IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

LAWRENCE HIGGINS, TROY

RENY, JOSHUA HARRIS,
CATHERINE HARRINGTON,
HARRINGTON, CHRISTINE
DEBLOIS, JUDITH POULIN, et al.

Plaintiffs,

vs.
Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-00369-JCN
HUHTAMAKI, INC., SOLENIS
LLC, BASF, AND 3M,

Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs file this their Fourth Amended Complaint and respectfully plead the

following:

INTRODUCTION

1. Huhtamaki owns and operates a paper mill in Waterville, ME (the “Mill”).

Huhtamaki knowingly used “forever chemicals” (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances

and their constituents (“PFAS” chemicals)) and then intentionally and recklessly

discharged those toxins in a manner that resulted in them being transmitted onto

Plaintiffs’ land and drinking water at levels more than a million times higher than the

recent Health Advisory values established by the Environmental Protection Agency.

2. Huhtamaki purchased these toxic PFAS chemicals from Defendants 3M,

BASF, and Solenis (the “Chemical Companies,” more specifically identified below). The

Chemical Companies manufactured and sold the toxic PFAS chemicals for profit to

Huhtamaki.

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint 1

 3. The Chemical Companies knew that their PFAS chemicals were toxic. Yet

they negligently, recklessly, and/or intentionally failed to warn Huhtamaki of the

chemicals’ toxic nature. Had they done so, Huhtamaki would have properly disposed of

its waste, thereby avoiding any injury to Plaintiffs.

4. Plaintiffs are landowners whose lands, property and water supplies were

contaminated by Huhtamaki’s intentional discharge, distribution, disposal, and/or

spreading of these PFAS toxins that were byproducts of the toxic PFAS chemicals

manufactured and sold by the Chemical Companies. Plaintiffs have been exposed to and

consumed these PFAS toxins through their contaminated water and from food produced

from their contaminated lands. Plaintiffs have sustained damage to their real and

personal property as well as economic damages as a result of the wrongful conduct of

Defendant.

PARTIES

Original Plaintiffs

5. Plaintiff Lawrence Higgins is a citizen of Maine and is an owner of

contaminated property in Maine.

6. Plaintiff Troy Reny is a citizen of Maine and is an owner of contaminated

property in Maine..

7. Plaintiff Joshua Harris is a citizen of Maine and is an owner of contaminated

property in Maine.

8. Plaintiff Catherine Harrington is a citizen of Maine and is an owner of

contaminated property in Maine.

9. Plaintiff Christine Deblois is a citizen of Maine and is an owner of

contaminated property in Maine.

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint 2

 10. Plaintiff Judith Poulin is a citizen of Maine and is an owner of contaminated

property in Maine.

Plaintiffs Added by This Amendment

The following Plaintiffs are being added to this case:

Judith Ablair, James Auclair, Mary Balboa, Arthur Goodwin, Daniel Beaulieu, David
Bellefleur, Alden Bickford, Melissa Boissonneault, Chantel Brochu, Sharon Butler,
Jeffrey Caron, Pamela Clark, Shanleigh Collins, Jeri-Lee Cookson, Daniel Curtis, Janet
Dawes, Paul Deagle, Michael DeRoche, Kenneth Ellis, Matthew DiFilippo, Vicki Dyer,
Lawrence Emery, Tyler Emery, Rosalie Fagan, Roland Fuller, Alison Gagliardi, Ryan
Gagne, Marion Garbe, Patricia George, Mary Getchell, Susan Gilman, Phil Gittersberger,
Ashley Gooden, Simone Goodspeed, Forrest Goodwin, Brendon Gorrie, Budd Grant,
Jane Greenblatt, Deborah Greene, Sharon Greene, Daniel Grudda, William Grudda,
Wilfred Guertin, Cheryl Gullifer, Robin Harrington, Joshua Luke Harris, Timothy
Higgins, Theresa Hiltz, William Holland, Marc Hutchison, Valarie Ireland, Dorothy
Lane, Donna Lee, Charles Mackay, Corrie Marinaro, Nadene Mathes, Kimberly McLain,
Douglas Miller, Judith Mosher, Deborah Mullen, Dale Musolf, John Noel, Michael Otis,
Gene Paquet, Gary Parsons, Jeffrey Pellerin, Peggy Pellerin, Erik Perkins, Daniel Poulin,
Tori Richards, Ethan Robertson, Lisa Robles, Kelly Sue Rogers, Cory Roy, Patricia
Shuck, Bryan Slaney, Patrick Slaney, Edward Stevens, Jr., Matthew Stone, George
Taylor, Erwin Taylor, Jr., Cole Teague, Sherry Tompkins, Frank W. Tozier, Sr., Marilyn
Tozier, Stephen N. Tozier, Sr., Brian Wadleigh, Jody West, Susan White, Thomas Wick,
the Sebasticook Regional Land Trust and Sunset Greenhouses, Inc.

Each of these plaintiffs is a resident of Maine and owns property that was polluted

with PFAS as a result of Defendants wrongful conduct within this Federal Judicial

District in Maine. Hereinafter, “Plaintiffs” is used collectively to refer to each/all

plaintiffs.

