Case 1:21-cv-00258-JPW Document 1-1 Filed 02/11/21 Page 1 of 30
`Case 1:21-cv-00258—JPW Document 1-1 Filed 02/11/21 Page 1 of 30
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00258-JPW Document 1-1 Filed 02/11/21 Page 2 of 30
`Case 1:21-cv-00258-JPW Document 1-1 Filed 02/11/21 Page 2 of 30
`
`PENNSYLVANIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
`
`Plaintiff
`: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
`
`THE3M COMPANY(F/K/AMINNESOTAMININGANDMANUFACTURING,CO.),ETAL.
`
`Defendant
`
`NO 03171
`
`Civil Term
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`NOTICE TO DEFEND
`
`YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT.
`
`IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND AGAINST THE
`
`CLAIMS SET FORTH IN THE FOLLOWING PAGES, YOU MUST TAKE ACTION WITHIN
`TWENTY (20) DAYS AFTER THIS COMPLAINT AND NOTICE ARE SERVED, BY ENTERING A
`WRITTEN APPEARANCE PERSONALLY OR BY AN ATTORNEY AND FILLING IN WRITING
`WITH THE COURT YOUR DEFENSES OR OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS SET FORTH AGAINST
`YOU. YOU ARE WARNED THAT IF YOU FAIL TO DO SO THE CASE MAY PROCEED WITHOUT
`YOU AND A JUDGEMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU BY THE COURT WITHOUT
`FURTHER NOTICE FOR ANY MONEY CLAIMED IN THE COMPLAINT OR FOR ANY OTHER
`
`CLAIM OR RELIEF REQUESTED BY THE PLAINTIFF. YOU MAY LOSE MONEY OR PEOPERTY
`OR OTHER RIGHTS IMPORTANT TO YOU.
`
`YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE.
`
`IF YOU DO
`
`NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO THE TELEPHONE OR THE OFFICE
`SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
`
`CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION
`32 SOUTH BEDFORD STREET
`
`CARLISLE, PA 1 701 3
`1 -800-990-9108
`71 7-249-31 66
`
`
`
`$0.00.ThefilercertifiesthatthisfilingcomplieswiththeprovisionsofthePublicAccessPolicyoftheUnified
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case#2020-03171-2ReceivedatCumberlandCountyProthonotaryon10/21/20203:41PM,Fee
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JudicialSystemofPennsylvania:CaseRecordsoftheAppellateandTrialCourtsthatrequirefilingconfidentialinformationanddocumentsdifferentlythannon-confidentialinformationanddocuments.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00258-JPW Document 1-1 Filed 02/11/21 Page 3 of 30
`Case 1:21-cv-00258-JPW Document 1-1 Filed 02/11/21 Page 3 of 30
`
`IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
`
`CIVIL DIVISION
`
`Case No. 2020-03171 Civil Term
`
`Civil Action
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`PENNSYLVANIA-AMERICAN
`
`WATER COMPANY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`THE 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota
`Mining and Manufacturing, Co.); E.I.
`DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND
`
`COMPANY; DUPONT DE NEMOURS,
`INC. (F/K/A DOWDUPONT, INC.);
`
`CORTEVA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
`
`COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS
`
`COMPANY FC, LLC; DYNEON LLC;
`
`KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; ANGUS FIRE;
`
`THE ANSUL COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
`
`PRODUCTS LP; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
`
`NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; BUCKEYE
`
`FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY;
`BUCKEYE FIRE PROTECTION
`
`COMPANY; RAYTHEON
`
`TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION;
`
`KIDDE PLC INC.; KIDDE FIRE
`
`FIGHTING, INC.; CARRIER GLOBAL
`
`CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE
`
`ARMOUR CORPORATION; CHUBB
`
`FIRE, LTD.; UNITED
`
`TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION;
`
`CIBA, INC.; DYNAX CORP.;
`
`CLARIANT CORP.; ARCHROMA
`
`MANAGEMENT LLC; ARKEMA INC.;
`
`CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.;
`
`AMEREX CORPORATION; AGC
`
`CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.;
`
`CHEMICALS INC.; DEEPWATER
`
`
`
`$0.00.ThefilercertifiesthatthisfilingcomplieswiththeprovisionsofthePublicAccessPolicyoftheUnified
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case#2020-03171-2ReceivedatCumberlandCountyProthonotaryon10/21/20203:41PM,Fee
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JudicialSystemofPennsylvania:CaseRecordsoftheAppellateandTrialCourtsthatrequirefilingconfidentialinformationanddocumentsdifferentlythannon-confidentialinformationanddocuments.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00258-JPW Document 1-1 Filed 02/11/21 Page 4 of 30
`Case 1:21-cv-00258-JPW Document 1-1 Filed 02/11/21 Page 4 of 30
`
`CHEMICALS, INC.; NATION FORD
`
`CHEMICAL COMPANY; AAA
`
`EMERGENCY SUPPLY CO., INC.;
`WILLIAMS FIRE & HAZARD
`
`CONTROL, INC.; E-ONE, INC. (f/k/a
`
`Emergency One, Inc.); JOHN DOE
`
`DEFENDANTS 1-50,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`Pennsylvania-American Water Company (“PAWC” or “Plaintiff”) files this Complaint
`
`against the Defendants named herein and in support thereof alleges as follows:
`
`SUMMARY OF THE CASE
`
`1.
