Item 1. Legal Proceedings
Item 1. Legal Proceedings
Our subsidiaries and our holding company are subject, from time to time, to a variety of civil and administrative proceedings arising out of our normal operations, including, without limitation, product liability claims, health, safety, and environmental claims, and employment-related actions. Among such proceedings are cases alleging that plaintiffs have contracted, or have been placed at risk of contracting, beryllium sensitization or chronic beryllium disease or other lung conditions as a result of exposure to beryllium (beryllium cases). The plaintiffs in beryllium cases seek recovery under negligence and various other legal theories and demand compensatory and often punitive damages, in many cases of an unspecified sum. Spouses of some plaintiffs claim loss of consortium.
Beryllium Claims
As of July 1, 2022, our subsidiary, Materion Brush Inc., was a defendant in one beryllium case. As previously reported, a settlement agreement had been reached in one case, and the and the case was dismissed during the second quarter. In Richard Miller v. Dolphin, Inc. et al., case number CV2020-005163, filed in the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County, the Company is one of six named defendants and 100 Doe defendants. The plaintiff alleges that he contracted beryllium disease from exposures to beryllium-containing products supplied to his employer, Karsten Manufacturing Corporation, where he was a production worker, and asserts claims for negligence, strict liability – failure to warn, strict liability – design defect, and fraudulent concealment. The plaintiff seeks general damages, medical expenses, loss of earnings, consequential damages, and punitive damages, and his wife claims loss of consortium. A co-defendant, Dolphin, Inc., filed a cross-claim against the Company for indemnification. On August 12, 2020, the Company moved to dismiss the cross-claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The court denied the motion on October 23, 2020. On December 7, 2020, the Company filed a Petition for Special Action in the Court of Appeals seeking to appeal the denial of the motion to dismiss the cross-claim. The Court of Appeals declined to accept jurisdiction on December 30, 2020. The court entered a scheduling order on September 14, 2021 that did not set a date for trial. An amended scheduling order was entered on April 8, 2022, but a date for trial was not set. The Company believes that it has substantive defenses and intends to vigorously defend this suit.
In Ronald Dwayne Manning v. Arconic Inc. et al., case number 19CI000219, filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, Tehama County, and later removed to the United States District Court, Eastern District of California (Sacramento Division), case number 2:19-CV-02202-MCE-DMC, the Company was one of three named defendants and 120 Doe defendants. The plaintiff alleged that he contracted beryllium disease from exposures to beryllium-containing products during his employment as an auto mechanic, welder, sprinkler installer, and movie projector operator, and asserted claims for negligence, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, and breach of implied warranties. The plaintiff sought economic damages, non-economic damages, consequential damages, and punitive damages. A settlement agreement was reached in this case, and a Stipulation of Dismissal was entered by the court on June 1, 2022.
No beryllium cases were filed in the second quarter of 2022.
The Company has insurance coverage, which may respond, subject to an annual deductible.
Other Claims
On October 14, 2020, Garett Lucyk, et al. v. Materion Brush Inc., et. al., case number 20CV0234, a wage and hour purported collective and class action, was filed in the Northern District of Ohio against the Company and its subsidiary, Materion Brush Inc. (collectively, the Company). Plaintiff, a former hourly production employee at the Company's Elmore, Ohio facility, alleges, among other things, that he and other similarly situated employees nationwide are not paid for all time they spend donning and doffing personal protective equipment in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio law. Plaintiff filed a motion for conditional certification, which the Company opposed. The motion has been fully briefed, and the parties are awaiting a decision from the court. The Company believes that it has substantive defenses and intends to vigorously defend this suit absent a negotiated resolution.
41
Text extracted from the filing as submitted to EDGAR. Formatting, tables and exhibits are simplified for reading; the original document is authoritative for anything you rely on.