Paper Mill Defendant

11. Defendant Huhtamaki, Inc. (“Huhtamaki”) is a corporation organized

under the laws of, and existing in, the state of Kansas, with its principal place of business

located at 9201 Packaging Drive, De Soto, Kansas 66018. Huhtamaki has entered an

appearance in this action.

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint 3

Chemical Company Defendants

12. Defendant Solenis LLC (“Solenis”), formerly known as Ashland Hercules

Water Technology is limited liability company. Upon information and belief Solenis is

owned 100% by Solenis Holdings 1 LLC. Solenis Holdings 1, LLC is a Delaware LLC

whose sole member is Solenis Holdings, LLC. Solenis Holdings, LLC is a Delaware LLC

wholly owned by Olympus Water US Holding Corporation which is incorporated in

Delaware with its principal place of business in California. Solenis has agreed to waive

service and enter an answer in this action; thereby replacing Solinis Interntational LLC as

a defendant in this case.

13. Defendant BASF is a corporation organized under the laws of, and existing

in, the State of New Jersey, with its principal place of business located at 100 Park Ave,

Florham Park, New Jersey 07932. BASF has entered an appearance in this action. BASF

acquired Ciba in approximately 2008 and became successor-in-interest to Ciba at that

point. Plaintiffs allege on information and belief that BASF assumed liability for, among

other things, Ciba’s liability for damages caused by or related to products that Ciba had

previously sold.

14. Defendant 3M is a corporation organized under the laws of, and existing in,

the State of Minnesota, with its principal place of business located at 2501 Hudson Road,

Maplewood, Minnesota 55144. Defendant 3M has entered an appearance in this action.

15. 3M, BASF, and Solenis, are collectively referred to as the “Chemical

Companies.” The Chemical Companies and Huhtamaki are collectively referred to as

“Defendants.”

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

16. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

17. All Plaintiffs are citizens of Maine.

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint 4

 18. No Defendant is a citizen of Maine.

19. Each Plaintiff’s damages is far in excess of $75,000.

20. Venue properly lies in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because

a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in

this district and all of the properties that are the subject of this action are in this district.

21. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties because the Defendants resided,

transacted business, were found, and/or had agents in the State of Maine, and because a

substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in the State of

Maine.

22. Defendants have systematically transacted and conducted business in the

State of Maine, and these causes of action arise, in part, from the same.

23. At all relevant times, Defendants expected or should have expected that

their acts would have consequences within the United States of America and the State of

Maine.

24. At all relevant times, Defendants derived, and some continue to derive,

substantial revenue from their financial activities in the State of Maine including, but not

limited to, the operation of the Mill, and/or the sale and distribution of PFAS containing

chemicals, including those at issue in this case, in the State of Maine.

25. On information and belief, at all relevant times, Defendants committed

tortious acts within the State of Maine causing injury within the State of Maine, out of

which acts these causes of action arise.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Chemical Characteristics of PFAS Chemicals

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint 5

 26. PFAS chemicals are wholly synthetic chemicals that do not exist in nature.

They are known to be harmful to human health, animal health, and the environment at

the quantities to which Plaintiffs and their lands have been exposed.

27. PFAS chemicals have unique properties that make them persistent, bio-

accumulative, and toxic.

28. PFAS chemicals can persist in the environment indefinitely due to the

strength of multiple carbon-fluorine bonds. In other words, they break down very slowly

in the environment, if at all, earning them the nickname “forever chemicals.”

29. Indeed, PFAS chemicals are thermally, chemically, and biologically stable,

and therefore resistant to biodegradation, atmospheric photooxidation, direct photolysis,

and hydrolysis.1

30. PFAS chemicals are also water-soluble, making them mobile in

groundwater and the environment. Further, because PFAS chemicals repel organic

materials, they readily leach through soil, impacting groundwater.

31. Historically, water treatment systems did not test and/or filter PFAS

Chemicals from their water supply.2

1
Plaintiffs allege that the Chemical Companies have designed, manufactured, produced, and/or marketed
and sold products that contain these chemicals. Plaintiffs further allege that the Chemical Companies sold
specific products to Huhtamaki, as identified in this complaint. While there are many chemicals in the
PFAS family and many products into which PFAS chemicals are incorporated, the claims alleged in this
cause are those that arise out of the Chemical Companies’ sale of PFAS containing products that they
designed, manufactured, produced, and/or marketed to Huhtamaki, and which Huhtamaki used in its
manufacturing processes in its mill after purchase. Even after use in a manufacturing process -- like those
employed by Huhtamaki-- the PFAS chemicals in manufacturing byproducts remain in substantially the
same condition as they were before being used in the manufacturing process and certainly without change
to the essential features of those chemicals. That is, any change in the PFAS products sold by the Chemical
Companies through the processes used by Huhtamaki is not a significant change in the product because it
does not alter the essential, toxic features of the PFAS chemicals.

2
Just under half (49%) of Maine’s citizens are served water by Community Water Systems, which are
regulated under the federal safe Drinking Water Act administered through Maine CDC’s Drinking Water
Program (DWP) – the remaining 51% obtain their drinking water from residential wells that are not subject
to federal or state regulation or testing requirements. Tipton, Meredith, Managing PFAS in Maine – Final
Report from the Maine PFAS Task Force § (2020).