`
`PAWC brings
`
`this action for damages,
`
`contribution,
`
`abatement,
`
`and/or
`
`reimbursement of costs incurred, and which continue to be incurred, to address and remediate the
`
`presence of “forever chemicals” in its water supplies, namely the unwanted presence of
`
`Polyfluoroalkyl substances or "PFAS" chemicals. These unwanted contaminants include but are
`
`not
`
`limited to Perfluorooctanoic acid (“PFOA”), Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (“PFOS”),
`
`Perfluorohexanoic acid (“PFHXA”), Perfluoropentanoic acid (“PFPA”), Perfluoroheptanoic acid
`
`(“PFHpA”), Pentafluorobenzoic acid (“PFBA”), Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (“PFBS”),
`
`Perfluorononanoic acid (“PFNA”), Perfluorodecacanoic acid (“PFDA”), and Perfluorohexane
`
`Sulfonic Acid (“PFHS”), as well as any and all hazardous chemicals produced by Defendants
`
`(collectively referred to herein as “PFAS”), found in the public water supply systems owned and
`
`operated by PAWC throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and in the ground and surface
`
`waters that serve as supply sources for those systems.
`
`$0.00.ThefilercertifiesthatthisfilingcomplieswiththeprovisionsofthePublicAccessPolicyoftheUnified
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case#2020-03171-2ReceivedatCumberlandCountyProthonotaryon10/21/20203:41PM,Fee
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JudicialSystemofPennsylvania:CaseRecordsoftheAppellateandTrialCourtsthatrequirefilingconfidentialinformationanddocumentsdifferentlythannon-confidentialinformationanddocuments.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00258-JPW Document 1-1 Filed 02/11/21 Page 5 of 30
`Case 1:21-cv-00258-JPW Document 1-1 Filed 02/11/21 Page 5 of 30
`
`2.
`
`As the manufacturers and sellers of products that contain PFAS compounds,
`
`Defendants The 3M Company (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co.), E.I. DuPont de
`
`Nemours and Company, DuPont de Nemours, Inc. (f/k/a DowDuPont), Corteva, Inc., The
`
`Chemours Company, The Chemours Company FC, LLC, Dyneon LLC, Kidde-Fenwal, Inc.,
`
`Angus Fire, The Ansul Company, Buckeye Fire Equipment Company, Chemguard, Inc., National
`
`Foam, Inc., Tyco Fire Products, LP, and John Doe Defendants 1-50 (collectively “Defendants”),
`
`have discharged PFAS into, or are otherwise responsible for PFAS released into, the groundwater
`
`and surface waters that serve as the supply sources for PAWC’s public water supply systems.
`
`3.
`
`For many years Defendants manufactured, sold, and distributed PFAS compounds
`
`and products containing PFAS chemicals. These products include the firefighting suppressant
`
`agent, Aqueous Film Forming Foam (“AFFF”) that contains those compounds, for use at airports,
`
`fire-fighting training centers,
`
`fire-fighting locations, and military facilities throughout
`
`the
`
`Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that are located near water facilities owned and/or operated by
`
`PAWC.
`
`4.
