-Lambert LLC, AO Corp. and Cabot Corporation (“Cabot”)) are named defendants, with multiple co-defendants, including the Company, in numerous lawsuits in various courts in which plaintiffs allege use of mask and respirator products and seek damages from Aearo and other defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica-related, or other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the workplace.
As of June 30, 2016 , the Company, through its Aearo subsidiary, had accruals of $2 0 million for product liabilities and defense costs related to current and future Aearo-related asbestos and silica-related claims. Responsibility for legal costs, as well as for settlements and judgments, is currently shared in an informal arrangement among Aearo, Cabot, American Optical Corporation and a subsidiary of Warner Lambert and their respective insurers (the “Payor Group”). Liability is allocated among the parties based on the number of years each company sold respiratory products under the “AO Safety” brand and/or owned the AO Safety Division of American Optical Corporation and the alleged years of exposure of the individual plaintiff. Aearo’s share of the contingent liability is further limited by an agreement entered into between Aearo and Cabot on July 11, 1995. This agreement provides that, so long as Aearo pays to Cabot a quarterly fee of $100,000 , Cabot will retain responsibility and liability for, and indemnify Aearo against, any product liability claims involving exposure to asbestos, silica, or silica products for respirators sold prior to July 11, 1995. Because of the difficulty in determining how long a particular respirator remains in the stream of commerce after being sold, Aearo and Cabot have applied the agreement to claims arising out of the alleged use of respirators involving exposure to asbestos, silica or silica products prior to January 1, 1997. With these arrangements in place, Aearo’s potential liability is limited to exposures alleged to have arisen from the use of respirators involving exposure to asbestos, silica, or silica products on or after January 1, 1997. To date, Aearo has elected to pay the quarterly fee. Aearo could potentially be exposed to additional claims for some part of the pre-July 11, 1995 period covered by its agreement with Cabot if Aearo elects to discontinue its participation in this arrangement, or if Cabot is no longer able to meet its obligations in these matters.
In March 2012, Cabot CSC Corporation and Cabot Corporation filed a lawsuit against Aearo in the Superior Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts seeking declaratory relief as to the scope of Cabot’s indemnity obligations under the July 11, 1995 agreement, including whether Cabot has retained liability for coal workers’ pneumoconiosis claims, and seeking damages for breach of contract. In 2014, the court granted Aearo’s motion for summary judgment on two claims, but declined to rule on two issues: the specific liability for certain known coal mine dust lawsuits; and Cabot’s claim for allocation of liability between injuries allegedly caused by exposure to coal mine dust and injuries allegedly caused by exposure to silica dust. Following additional discovery, the parties filed new motions for summary judgment. In February 2016, the court ruled in favor of Aearo on these two remaining issues, and ordered that Cabot, and not Aearo, is solely responsible for all liability for the coal mine dust lawsuits under the 1995 agreement. Cabot has appealed.
Developments may occur that could affect the estimate of Aearo’s liabilities. These developments include, but are not limited to: (i) significant changes in the number of future claims, (ii) significant changes in the average cost of resolving claims, (iii) significant changes in the legal costs of defending these claims, (iv) significant changes in the mix and nature of claims received, (v) trial and appellate outcomes, (vi) significant changes in the law and procedure applicable to these claims, (vii) significant changes in the liability allocation among the co-defendants, (viii) the financial viability of members of the Payor Group including exhaustion of available insurance coverage limits, and/or (ix) a determination that the interpretation of the contractual obligations on which Aearo has estimated its share of liability is inaccurate. The Company cannot determine the impact of these potential developments on its current estimate of Aearo’s share of liability for these existing and future claims. If any of the developments described above were to occur, the actual amount of these liabilities for existing and future claims could be significantly larger than the amount accrued.
Because of the inherent difficulty in projecting the number of claims that have not yet been asserted, the complexity of allocating responsibility for future claims among the Payor Group, and the several possible developments that may occur that could affect the estimate of Aearo’s liabilities, the Company cannot estimate the amount or range of amounts by which Aearo’s liability may exceed the accrual the Company has established.