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint 6

 32. Similarly, chlorine and other disinfectants that are typically added to

drinking water systems did not and do not remove PFAS chemicals from contaminated

water.

33. Compounding the fact that PFAS chemicals are notoriously difficult to

remove from contaminated water supplies and soils, toxicology studies have shown that

PFAS chemicals are readily absorbed after oral exposure and accumulate primarily in the

serum, kidney, and liver.

34. What is more, PFAS chemicals have a half-life within the human body of

up to nine years, and the chemicals are known to cross the placenta from mother to fetus

and can be passed to infants through breast milk.

35. PFAS chemicals are categorized by the medical and scientific communities

as “endocrine disruptors,” meaning they interfere with the normal functioning of the

endocrine system and the reproductive and other biological processes regulated by it.

36. PFAS chemicals are also known to be immunotoxic, meaning they have an

adverse effect on the body’s immune system.

37. These Characteristics contribute to numerous health risks associated with

exposure to PFAS chemicals. PFAS chemicals have been linked to physical injuries,

diseases, and disorders including, but not limited to: cancer, thyroid disease, high

cholesterol, ulcerative colitis, gestational hypertension, kidney disease, hypertension,

obesity, and preeclampsia, as well as reduced immunological functions including

decreased responsiveness to vaccines. PFAS chemical injuries can have a high latency

period meaning injuries can manifest years after exposure to the chemicals.

38. Increased ingestion of PFAS chemicals affects the body’s ability to

appropriately respond to vaccines and to fight off infection, among other things. Medical

studies have shown a significant reduction in the efficacy of vaccines in patients with

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint 7

significant PFAS blood levels. Most recently, studies have shown that significant PFAS

Chemical exposure more than doubles the risk of contracting COVID, and of having

severe disease when infected. Significant ingestion of PFAS chemicals also increases, by

more than five-fold, the risk of intensive care or death from COVID disease.

39. As a result of these serious adverse health consequences of the ingestion of

PFAS chemicals, the State of Maine enacted legislation on June 21, 2021 requiring all

community water systems to monitor for the PFAS compounds listed by the United States

Environmental Protection Agency and to mitigate and continue to monitor any well with

combined PFAS levels above 20 nanograms per liter (i.e. 20 parts per trillion (PPT)) before

December 31, 2022.

40. Exactly a year later, on June 21, 2022, the United States Environmental

Protection Agency published Health Advisories for four of the most common PFAS

agents which include PFOS and PFOA. The EPA established the levels “below which

adverse health effects are not anticipated to occur” at .004 PPT for PFOA, and .02 PPT for

PFOS.3 These levels are so low they are below the level of detection for most, if not all,

laboratories.

Huhtamaki’s Negligent and/or Reckless Conduct

41. Huhtamaki currently owns and operates the Mill which, for decades, has

utilized hazardous PFAS chemicals in producing some, if not all, of its molded paper

products. The Huhtamaki Mill is located at 242 College Avenue in Waterville, Maine.

42. The Mill was, owned, and operated by Keyes Fibre Company from 1903 to

1927 when the company was purchased by Rex Pulp Products Company. Thereafter, Rex

Pulp Products Company changed its name to Keyes Fibre Company.

3
Federal Register, Volume 87, No. 118, June 21, 2022

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint 8

 43. Arcata National Corp. (“ANC”) and Keyes Fibre Company merged in 1979

with the surviving company being Keyes Fibre Company.

44. Keyes Fibre Company was acquired by Huhtamaki in 1999.

45. Huhtamaki, Inc., at all relevant times, produced paper products using and

disposing of PFAS chemicals as part of its operation in essentially the same manner as

the previous operators of the Mill back to at least 1980.

46. As a result of Huhtamaki’s activities, including its negligent and/or

reckless disposal of PFAS-contaminated byproducts of their operations at the Mill, and

the sale of unreasonably dangerous PFAS chemicals to Huhtamaki by the Chemical

Companies, Plaintiffs and their property have been injured by egregiously high and

patently dangerous levels of PFAS.

47. The following PFAS containing chemicals, manufactured and sold to

Huhtamaki by the Chemical Companies, used by Huhtamaki and recklessly disposed of

by Huhtamaki at the Mill: FC-807 a/k/a Scotchban (3M), Lodyne P-201 (Ciba/BASF),

Lodyne 2020 (Ciba/BASF),4 ImPress FP-100 (Solenis), ImPress FP-200 (Solenis), and

ImPress FP-200 Ultra (Solenis) (hereinafter referred to as “PFAS Chemicals”). These

chemicals possess the same properties as noted in Paragraphs 27-41. Plaintiffs reserve the

right to identify additional products that may be identified during discovery as having

been sold by the Chemical Companies and used by Huhtamaki in the manner alleged in

this amended complaint.

48. Each of these products contain a PFAS compound, or compounds, as their

primary ingredient; the ingredient provides the grease and/or water resistance for which

the products were used. While some of the products contain other chemical compounds,

4
As alleged in paragraph 14, Defendant BASF is alleged herein to be the successor-in-interest to Ciba,
which designed, manufactured, marketed, and sold the Lodyne P-201 and Lodyne 2020 products.

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint 9

all future reference to “PFAS Chemicals” will be referring only to these primary PFAS

ingredients contained within them. Each of these PFAS Chemicals possess the

characteristics noted above.