`
`Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS and related constituents
`
`present unreasonable risks and dangers to human health, water quality, and the environment. Yet,
`
`Defendants distributed, handled, discharged, and were otherwise responsible for the release of
`
`PFAS into the environment without sufficient containment or caution. Defendants’ acts and
`
`omissions resulted in the presence of these compounds in the water sources of PAWC’s public
`
`supply systems. As a result of the occurrence of PFAS in the environment from Defendants’
`
`discharges, Defendants have created a nuisance such that PAWC has been and will be required to
`
`fund and implement capital improvements, and has and will in the future incur ongoing testing,
`
`$0.00.ThefilercertifiesthatthisfilingcomplieswiththeprovisionsofthePublicAccessPolicyoftheUnified
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case#2020-03171-2ReceivedatCumberlandCountyProthonotaryon10/21/20203:41PM,Fee
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JudicialSystemofPennsylvania:CaseRecordsoftheAppellateandTrialCourtsthatrequirefilingconfidentialinformationanddocumentsdifferentlythannon-confidentialinformationanddocuments.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00258-JPW Document 1-1 Filed 02/11/21 Page 6 of 30
`Case 1:21-cv-00258-JPW Document 1-1 Filed 02/11/21 Page 6 of 30
`
`operation, and maintenance costs, in order to identify, remove, and treat for the presence of PFAS
`
`in its public water supply systems, and has and will incur damages.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court because a substantial part of the events giving rise to
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`this Complaint occurred in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
`
`PLAINTIFF
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff PAWC is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business
`
`in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. PAWC provides drinking water and related services to an
`
`estimated 2.4 million Pennsylvanians.
`
`8.
`
`PAWC owns and operates 67 public water supply systems in the Commonwealth
`
`of Pennsylvania.
`
`9.
`
`PAWC relies on groundwater aquifers and surface waters to supply water for its
`
`public water systems. PAWC’s water systems include over 100 active groundwater wells.
`
`DEFENDANTS
`
`10.
`
`Defendant The 3M Company (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
`
`Company) (“3M”) is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business located at 3M
`
`Center, St. Paul, Minnesota 55133.
`
`1 1.
`
`Through at least 2002, 3M manufactured PFOS for use in AFFF and other products,
`
`and it manufactured AFFF that contained PFAS compounds.
`
`12.
`
`Defendant Dyneon LLC (“Dyneon”) is a subsidiary of 3M and is a Delaware
`
`corporation with its principal place of business in Oakdale, Minnesota. Dyneon does business
`
`throughout the United States, including in Pennsylvania, and in various other countries. At all
`
`4
`
`$0.00.ThefilercertifiesthatthisfilingcomplieswiththeprovisionsofthePublicAccessPolicyoftheUnified
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case#2020-03171-2ReceivedatCumberlandCountyProthonotaryon10/21/20203:41PM,Fee
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JudicialSystemofPennsylvania:CaseRecordsoftheAppellateandTrialCourtsthatrequirefilingconfidentialinformationanddocumentsdifferentlythannon-confidentialinformationanddocuments.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00258-JPW Document 1-1 Filed 02/11/21 Page 7 of 30
`Case 1:21-cv-00258-JPW Document 1-1 Filed 02/11/21 Page 7 of 30
`
`relevant
`
`times, Dyneon manufactured, marketed, promoted, distributed, and/or sold AFFF
`
`containing PFOA and/or PFOS used to fight fires at various military bases, airports, and other
`
`locations throughout the United States.
`
`13.
`
`Defendant E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company (“DuPont”) is a Delaware
`
`corporation with its principal place of business in Wilmington, Delaware. DuPont does business
`
`throughout
`
`the United States,
`
`including in Pennsylvania. DuPont manufactured, marketed,
`
`promoted, distributed, and/or sold products containing PFOA and/or PFOS or which degraded into
`
`PFOA and/or PFOS, that were used, inter alia, in AFFF. Specifically, DuPont was a founding
`
`member of the Fire Fighting Foam Coalition and through its active participation in this Coalition,
`
`DuPont marketed and sold its fluorosurfactants containing PFAS to AFFF manufacturers.
`
`l4.