Environmental Matters and Litigation
The Company’s operations are subject to environmental laws and regulations including those pertaining to air emissions, wastewater discharges, toxic substances, and the handling and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes enforceable by national, state, and local authorities around the world, and private parties in the United States and abroad. These laws and regulations provide, under certain circumstances, a basis for the remediation of contamination, for restoration of or compensation for damages to natural resources, and for personal injury and property damage claims. The Company has incurred, and will continue to incur, costs and capital expenditures in complying with these laws and regulations, defending personal injury and property damage claims, and modifying its business operations in light of its environmental responsibilities. In its effort to satisfy its environmental responsibilities and comply with environmental laws and regulations, the Company has established, and periodically updates, policies relating to environmental standards of performance for its operations worldwide.
Under certain environmental laws, including the United States Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 and similar state laws, the Company may be jointly and severally liable, typically with other companies, for the costs of remediation of environmental contamination at current or former facilities and at off-site locations. The Company has identified numerous locations, most of which are in the United States, at which it may have some liability. Please refer to the section entitled “ Environmental Liabilities and Insurance Receivables” that follows for information on the amount of the accrual.
Environmental Matters
As previously reported, the Company has been voluntarily cooperating with ongoing reviews by local, state, federal (primarily the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)), and international agencies of possible environmental and health effects of various perfluorinated compounds (“PFCs”), including perfluorooctanyl compounds such as perfluorooctanoate (“PFOA”) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (“PFOS”). As a result of its phase-out decision in May 2000, the Company no longer manufactures perfluorooctanyl compounds. The company ceased manufacturing and using the vast majority of these compounds within approximately two years of the phase-out announcement, and ceased all manufacturing and the last significant use of this chemistry by the end of 2008. Through its ongoing life cycle management and its raw material composition identification processes associated with the Company’s policies covering the use of all persistent and bio-accumulative materials, the Company has on occasion identified the presence of precursor chemicals in materials received from suppliers that may ultimately degrade to PFOA, PFOS, or similar compounds. Upon such identification, the Company works to find alternatives for such materials.
Regulatory activities concerning PFOA and/or PFOS continue in the United States, Europe and elsewhere, and before certain international bodies. These activities include gathering of exposure and use information, risk assessment, and consideration of regulatory approaches. As the database of studies of both chemicals has expanded, the EPA has developed human health effects documents summarizing the available data from these studies. In February 2014, the EPA initiated external peer review of its draft human health effects documents for PFOA and PFOS. The peer review panel met in August 2014. In May 2016, the EPA announced lifetime health advisory levels for PFOA and PFOS at 70 parts per trillion (superseding the provisional levels established by the EPA in 2009 of 400 parts per trillion for PFOA and 200 parts per trillion for PFOS). Where PFOA and PFOS are found together, EPA recommends that the concentrations be added together, and the lifetime health advisory for PFOA and PFOS combined is also 70 parts per trillion. Lifetime health advisories, while not enforceable, serve as guidance and are benchmarks for determining if concentrations of chemicals in tap water from public utilities are safe for public consumption. In an effort to collect exposure information under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the EPA published on May 2, 2012 a list of unregulated substances, including six PFCs, required to be monitored during the period 2013-2015 by public water system suppliers to determine the extent of their occurrence. The EPA is reporting results from this exercise on a rolling basis that will continue in 2016. Through April 2016, the EPA has reported results for 4,864 public water supplies nationwide. Based on the 2016 lifetime health advisory, 13 public water supplies exceed the level for PFOA, 46 exceed the level for PFOS, and 72 exceed the combined level for PFOA and PFOS. These results are based on one or more samples collected during the period 2012-2015 and do not necessarily reflect current conditions of these public water supplies. EPA reporting does not identify the sources of the PFOA and PFOS in the public water supplies.
The Company is continuing to make progress in its work, under the supervision of state regulators, to address its historic disposal of PFC-containing waste associated with manufacturing operations at the Decatur, Alabama, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, and Cordova, Illinois plants.
As previously reported, the Company entered into a voluntary remedial action agreement with the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) to address the presence of PFCs in the soil at the Company’s manufacturing facility in Decatur, Alabama. Pursuant to a permit issued by ADEM, for approximately twenty years, the Company incorporated its wastewater treatment plant sludge containing PFCs in fields at its Decatur facility. After a review of the available options to address the presence of PFCs in the soil, ADEM agreed that the preferred remediation option is to use a multilayer cap over the former sludge incorporation areas on the manufacturing site with subsequent groundwater migration controls and treatment. Implementation of that plan continues and is expected to be completed in 2018.