Huhtamaki’s Negligent/Reckless Disposal of PFAS

49. PFAS Chemicals have been used in the production of certain paper and

cardboard packaging since the 1950s. The PFAS Chemicals were used by Huhtamaki at

the Mill during its manufacturing of molded fiber products. The PFAS Chemicals were

used to prevent the paper material from soaking up fats and water. Huhtamaki may have

also used PFAS containing products in printing inks and as moisture barriers.

50. The processes utilized by the Huhtamaki in manufacturing its molded fiber

products created residuals and/or byproducts that had high levels of the PFAS

Chemicals. That is, the PFAS chemicals remain molecularly unaltered in the byproducts

and residuals of the manufacturing process. These residuals and/or byproducts mainly

took the form of wastewater or sludge.

51. Huhtamaki disposed of these byproducts by combinations of: discharge

into the local sewer; spreading; and/or discharge as surface water. As a result of its

negligence, much of Huhtamaki’s waste ultimately became comingled with biosolids

and/or sludge and spread on, or in close proximity, to Plaintiffs’ properties.

52. Because of the nature of the PFAS Chemicals (see Paragraphs 27-41 above)

the PFAS Chemicals in the products designed, manufactured, produced, marketed, or

sold by the Chemical Companies were not altered in the manufacturing process and

remained in the same dangerous form as they were when created and when delivered to

Huhtamaki.

53. Once deposited on the ground or otherwise discharged into sewers or as

surface waters, PFAS Chemicals are all but certain to migrate through the soil to ground

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint 10

water and aquifers and through runoff to nearby lands and waterways. Their path of

contamination is difficult to prospectively predict.

54. That is precisely what happed to the PFAS Chemicals used and

negligently/recklessly disposed of by Huhtamaki.

55. Plaintiffs have been directly and disproportionately impacted by

Huhtamaki’ disposal of PFAS waste and/or PFAS-contaminated byproducts.

Huhtamaki disposed of PFAS-containing residuals and/or byproducts through one or

more of the following: discharge into wastewater treatment facilities; spreading; or

discharge as surface water. The disposal of these PFAS-containing residuals and/or

byproducts resulted in those residuals and/or byproducts becoming comingled with

biosolids and/or sludge and spread on fields near Plaintiffs’ homes. These PFAS-

containing residuals and/or byproducts contained the very PFAS chemicals that were

designed, manufactured, produced, marketed by the Chemical Companies and sold by

them to Huhtamaki.

56. It is reported that Huhtamaki is the single largest contributor to the

Kennebec Sanitary Treatment District (“KSTD”) plant. Huhtamaki’s waste stream into

that plant was contaminated with high levels of PFAS Chemicals. Those PFAS Chemicals

became comingled with KSTD’s sludge and/or biosolids which also acted to transport

them to fields adjacent to Plaintiffs’ property. The PFAS-containing waste discharged

from Huhtamaki’s mill contained the very PFAS chemicals that were designed,

manufactured, produced, marketed by the Chemical Companies and sold by them to

Huhtamaki.

57. Huhtamaki knew or should have known that its PFAS contaminated waste

would pollute properties, like those owned by Plaintiffs, when disposed of in this

manner.

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint 11

 58. After disposal by the Huhtamaki, the PFAS Chemicals in their residuals

and/or byproducts leached into the ground water and aquifers and moved along surface

waters, reaching Plaintiffs’ land. There, the PFAS Chemicals used and disposed of by

Huhtamaki poisoned Plaintiffs’ wells, land, plants, and animals. The PFAS containing

products designed, manufactured, produced, and/or marketed by the Chemical

Companies and sold by them to Huhtamaki included the same PFAS chemicals and

degradations thereof that were detected in Plaintiffs’ wells. Huhtamaki’s toxic

byproducts also included those PFAS chemicals.

59. On March 6, 2019, Governor Mills issued Executive Order 5FY 19/20 in

which she acknowledged that, “PFAS chemicals that are not naturally occurring, are

stable and persistent in the environment, bioaccumulate, toxic at low concentrations, and

easily transferred to groundwater …” and established the Governor’s Task Force on the

Threats of PFAS Contamination to Public Health and the Environment to study the

problem and explore solutions.

Plaintiffs’ Exposure to Excessive PFAS Contamination

60. Plaintiffs have each been subjected to significantly increased exposure to

PFAS Chemicals, beyond that which would be expected (or hoped) for the average person

living in this, or any other, State.

61. Each of Plaintiffs’ wells and/or soils have been tested by competent

laboratories, and this testing showed that each of their wells and/or properties was

contaminated with PFAS Chemicals at levels above those considered safe. In fact, some

Plaintiffs’ wells contained over a million times the level considered safe by the EPA.

Representative test results from Plaintiff’s wells are collectively attached hereto as Exhibit

“A.” All test results will be provided to Defendants pursuant to agreed discovery.

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint 12

 62. Most Plaintiffs drank, cooked with, bathed in, and used this dangerously

contaminated water on their lawns and gardens and as drinking water for their animals.