`
`Defendants The Chemours Company and The Chemours Company FC, LLC are
`
`Delaware corporations with their principal places of business in Wilmington, Delaware. These
`
`Defendants are collectively referred to as “Chemours” or “the Chemours Defendants” and do
`
`business throughout the United States, including in Pennsylvania. In 2015, DuPont spun off its
`
`“performance chemicals” business,
`
`including its fluoroproduct divisions and business,
`
`to
`
`Chemours. The fluoroproducts and chemical solutions businesses appear to have been transferred
`
`to both The Chemours Company and the Chemours Company FC, LLC. The Chemours Company
`
`was incorporated as a subsidiary of DuPont until approximately April of 2015, and The Chemours
`
`Company FC, LLC was formed as a subsidiary around the same time. In approximately July of
`
`2015 , Chemours assumed the operations, assets, and certain limited liabilities of DuPont’s
`
`performance chemical business and began operating as an independent company. As part of this
`
`spinoff Chemours assumed certain environmental liabilities associated with DuPont’s historical
`
`$0.00.ThefilercertifiesthatthisfilingcomplieswiththeprovisionsofthePublicAccessPolicyoftheUnified
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case#2020-03171-2ReceivedatCumberlandCountyProthonotaryon10/21/20203:41PM,Fee
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JudicialSystemofPennsylvania:CaseRecordsoftheAppellateandTrialCourtsthatrequirefilingconfidentialinformationanddocumentsdifferentlythannon-confidentialinformationanddocuments.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00258-JPW Document 1-1 Filed 02/11/21 Page 8 of 30
`Case 1:21-cv-00258-JPW Document 1-1 Filed 02/11/21 Page 8 of 30
`
`business lines, including those related to PFOA/PFOS. DuPont and Chemours, as alleged in detail
`
`below, fraudulently conveyed the assets and liabilities of DuPont in this spin-off. Chemours has
`
`filed a complaint against DuPont in the Delaware Chancery Court seeking declaratory reliefrelated
`
`to the allocation of various environmental liabilities.
`
`15.
`
`Defendant Corteva, Inc. (“Corteva”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal
`
`place of business in Wilmington, Delaware. Corteva does business throughout the United States,
`
`including in Pennsylvania. Corteva was formed through a series of transactions initiated by the
`
`merger of DuPont and the Dow Chemical Company (“Dow”) in August of 2017, which formed
`
`DowDuPont, Inc (“DowDuPont”). DuPont and Dow each became subsidiaries of DowDuPont.
`
`Corteva was formed as a subsidiary of DowDuPont in 2018, and in approximately June 2019,
`
`DowDuPont spun off its agricultural business to Corteva. Corteva is the parent of DuPont, holds
`
`all of DuPont’s outstanding stock, and holds some of DowDuPont’s assets and liabilities, including
`
`its agricultural and nutritional businesses, which in turn likely include business lines and liabilities
`
`relating to PFAS manufacture, marketing, distribution, and/or sale.
`
`16.
`
`Defendant DuPont de Nemours, Inc. (f/k/a DowDuPont) (“New DuPont”) is a
`
`Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Wilmington, Delaware. New DuPont
`
`does business in the United States, including in Pennsylvania. DowDuPont became New DuPont
`
`following the Corteva spin-off. New DuPont holds assets in the specialty products businesses, and
`
`the remainder of the financial assets and liabilities that DuPont held after the aforementioned spin-
`
`offs. Presumably, these assets and liabilities are valued at billions of dollars and are related to
`
`DuPont’s historic PFAS manufacture, marketing, distribution, and/or sale.
`
`$0.00.ThefilercertifiesthatthisfilingcomplieswiththeprovisionsofthePublicAccessPolicyoftheUnified
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case#2020-03171-2ReceivedatCumberlandCountyProthonotaryon10/21/20203:41PM,Fee
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JudicialSystemofPennsylvania:CaseRecordsoftheAppellateandTrialCourtsthatrequirefilingconfidentialinformationanddocumentsdifferentlythannon-confidentialinformationanddocuments.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00258-JPW Document 1-1 Filed 02/11/21 Page 9 of 30
`Case 1:21-cv-00258-JPW Document 1-1 Filed 02/11/21 Page 9 of 3O
`
`17.
`
`Defendants DuPont, New DuPont, the Chemours Defendants, and Corteva are
`
`collectively referred to herein as the “DuPont Defendants.” The allegations, counts, and causes of
`
`action in this Complaint as against the DuPont Defendants are solely and exclusively for the
`
`DuPont Defendants’ conduct, acts, and omissions regarding the manufacture, marketing, sales, and
`
`distribution of compounds, chemicals, and products, components and otherwise, of AFFF.
`
`18.
`
`Defendant Angus Fire (“Angus”) is part of Angus International, and has corporate
`
`headquarters in Bentham, United Kingdom. Angus Fire maintains a place ofbusiness in the United
`
`States at 141 Junny Road, Angier, North Carolina 27501. At all
`
`times relevant, Angus
`
`manufactured frre suppression products, including AFFF that contained PFAS compounds.
`
`19.
`
`Defendant The Ansul Company (hereinafter “Ansul”) is a Wisconsin corporation,
`
`with its principal place of business at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin 54143. At all
`
`times relevant, Ansul manufactured fire suppression products, including AFFF that contained
`
`PFAS compounds.
`
`20.