The Company continues to work with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) pursuant to the terms of the previously disclosed May 2007 Settlement Agreement and Consent Order to address the presence of certain PFCs in the soil and groundwater at former disposal sites in Washington County, Minnesota (Oakdale and Woodbury) and at the Company’s manufacturing facility at Cottage Grove, Minnesota. Under this agreement, the Company’s principal obligations include (i) evaluating releases of certain PFCs from these sites and proposing response actions; (ii) providing treatment or alternative drinking water upon identifying any level exceeding a Health Based Value (“HBV”) or Health Risk Limit (“HRL”) (i.e., the amount of a chemical in drinking water determined by the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) to be safe for human consumption over a lifetime) for certain PFCs for which a HBV and/or HRL exists as a result of contamination from these sites; (iii) remediating identified sources of other PFCs at these sites that are not controlled by actions to remediate PFOA and PFOS; and (iv) sharing information with the MPCA about certain perfluorinated compounds. During 2008, the MPCA issued formal decisions adopting remedial options for the former disposal sites in Washington County, Minnesota (Oakdale and Woodbury). In August 2009, the MPCA issued a formal decision adopting remedial options for the Company’s Cottage Grove manufacturing facility. During the spring and summer of 2010, 3M began implementing the agreed upon remedial options at the Cottage Grove and Woodbury sites. 3M commenced the remedial option at the Oakdale site in late 2010. At each location the remedial options were recommended by the Company and approved by the MPCA. Remediation work has been completed at the Oakdale and Woodbury sites, and they are in an operational maintenance mode. Remediation will continue at the Cottage Grove site during 2016 .
In August 2014, the Illinois EPA approved a request by the Company to establish a groundwater management zone at its manufacturing facility in Cordova, Illinois, which includes ongoing pumping of impacted site groundwater, groundwater monitoring, and routine reporting of results.
The Company cannot predict what additional regulatory actions arising from the foregoing proceedings and activities, if any, may be taken regarding such compounds or the consequences of any such actions.
Environmental Litigation
As previously reported, a former employee filed a purported class action lawsuit in 2002 in the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama (the St. John case), seeking unstated damages and alleging that the plaintiffs suffered fear, increased risk, subclinical injuries, and property damage from exposure to certain perfluorochemicals at or near the Company’s Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility. The court in 2005 granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the named plaintiff’s personal injury-related claims on the basis that such claims are barred by the exclusivity provisions of the state’s Workers Compensation Act. The plaintiffs’ counsel filed an amended complaint in November 2006, limiting the case to property damage claims on behalf of a purported class of residents and property owners in the vicinity of the Decatur plant. In June 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding additional defendants, including BFI Waste Management Systems of Alabama, LLC; BFI Waste Management of North America, LLC; the City of Decatur, Alabama; Morgan County, Alabama; Municipal Utilities Board of Decatur; and Morgan County, Alabama, d/b/a Decatur Utilities. In September 2015, the court issued a scheduling order staying discovery pending mediation which occurred in January 2016, but did not resolve the case and the parties continue their negotiations. A hearing on class certification is scheduled for November 2016.
In 2005, the judge in a second purported class action lawsuit filed by three residents of Morgan County, Alabama, seeking unstated compensatory and punitive damages involving alleged damage to their property from emissions of certain perfluorochemical compounds from the Company’s Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility that formerly manufactured those compounds (the Chandler case) granted the Company’s motion to abate the case, effectively putting the case on hold pending the resolution of class certification issues in the St. John case. Despite the stay, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking damages for alleged personal injuries and property damage on behalf of the named plaintiffs and the members of a purported class. No further action in the case is expected unless and until the stay is lifted.