Other Plaintiffs also grew crops and/or raised livestock on their PFAS contaminated

land. As a result, Plaintiffs have been exposed to and consumed PFAS Chemicals through

each of those modes of exposure. Through that exposure -- including ingestion of PFAS

Chemicals -- Plaintiffs have all had their blood, tissue, and organs contaminated with

these toxins.

63. The PFAS contamination has damaged Plaintiffs properties and has

resulted in significant economic loss for some Plaintiffs.

64. The PFAS-containing products designed, manufactured, produced, and/or

marketed by the Chemical Companies and sold by them to Huhtamaki included the same

PFAS chemicals, or degradations thereof, that were detected in Plaintiffs’ wells.

Huhtamaki’s toxic byproducts also included those PFAS chemicals. Defendants’ toxic

PFAS Chemicals have also contaminated Plaintiffs’ soil and homes through water, dust,

and steam. Plaintiffs will continue to be exposed to these dangerous chemicals until their

homes, properties and wells are fully remediated.

65. The knowledge that Plaintiffs have, for years, consumed water

contaminated with orders of magnitude more PFAS toxins that determined to be safe by

the State of Maine and the EPA has resulted in Plaintiffs suffering worry and anxiety over

their current and future health, and the health of their children and grandchildren.

66. Not all residents of Fairfield or the surrounding towns were impacted by

Defendants’ conduct. After learning particularly of the contaminated sludge/biosolids

that had been used as fertilizer on farms near Plaintiffs’ homes, the DEP conducted

testing of water wells that may have been affected. The following map from the DEP

website shows the random nature of affected wells:

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint 13

 67. All the Plaintiffs’ homes are “red dots” on this map. Many of the green dots

represent wells that tested below the level of detection, or “non-detect”. As shown,

properties with contaminated wells are found, in many cases, to be adjacent to

uncontaminated properties. There are also many wells in the area that were not tested

because DEP had no reason to believe they were contaminated.

68. All of the facts alleged above occurred within this District.

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint 14

The Sale of PFAS to Huhtamaki

69. Plaintiffs’ allegations as to the Chemical Companies identified herein are

limited to PFAS containing products that they sold to Huhtamaki. Where possible,

Plaintiffs have identified particular products that were designed, manufactured,

produced, and/or marketed by the Chemical Companies and sold by them to

Huhtamaki. But even where that type of specific identification is not yet possible, the

claims alleged herein involve only products that the manufacturing defendants sold to

Huhtamaki. Those strictures limit the scope of the allegations geographically to only

products that were sold to Huhtamaki and from which PFAS-containing byproducts

were discharged, released, or spread. Finally, the fact that the claims depend upon the

sales by the Chemical Companies of those products to Huhtamaki necessarily confines

the claims temporally to the periods of time during which the Chemical Companies were

selling their PFAS-containing products to Huhtamaki. On information and belief,

Plaintiffs allege that the Chemical Companies named herein held the overwhelming

majority -- if not the entirety -- of the market share for selling PFAS-containing products

to Huhtamaki.

70. Solenis sold its PFAS Chemicals -- including ImPress FP-100, ImPress FP-

200, and ImPress FP-200 Ultra -- to Huhtamaki Mill, knowing the toxic chemicals would

be used in the manufacturing of paper products and would generate toxic waste

containing its PFAS Chemicals.

71. BASF, formerly known as Ciba Inc., sold its PFAS Chemicals -- including

Lodyne P-201 and Lodyne 20205 -- to Huhtamaki, knowing the toxic chemical would be

5
As alleged in paragraph 14, Defendant BASF is alleged herein to be the successor-in-interest to Ciba,
which designed, manufactured, marketed, and sold the Lodyne P-201 and Lodyne 2020 products.

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint 15

used in the manufacturing of paper products and would generate toxic waste containing

its PFAS Chemicals.

72. 3M sold its PFAS chemicals -- including FC-807 a/k/a Scotchban -- to

Huhtamaki, knowing the toxic chemicals would be used in the manufacturing of paper

products and would generate toxic waste containing its PFAS Chemicals.

Plaintiffs’ Exposure to Excessive PFAS Chemicals

73. The Chemical Companies knew or should have known that the PFAS

Chemicals they were selling to the Huhtamaki were highly toxic to humans and to the

environment even at very low concentrations. The Chemical Companies further knew or

should have known that the uses of their PFAS chemicals by Huhtamaki would result in

residuals and byproducts in which those PFAS chemicals would persist. The Chemical

Companies also knew or should have known that the persistence of those PFAS chemicals

would make those residuals and byproducts unreasonably dangerous to anyone exposed

to those residuals and byproducts and the chemicals within them. The Chemical

Companies, accordingly, had a duty to warn Huhtamaki of these dangerous qualities of

PFAS chemicals and to warn them against undertaking disposal practices that would

endanger others (including Plaintiffs) with exposure to the highly toxic, unreasonably

dangerous PFAS chemicals persisting in those residuals and byproducts. Despite their

duty to warn the Huhtamaki of the hazardous nature of these products the Chemical

Companies either negligently or intentionally failed to warn the Huhtamaki of their

products’ characteristics. Pleading in the alternative: Had the Chemical Companies

adequately warned Huhtamaki of the risks of improperly disposing of PFAS

contaminated waste, then Huhtamaki would have property disposed of its PFAS

contaminated waste thereby avoiding injury to Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint 16

 74. 3M pioneered the manufacture of PFAS chemicals with the development of

PFOA starting in the early 1950s.

