In re: Town of Pine Hill v. 3M Company, Inc.

── In re: Town of Pine Hill v. 3M Company, Inc. ── Court: Supreme Court of Alabama Date: April 24, 2026 Author: Greg Shaw Category: General Rel: April 24, 2026 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2025-2026 _________________________ SC-2025-0521 _________________________ Ex parte 3M Company, Inc., et al. PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION (In re: Town of Pine Hill v. 3M Company, Inc., et al.) (Wilcox Circuit Court: CV-24-900039.80) SHAW, Justice. SC-2025-0521 3M Company, Inc.; BASF Corporation; DuPont de Nemours, Inc.; Corteva, Inc.; EIDP, Inc., f/k/a E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company; The Chemours Company; Daikin America, Inc.; International Paper Company; Shannon Dixon; Steve Webb; Carla Pearson; and Solenis LLC, the defendants in an action brought by the Town of Pine Hill ("the Town") alleging that the defendants had caused chemical contamination of the drinking water supply of the Town, seek a writ of prohibition directing the Wilcox Circuit Court to vacate its June 9, 2025, order concluding that it possessed jurisdiction over the action and to stay further proceedings pending resolution of a related appeal currently pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ("the Eleventh Circuit"). We grant the petition and issue the writ. Facts and Procedural History In July 2024, the Town sued the defendants in the Wilcox Circuit Court ("the circuit court"). The complaint was premised on the purported release of toxic chemicals, including per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS") and related chemicals, from three International Paper mills ("the mills") via wastewater emissions, air emissions, and stormwater 2 SC-2025-0521 emissions that have allegedly contaminated the Alabama River.1 The Town obtains the raw water that is ultimately supplied to its residential and commercial utility customers from the Alabama River. The Town represented that testing at the Town's intake site revealed that the river water contains levels of PFAS that exceed the EPA's maximum contaminant levels, which cannot be removed by the Town's existing water-treatment processes. Also according to the Town, any detectible concentration of PFAS and related compounds in drinking water has adverse health effects. Based on those allegations and various theories of recovery, the Town sought compensatory and punitive damages -- associated primarily with the expenses associated with its remediation and testing efforts as well as the future installation and operation of a 1The defendants generally include the owner of the mills located upstream from the Town's water-intake site on the Alabama River; the parties who supply chemical products and materials to the mills; the parties who use the chemical compounds, products, and materials that contain or degrade into PFAS; and/or the parties directly releasing PFAS into the environment through wastewater emissions, air emissions, and stormwater emissions. In its complaint, the Town defines PFAS as "man- made, laboratory-produced, synthetic chemicals that do not exist naturally in the environment, are harmful at extremely low levels, and for decades were widely used in consumer, household, and other commercial products, as well as industrial uses." 3 SC-2025-0521 filtration