In February 2009, a resident of Franklin County, Alabama, filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Franklin County (the Stover case) seeking compensatory damages and injunctive relief based on the application by the Decatur utility’s wastewater treatment plant of wastewater treatment sludge to farmland and grasslands in the state that allegedly contain PFOA, PFOS and other perfluorochemicals. The named plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons within the State of Alabama who have had PFOA, PFOS, and other perfluorochemicals released or deposited on their property. In March 2010, the Alabama Supreme Court ordered the case transferred from Franklin County to Morgan County. In May 2010, consistent with its handling of the other matters, the Morgan County Circuit Court abated this case, putting it on hold pending the resolution of the class certification issues in the St. John case.
In October 2015, West Morgan-East Lawrence Water & Sewer Authority (Water Authority) filed an individual complaint against 3M Company, Dyneon, L.L.C, and Daikin America, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The complaint also includes representative plaintiffs who brought the complaint on behalf of themselves, and a class of all owners and possessors of property who use water provided by the Water Authority and five local water works to which the Water Authority supplies water (collectively, the “Water Utilities”). The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief based on allegations that the defendants’ chemicals, including PFOA and PFOS from their manufacturing processes in Decatur, have contaminated the water in the Tennessee River at the water intake, and that the chemicals cannot be removed by the water treatment processes utilized by the Water Authority. 3M has moved to dismiss the case on legal grounds. That motion is pending.
In June 2016, the Tennessee Riverkeeper, Inc. (Riverkeeper), a non-profit corporation, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama against 3M; BFI Waste Systems of Alabama; the City of Decatur, Alabama; and the Municipal Utilities Board of Decatur, Morgan County, Alabama. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in connection with the disposal of certain PFCs through their ownership and operation of their respective sites. The complaint further alleges such practices may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health and/or the environment and that Riverkeeper has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm caused by defendants’ failure to abate the endangerment unless the court grants the requested relief, including declaratory and injunctive relief. The Company believes that the complaint lacks merit.
In December 2010, the State of Minnesota, by its Attorney General Lori Swanson, acting in its capacity as trustee of the natural resources of the State of Minnesota, filed a lawsuit in Hennepin County District Court against 3M to recover damages (including unspecified assessment costs and reasonable attorney’s fees) for alleged injury to, destruction of, and loss of use of certain of the State’s natural resources under the Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act (MERLA) and the Minnesota Water Pollution Control Act (MWPCA), as well as statutory nuisance and common law claims of trespass, nuisance, and negligence with respect to the presence of PFCs in the groundwater, surface water, fish or other aquatic life, and sediments (the “NRD Lawsuit”). The State also seeks declarations under MERLA that 3M is responsible for all damages the State may suffer in the future for injuries to natural resources from releases of PFCs into the environment, and under MWPCA that 3M is responsible for compensation for future loss or destruction of fish, aquatic life, and other damages.
In November 2011, the Metropolitan Council filed a motion to intervene and a complaint in the NRD Lawsuit seeking compensatory damages and other legal, declaratory and equitable relief, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, for costs and fees that the Metropolitan Council alleges it will be required to assess at some time in the future if the MPCA imposes restrictions on Metropolitan Council’s PFOS discharges to the Mississippi River, including the installation and maintenance of a water treatment system. The Metropolitan Council’s intervention motion was based on several theories, including common law negligence, and statutory claims under MERLA for response costs, and under the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (MERA) for declaratory and equitable relief against 3M for PFOS and other PFC pollution of the waters and sediments of the Mississippi River. 3M did not object to the motion to intervene. In January 2012, 3M answered the Metropolitan Council’s complaint and filed a counterclaim alleging that the Metropolitan Council discharges PFCs to the Mississippi River and discharges PFC-containing sludge and bio solids from one or more of its wastewater treatment plants onto agricultural lands and local area landfills. Accordingly, 3M’s complaint against the Metropolitan Council asks that if the court finds that the State is entitled to any of the damages it seeks, 3M be awarded contribution and apportionment from the Metropolitan Council, including attorneys’ fees, under MERLA, and contribution from and liability for the Metropolitan Council’s proportional share of damages awarded to the State under the MWPCA, as well as under statutory nuisance and common law theories of trespass, nuisance, and negligence. 3M also seeks declaratory relief under MERA.
In April 2012, 3M filed a motion to disqualify the State of Minnesota’s counsel, Covington & Burlin |