75. 3M sold FC-807, a PFOA product, to Huhtamaki.

76. 3M is the only company to manufacture a PFOA product. Therefore, the

dangerous levels of PFOA in Plaintiffs’ wells came from a 3M product – FC-807 is the

only one of those products that has been identified by Huhtamaki as having been used at

the Mill.

77. 3M conducted studies in the 1950s and early 1960s that showed its PFOS

accumulate in the human body and are toxic. By the 1970s additional 3M studies revealed

that is PFOS products were “even more toxic” than previously believed.

78. In 1999 a 3M scientist resigned in protest saying that he could “no longer

participate” in a 3M process that put “markets, legal defensibility and image over

environmental safety” while calling PFAS one of the most insidious chemicals in

existence.

79. In an attempt to hide the dangers of PFAS products, 3M breached its legal

obligation to report its knowledge of adverse health effects. It was eventually fined $1.5

million by the EPA for this conduct.

80. The other Chemical Companies had similar knowledge and information

about the dangers of their PFAS Chemicals prior to selling them to Huhtamaki. Each of

the Chemical Companies negligently and/or intentionally failed and refused to warn

Huhtamaki about the hazardous nature of their PFAS Chemicals.

81. The Chemical Companies were not only aware of the uses to which

Huhtamaki would (and did) put their PFAS Chemicals, but also actively participated in

directing and advising Huhtamaki of how to use and dispose of those PFAS Chemicals.

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint 17

 82. The Chemical Companies were well versed in Huhtamaki’s manufacturing

process and knew that its manufacturing process would generate wasted laden with their

PFAS Chemicals, unchanged from the structure in which they were delivered to

Huhtamaki.

83. Despite knowing the use of their PFAS Chemicals by Huhtamaki would

result in waste highly contaminated with their toxic PFAS Products, the Chemical

Companies knowingly and intentionally failed to warn Huhtamaki of the hazardous

nature of its waste, necessarily laden with Chemical Companies’ PFAS Chemicals

because Chemical Companies feared it would hurt sales and reduce their profits.

84. The Chemical Companies knew that without adequate warning,

Huhtamaki would discharge this waste into the local sanitary sewer, into the waterways,

or on the ground, and that being uncontained the PFAS-containing waste would

contaminate the environment, aquifers, and drinking water.

85. As a result of the Chemical Companies’ knowingly selling their

unreasonably dangerous, toxic PFAS Chemicals to Huhtamaki without warning it of the

hazardous nature of the chemicals, Huhtamaki disposed of its waste contaminated with

high levels of the Chemical Companies’ PFAS Chemicals in a manner that resulted in it

contaminating Plaintiffs’ water, bodies, lands, animals, and residences.

86. Had the Chemical Companies adequately warned Huhtamaki of the toxic

nature of their PFAS Chemicals, Huhtamaki would have properly disposed of its waste

contaminated with Chemical Companies’ PFAS Chemicals in a safe and prudent manner

that would have prevented the PFAS Chemicals from ever reaching Plaintiffs’ properties.

87. As a result of the Chemical Companies negligent, reckless, and/or

intentional conduct, Plaintiffs have each been, and will continue to be, subjected to

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint 18

significantly increased PFAS exposure, beyond that which would be expected (or hoped)

for the average person living in this state.

88. Each of Plaintiffs’ wells and/or property has been test by a qualified

laboratory and this testing shows that each of their wells and/or properties is

contaminated with PFAS Chemicals at unsafe levels.

89. The Chemical Companies’ toxic PFAS Chemicals have also contaminated

Plaintiffs’ soil and homes through water, dust, and steam. Plaintiffs will continue to be

exposed to these dangerous chemicals until their homes, properties and wells are fully

remediated.

90. The contamination has caused loss of enjoyment of Plaintiffs’ property,

including but not limited to the loss of ability to grow gardens, eat eggs and meats raised

on the properties and to allow children to play in the dirt on the property.

91. The knowledge that Plaintiffs have, for years, consumed water

contaminated with orders of magnitude more PFAS toxins that determined to be safe has

resulted in Plaintiffs suffering worry and anxiety over their current and future health,

and the health of their children and grandchildren.

92. The Chemical Companies’ toxic PFAS Chemicals have also contaminated

Plaintiffs’ soil and homes through water, dust, and steam. Plaintiffs will continue to be

exposed to these dangerous chemicals until their homes, properties and wells are fully

remediated. Additionally, many Plaintiffs will continue to suffer economic loss and loss

of profits from their lands until the lands are completely remediated.

CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST HUHTAMAKI

COUNT I
NEGLIGENCE

93. Plaintiffs repeat, reallege, and incorporate by reference all allegations of this

Complaint as if set forth more particularly at length here.

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint 19

 94. Huhtamaki owed Plaintiffs a duty to use, emit, discharge, dispose, and/or

distribute their PFAS-contaminated byproducts in a manner which would not cause

Plaintiffs injury or harm.

95. Huhtamaki, through its PFAS use and disposal activities alleged herein,

failed to act in the matter of an ordinary, careful person or business.

96. Plaintiffs were foreseeable victims located within the scope of the risk

created by the Huhtamaki’ conduct.