`
`Defendant Chemguard, Inc. is a foreign corporation, having a principal place of
`
`business at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin 54143. At all times relevant, Chemguard
`
`manufactured frre suppression products, including AFFF that contained PFAS compounds.
`
`21.
`
`Defendant Tyco Fire Products, LP. is a foreign corporation, having a principal
`
`place of business at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin 54143. At all times relevant, Tyco
`
`manufactured frre suppression products, including AFFF that contained PFAS compounds.
`
`22.
`
`Defendants Buckeye Fire Equipment Company and Buckeye Fire Protection
`
`Company (collectively “Buckeye”) are North Carolina corporations, with their principal place of
`
`business at 110 Kings Road, Kings Mountain, North Carolina 28086. At all times relevant,
`
`$0.00.ThefilercertifiesthatthisfilingcomplieswiththeprovisionsofthePublicAccessPolicyoftheUnified
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case#2020-03171-2ReceivedatCumberlandCountyProthonotaryon10/21/20203:41PM,Fee
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JudicialSystemofPennsylvania:CaseRecordsoftheAppellateandTrialCourtsthatrequirefilingconfidentialinformationanddocumentsdifferentlythannon-confidentialinformationanddocuments.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00258-JPW Document 1-1 Filed 02/11/21 Page 10 of 30
`Case 1:21-cv-00258-JPW Document 1-1 Filed 02/11/21 Page 10 of 30
`
`Buckeye manufactured fire suppression products,
`
`including AFFF that contained PFAS
`
`compounds.
`
`23.
`
`Defendant National Foam, Inc. (a/k/a Chubb National Foam) (National Foam, Inc.
`
`and Chubb National Foam are collectively referred to as “National Foam”) is a Pennsylvania
`
`corporation, with its principal place of business at 350 East Union Street, West Chester,
`
`Pennsylvania 193 82. At all times relevant, National Foam manufactured fire suppression products,
`
`including AFFF that contained PFAS compounds.
`
`24.
`
`Defendant Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. (“Kidde”) is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`principal place of business in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde is the successor-in-interest to Kidde
`
`Fire Fighting, Inc. (f/k/a Chubb National Foam, Inc. f/k/a National Foam System, Inc.). Kidde
`
`does business throughout the United States, including conducting business in Pennsylvania. Kidde
`
`manufactured, marketed, promoted, distributed, and/or sold AFFF that contained PFOA, PFOS,
`
`and other toxic substances.
`
`25.
`
`Defendant United Technologies Corporation (“United Technologies”)
`
`is a
`
`Delaware corporation authorized to do business in New York, with principal offices at 10 Farm
`
`Springs Road, Farmington, CT 06032.
`
`26.
`
`Defendant Raytheon Technologies Corporation (“Raytheon”)
`
`is a Delaware
`
`corporation, with principal offices at Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington,
`
`DE 19801.
`
`Upon information and belief, Raytheon is successor-in-interest
`
`to United
`
`Technologies.
`
`$0.00.ThefilercertifiesthatthisfilingcomplieswiththeprovisionsofthePublicAccessPolicyoftheUnified
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case#2020-03171-2ReceivedatCumberlandCountyProthonotaryon10/21/20203:41PM,Fee
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JudicialSystemofPennsylvania:CaseRecordsoftheAppellateandTrialCourtsthatrequirefilingconfidentialinformationanddocumentsdifferentlythannon-confidentialinformationanddocuments.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00258-JPW Document 1-1 Filed 02/11/21 Page 11 of 30
`Case 1:21-cv-00258-JPW Document 1-1 Filed 02/11/21 Page 11 of 30
`
`27.
`
`Defendant Kidde PLC Inc. (“Kidde”) is a Delaware corporation authorized to do
`
`business in New York, with principal offices at One Carrier Place, Farmington, CT 06034. Upon
`
`information and belief, Kidde, was formerly known as Williams Holdings, Inc. and/or Williams
`
`US, Inc.
`
`28.
`
`Defendant Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. (“Kidde Fire Fighting”) is a Pennsylvania
`
`corporation with principal offices at 400 Main Street, Ashland, MA 01721. Upon information and
`
`belief, Kidde Fire Fighting, was formerly known as National Foam, Inc., National Foam System,
`
`Inc., and/or Chubb National Foam, Inc.
`
`29.
`
`Defendant Carrier Global Corporation (“Carrier”) is a Delaware corporation, with
`
`principal offices at 13995 Pasteur Boulevard, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418. Upon information
`
`and belief, Carrier was formed in March 2020 when United Technologies Corporation spun off its
`
`fire and security business. Upon information and belief, Carrier is the parent corporation of Kidde-
`
`Fenwal.