97. Huhtamaki owed Plaintiffs a duty of reasonable care commensurate with

the risk of using, emitting, discharging, disposing, and distributing their PFAS

contaminated byproducts.

98. As a manufacturer, distributor, supplier, disposer, and/or seller of

byproducts containing PFAS -- including waste sludge fertilizers or soil enhancers (or

other similar biosolids), discharged wastewater, discharged surface water, and landfill

waste -- Huhtamaki knew or should have known of the extraordinary risks posed by toxic

contamination with PFAS.

99. Huhtamaki negligently breached its duty of care to Plaintiffs by using,

emitting, discharging, disposing, distributing, spreading, and/or spraying PFAS-

contaminated materials, by failing to take steps to minimize or eliminate the release of

PFAS after those uses, by failing to utilize alternative procedures that would not result in

the release of PFAS into the environment and thereafter onto Plaintiffs’ land, water

supplies and wells, and by using, emitting, discharging, disposing, distributing and/or

spraying PFAS on to, or nearby, Plaintiffs’ land.

100. Huhtamaki had a duty to investigate the extent to which PFAS

contaminated materials used, emitted, discharged, disposed, distributed, spread, and/or

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint 20

sprayed was likely contaminating property at levels to materially increase nearby

residents’ likelihood and risk of developing cancer and other diseases.

101. Huhtamaki negligently breached its duties by, among other things:

a. Emitting dangerous amounts of PFAS into the water and/or

wastewater system.

b. Selling, distributing, spreading and/or spraying PFAS-containing

biosolids and/or sludge, including distribution, spreading, and

spraying those biosolids and/or sludge to properties near or

neighboring Plaintiffs’ or selling those biosolids and/or sludge to

others for those uses.

c. Failing to employ safe methods to adequately control or eliminate

PFAS contamination of Plaintiffs, their properties, and their drinking

water.

d. Failing to use alternative procedures which would not result in the

discharge of PFAS chemicals into the environment and/or onto

Plaintiffs’ property.

e. Failing to locate their PFAS-contaminated byproducts to areas that

would avoid damaging property such as Plaintiffs; and

f. Failing to warn Plaintiffs that they were being exposed to PFAS and

failing to warn Plaintiffs of the consequent risks of disease the

residents acquired because of that exposure.

102. As a direct and proximate result of Huhtamaki’s use, emission, discharge,

disposal, distribution, spreading and/or spraying of PFAS-contaminated biosolids

and/or sludge, Plaintiffs presently suffer, and will continue (in reasonable probability)

to suffer in the future: real property damage; out-of-pocket expenses; lost profits,

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint 21

personal property damage; loss of use and enjoyment of property; diminution in property

value; among other injuries.

COUNT II
NUISANCE

103. Plaintiffs repeat, reallege, and incorporate by reference all allegations of this

Complaint as if set forth more particularly at length here.

104. It is axiomatic that Plaintiffs, like all Mainers, have a right to clean land and

water. As Mainers, Plaintiffs have a common right to enjoy their real property free of

dangerous contamination and to live their lives without unreasonable exposure to toxic

chemicals.

105. At all times relevant hereto, Huhtamaki knew or should have known that

PFAS chemicals are hazardous and harmful to real property, animals, and human beings.

At all relevant times, it was substantially certain that Huhtamaki’s use, emission,

discharge, disposal, distribution, spreading, and/or spraying of PFAS-contaminated

materials would cause injury to both land and water (both ground and surface) wherever

it ended up in the environment.

106. Huhtamaki, through the negligent, reckless, and/or intentional acts and

omissions alleged herein, caused PFAS chemicals to contaminate Plaintiffs’ land, water,

property and/or person.

107. The contamination of Plaintiffs’ real and personal property with PFAS

toxins has interfered with the rights of Plaintiffs to use and enjoy their property, causing

them to suffer damages while sparing others in the community harm. Indeed, this

interference is substantial in nature. It has caused and is causing Plaintiffs to, among other

things, refrain from: commercializing their properties, using their contaminated soil to

grow crops, raise livestock, grow gardens, to refrain from using contaminated water to

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint 22

drink, cook, irrigate their gardens, eat from their gardens, or water their pets and

livestock. The return of Plaintiffs’ rights to full enjoyment of their lands will not be

reinstated until their real and personal properties are full remediated of the PFAS

contamination.

108. Huhtamaki’s conduct has also substantially interfered with Plaintiffs’

ability to enjoy their property, to avail themselves of their property’s value as an asset

and/or source of collateral for financing, and to use their property in the manner that

each Plaintiff so chooses. It has reduced the value of their land.

109. Huhtamaki’s negligent, reckless and/or intentional acts and omissions

were unreasonable and constitute invasion of the property rights of Plaintiffs.

110. Plaintiffs, unlike the public generally, have suffered specific injuries

because of Huhtamaki’s tortious conduct. As demonstrated by the DEP test results, many

private water wells have not been contaminated, and most have not been tested because

there is no reason to believe they are contaminated.