`
`30.
`
`Defendant Angus Fire Armour Corporation (“Angus Fire”)
`
`is a Delaware
`
`corporation, with principal offices at 141 Junny Road, Angier, NC 27501.
`
`31.
`
`Defendant Chubb Fire, Ltd. (“Chubb”) is a foreign private limited company, with
`
`offices at Littleton Road, Ashford, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW15 1TZ. Upon information and
`
`belief, Chubb is registered in the United Kingdom with a registered number of 134210. Upon
`
`information and belief, Chubb is or has been composed of different subsidiaries and/or divisions,
`
`including but not limited to, Chubb Fire & Security Ltd., Chubb Security, PLC, Red Hawk Fire &
`
`Security, LLC and/or Chubb National Foam, Inc.
`
`$0.00.ThefilercertifiesthatthisfilingcomplieswiththeprovisionsofthePublicAccessPolicyoftheUnified
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case#2020-03171-2ReceivedatCumberlandCountyProthonotaryon10/21/20203:41PM,Fee
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JudicialSystemofPennsylvania:CaseRecordsoftheAppellateandTrialCourtsthatrequirefilingconfidentialinformationanddocumentsdifferentlythannon-confidentialinformationanddocuments.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00258-JPW Document 1-1 Filed 02/11/21 Page 12 of 30
`Case 1:21-cv—OO258—JPW Document 1-1 Filed 02/11/21 Page 12 of 30
`
`32.
`
`Defendant Ciba, Inc. (f/k/a Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corporation) (“Ciba”) is a
`
`Delaware corporation, with principal offices at Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street,
`
`Wilmington, DE 19801.
`
`33.
`
`Defendant Dynax Corp. (“Dynax”) is a Delaware corporation, with principal
`
`offices at 103 Fairview Park Drive, Elmsford, NY 10523.
`
`34.
`
`Defendant Clariant Corp. (“Clariant”) is a New York corporation, with principal
`
`offices at 4000 Monroe Road, Charlotte, NC 28205.
`
`35.
`
`Defendant Archroma Management LLC (“Archroma”) is a foreign corporation
`
`organized and existing under the laws of Switzerland, with principal offices at Neuhofstrasse 11,
`
`4153 Reinach, Basel-Land, Switzerland.
`
`36.
`
`Defendant Arkema Inc. (“Arkema”) is a Pennsylvania corporation, with principal
`
`offices at 900 lst Avenue, King of Prussia, PA, 19406.
`
`37.
`
`Defendant ChemDesign Products, Inc. (“ChemDesign”) is a Delaware
`
`corporation, with principal offices at 2 Stanton Street, Marinette, WI 54143.
`
`38.
`
`Defendant Amerex Corporation (“Amerex”) is an Alabama corporation with its
`
`principal place of business located at 7595 Gadsden Highway, Trussville, AL 35173.
`
`39.
`
`Defendant AGC Chemicals Americas Inc. (“AGC”) is a Delaware corporation, with
`
`principal offices at 55 E Uwchlan Ave, Suite 201, Exton, PA 19341.
`
`40.
`
`Defendant Chemicals Inc. is a Texas corporation, with principal offices at 12321
`
`Hatcherville Road, Baytown, TX 77521.
`
`10
`
`$0.00.ThefilercertifiesthatthisfilingcomplieswiththeprovisionsofthePublicAccessPolicyoftheUnified
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case#2020-03171-2ReceivedatCumberlandCountyProthonotaryon10/21/20203:41PM,Fee
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JudicialSystemofPennsylvania:CaseRecordsoftheAppellateandTrialCourtsthatrequirefilingconfidentialinformationanddocumentsdifferentlythannon-confidentialinformationanddocuments.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00258-JPW Document 1-1 Filed 02/11/21 Page 13 of 30
`Case 1:21-cv-00258-JPW Document 1-1 Filed 02/11/21 Page 13 of 30
`
`41.
`
`Defendant Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. (“Deepwater”) is a Delaware corporation,
`
`with principal offices at 196122 E County Road 40, Woodward, OK 73801. Defendant Nation
`
`Ford Chemical Company (“Nation Ford”) is a South Carolina corporation, with principal offices
`
`at 2300 Banks Street, Fort Mill, SC 29715.
`
`42.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants Chemicals, Inc., Deepwater, and Nation
`
`Ford designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold fluorosurfactant products containing
`
`PFAS for use in the manufacture of AFFF products.
`
`43.
`
`Defendant AAA Emergency Supply Co., Inc. (“AAA Emergency Supply”) is a
`
`New York corporation, with principal offices at 635-637 White Plains, NY 10603.
`
`44.
`
`Defendant Williams Fire & Hazard Control,
`
`Inc.
`
`(“Williams”)
`
`is a Texas
`
`corporation, with principal offices at 9605 Richard Wycoff Drive, Port Arthur, TX 77640.
`
`45.
`
`Defendant E-One, Inc. (f/k/a Emergency One, Inc.) (“E-One”) is a Delaware
`
`corporation, with principal offices at 1601 SW 37th Avenue, Ocala, FL 34474.
`
`46.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants John Does 1-50 also manufactured and
`
`sold products that contain PFAS compounds.
`
`Plaintiff PAWC presently lacks information
`
`sufficient to specifically identify the names of Defendants sued herein under the fictitious names
`
`DOES 1 through 50. PAWC will amend this Complaint to show their true names if and when they
`
`are ascertained.
`
`POLYFLUOROALKYL SUBSTANCES
`
`47.
`
`PFAS compounds are a family of manmade chemicals, also known as
`
`perfiuorochemicals (“PFCs”), that have been used for decades to make products that resist heat,
`
`oil, stains, grease and water.
`
`11
`
`$0.00.ThefilercertifiesthatthisfilingcomplieswiththeprovisionsofthePublicAccessPolicyoftheUnified
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case#2020-03171-2ReceivedatCumberlandCountyProthonotaryon10/21/20203:41PM,Fee
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JudicialSystemofPennsylvania:CaseRecordsoftheAppellateandTrialCourtsthatrequirefilingconfidentialinformationanddocumentsdifferentlythannon-confidentialinformationanddocuments.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00258-JPW Document 1-1 Filed 02/11/21 Page 14 of 30
`Case 1:21-cv-00258-JPW Document 1-1 Filed 02/11/21 Page 14 of 30
`
`48.
`
`In the 19405 and 1950s, 3M began creating PFAS chemicals and incorporating them
`
`into their products after recognizing their surfactant properties. Over the years, PFAS chemicals
`
`were sold to other companies for use in AFFF and a variety of other products, including stain
`
`resistant carpeting and upholstery, clothing, paper packaging for food, water and grease resistant
`
`cookware.
`
`49.
`
`AFFF was introduced commercially in the mid-19605 and rapidly became the
`
`primary fire-fighting foam in the United States and other parts of the world. AFFF is a Class-B
`
`firefighting foam, which is water-based and used to extinguish fires that are difficult to fight,
`
`particularly those that involve petroleum or other flammable liquids.
`
`50.
`
`AFFF’s are synthetically formed by combining fluorine free hydrocarbon foaming
`
`agents with highly fluorinated surfactants. When mixed with water, the resulting solution has the
`
`characteristics needed to produce an aqueous film that spreads across the surface of a hydrocarbon
`
`fiJel. It is this film formation feature that provides fire extinguishment and is the source of the
`
`designation, aqueous film forming foam.
`
`51.
`
`PFASs are extremely persistent
`
`in the environment and resistant to typical
`
`environmental degradation processes. In addition, they are thermally stable synthetic organic
`
`contaminants, are likely carcinogenic, and have been shown to correlate with thyroid disease and
`
`immune deficiencies. PFASs also have high water solubility (mobility) and low biodegradation
`
`(persistence).
`
`12
`
`$0.00.ThefilercertifiesthatthisfilingcomplieswiththeprovisionsofthePublicAccessPolicyoftheUnified
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case#2020-03171-2ReceivedatCumberlandCountyProthonotaryon10/21/20203:41PM,Fee
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JudicialSystemofPennsylvania:CaseRecordsoftheAppellateandTrialCourtsthatrequirefilingconfidentialinformationanddocumentsdifferentlythannon-confidentialinformationanddocuments.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00258-JPW Document 1-1 Filed 02/11/21 Page 15 of 30
`Case 1:21-cv-00258-JPW Document 1-1 Filed 02/11/21 Page 15 of 30
`
`52.
`
`PFASs,
`
`in particular PFOS and PFOA, have been identified as “emerging
`
`contaminants” by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”). This term
`
`describes contaminants about which the scientific community, regulatory agencies and the general
`
`public have a new and increasing awareness or understanding about how they move in the
`
`environment or affect public health.
`
`53.
`
`PFASs, like other emerging contaminants, have become the focus of active research
`
`and study, which means that new information is released periodically regarding the effects on the
`
`environment and human health as a result of exposure to these chemicals.
`
`54.
`
`Certain PFAS compounds, such as PFOS and PFOA (which is also known as “C8”
`
`because it contains eight carbon compounds), have been the focus of many state and EPA
`
`investigations.
`
`55.
`
`EPA studies have indicated that exposure to PFOA and PFOS over certain levels
`
`can result in adverse health effects, including but not limited to developmental effects to fetuses
`
`during pregnancy or to breastfed infants (e.g., low birth weight, accelerated puberty, skeletal
`
`variations), cancer (e.g., testicular, kidney), liver effects (e.g., tissue damage), immune effects
`
`(e.g., antibody production and immunity), thyroid effects and other effects (e.g., cholesterol
`
`changes).
`
`56.
`
`In January of 2009, the EPA established a drinking water Provisional Health
`
`Advisory Level (“HAL”) for PFOA and PFOS, the two PFAS compounds about which it had the
`
`most toxicological data. EPA set the Provisional HAL at 0.4 parts per billion (ppb) for PFOA and
`
`0.2 ppb for PFOS.
`
`57.
`
`In May 2016, EPA issued new HALs for PFOA and PFOS, identifying 0.07 ppb
`
`(or 70 parts per trillion (ppt)) as the concentration of PFOA or PFOS in drinking water at or below
`
`13
`
`$0.00.ThefilercertifiesthatthisfilingcomplieswiththeprovisionsofthePublicAccessPolicyoftheUnified
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case#2020-03171-2ReceivedatCumberlandCountyProthonotaryon10/21/20203:41PM,Fee
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JudicialSystemofPennsylvania:CaseRecordsoftheAppellateandTrialCourtsthatrequirefilingconfidentialinformationanddocumentsdifferentlythannon-confidentialinformationanddocuments.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00258-JPW Document 1-1 Filed 02/11/21 Page 16 of 30
`Case 1:21-cv-00258-JPW Document 1-1 Filed 02/11/21 Page 16 of 30
`
`which research at the time indicated health effects would likely not occur over a lifetime of
`
`exposure.
`
`58.
`
`In connection with its emerging contaminant studies, EPA implemented an
`
`Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule Number 3 in 2012 (“UCMR 3”), which was designed
`
`to collect nationwide information regarding the occurrence of PFAS contamination in the public’s
`
`water supply.
`
`59.
`
`UCMR 3 required sampling of Public Water Systems (“PWSS”) serving more than
`
`10,000 people (i.e., large systems) and 800 representative PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer people
`
`(i.e., small systems) for 21 chemicals, including a number of PFASs, during one consecutive
`
`twelve month period in the timeframe between 2013 through 2015.
`
`60.
`
`Sampling under UCMR 3 used higher reporting limits than would be applicable in
`
`light of scientific information and guidance levels developed since that time, which are much lower
`
`than those employed in 2008 and 2009.
`
`61.
`
`In addition, the UCMR 3 sampling effort did not combine PFAS levels thus did not
`
`take into account added effects from the presence of more than one PFAS compound.
`
`62. While more studies have been conducted, and thus, more is known regarding PFOS
`
`and PFOA, all PFAS compounds have generally demonstrated similar characteristics to PFOS and
`
`PFOA.
`
`63.
`
`Although some PFAS compounds have been shown to break down, the resulting
`
`products typically end at non-biodegradable PFOA and PFOS.
`
`64.
`
`The EPA acknowledges that the studies associated with PFAS compounds are
`
`ongoing, and as such, the HALs may be adjusted based upon new information.
`
`14
`
`$0.00.ThefilercertifiesthatthisfilingcomplieswiththeprovisionsofthePublicAccessPolicyoftheUnified
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case#2020-03171-2ReceivedatCumberlandCountyProthonotaryon10/21/20203:41PM,Fee
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JudicialSystemofPennsylvania:CaseRecordsoftheAppellateandTrialCourtsthatrequirefilingconfidentialinformationanddocumentsdifferentlythannon-confidentialinformationanddocuments.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00258-JPW Document 1-1 Filed 02/11/21 Page 17 of 30
`Case 1:21-cv-00258-JPW Document 1-1 Filed 02/11/21 Page 17 of 30
`
`65.
`
`As manufacturers, sellers, handlers and dischargers of PFAS compounds, and
`
`products containing PFAS, Defendants knew or should have known that the inclusion of PFAS
`
`chemicals in any products presented an unreasonable risk to human health and the environment.
`
`66.
`
`Defendants knew or should have known that PFAS compounds are highly soluble
`
`in water, highly