111. Huhtamaki's use, emission, discharge, disposal, distribution, spreading

and/or spraying of PFAS-contaminated materials and the contamination of Plaintiffs’

property resulting therefrom constitutes both a public and a private nuisance. This

nuisance has caused Plaintiffs to presently suffer, and will cause such suffering in the

future, real property damage, out of pocket expense (including expenses to remove

and/or remediate the contamination of their properties), personal property damage, loss

of use and enjoyment of property, and diminution in property value.

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint 23

 COUNT III
STATUTORY NUISANCE

112. Plaintiffs repeat, reallege, and incorporate by reference all allegations of this

Complaint as if set forth more particularly at length here.

113. 17 M.R.S.A. § 2701 states that “[a]ny person injured in his comfort, property

or the enjoyment of his estate by a common and public or a private nuisance may

maintain against the offender a civil action for his damages…”

114. At all times relevant hereto, Huhtamaki knew or should have known PFAS

chemicals to be hazardous and harmful to real property and human beings, and it was

substantially certain that their use, emission, discharge, disposal, distribution, spreading

and/or spraying of PFAS contaminated materials would cause injury to Plaintiffs and

their property.

115. As a direct and proximate result of Huhtamaki’s use, emission, discharge,

disposal, distribution/ spreading and/or spraying of PFAS contaminated materials,

Huhtamaki are liable for damages under 17 M.R.S.A. § 2701, including damages for real

property damage (presently and in the future), out of pocket expense (including expenses

to remove and/or remediate the contamination of their properties), personal property

damage, loss of use and enjoyment of property, and diminution in property value.

116. Plaintiffs’ land, property and water have been specially harmed by

contamination from Huhtamaki’s PFAS containing byproducts and residuals. Each

Plaintiff has received elevated test results indicating that their land, property and/or

water contain well above normal and safe levels PFAS.

COUNT IV
TRESPASS

117. Plaintiffs repeat, reallege, and incorporate by reference all allegations of this

Complaint as if set forth more particularly at length here.

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint 24

 118. At all times relevant hereto, Huhtamaki knew or should have known PFAS

chemicals to be hazardous and harmful to real property, animals, and human beings, and

it was substantially certain that their PFAS use, emission, discharge, disposal,

distribution, spreading, and/or spraying of PFAS contaminated materials would cause

injury to Plaintiffs’ properties.

119. Huhtamaki, through their activities alleged herein, allowed PFAS to enter

and contaminate Plaintiffs’ properties. They intentionally, knowingly, and negligently

used, discharged, spread, deposited, and/or sprayed toxic PFAS-contaminated materials

knowing that those toxins would contaminate the real property and drinking water of

individuals like Plaintiffs.

120. Huhtamaki, through their activities alleged herein, authorized, requested,

or caused others to dispose of waste in a manner that they knew was substantially likely

to cause PFAS to enter and contaminate Plaintiffs’ properties. Through their actions in

intentionally causing others to spread their waste, they intentionally, knowingly, and

negligently caused PFAS-contaminated materials to enter Plaintiffs’ land, water, and

bodies.

121. At all times Huhtamaki was aware that its conduct in disposing of PFAS-

contaminated waste was contrary to Plaintiffs’ rights in their properties.

122. At all times, Huhtamaki’s conduct displayed indifference to and disregard

for Plaintiffs’ rights to their land.

123. Huhtamaki, through its PFAS use and disposal activities alleged herein,

failed to act in the matter of an ordinary, careful person or business.

124. Huhtamaki's intentional, knowing, and negligent contamination, and

continuing contamination, of Plaintiffs’ real and personal property with PFAS toxins has

interfered with the rights of Plaintiffs to use and enjoy their properties and constitutes

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint 25

trespass and continuing trespass. Huhtamaki’s trespass has substantially impaired

Plaintiffs’ rights in the use, exploitation and enjoyment of their properties as alleged

above.

125. Huhtamaki’s trespass has also interfered with and continues to interfere

with Plaintiffs’ ability to enjoy their properties, to avail themselves of their properties’

value as an asset and/or source of collateral for financing, and to use their properties in

the manner that each Plaintiff so chooses.

126. Huhtamaki's trespass has proximately caused (presently and in the future)

contamination of Plaintiffs’ real and personal property, out-of-pocket expense, loss of use

and enjoyment of property, diminution in property value, lost profits, aggravation, and

inconvenience.

COUNT V
ABNORMALLY DANGEROUS ACTIVITY/ULTRAHAZARDOUS
ACTIVITY/STRICT LIABILITY

127. Plaintiffs repeat, reallege, and incorporate by reference all allegations of this

Complaint as if set forth more particularly at length here.

128. Huhtamaki produced and discharge PFAS-contaminated byproducts

which were incorporated into sludge/biosolids which were placed on, or near, Plaintiffs’

properties as fertilizer or soil enhancers. This activity resulted in PFAS contamination of

Plaintiffs’ property and/or water.

129. Huhtamaki knew its waste products, having been generated by the

manufacturing of paper products containing PFAS chemicals, were highly contaminated

with PFAS toxins.

130. This activity:

a. Has a high degree -- almost certain in fact -- of causing significant

harm to the person or lands of individuals like Plaintiffs;

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint 26

 b. cannot be made safe by the exercise of reasonable care;

c. is not a matter of common usage; and

d. was inappropriate in the locations where it took place.

131. Huhtamaki discharged these PFAS contaminated materials which were

incorporated into biosolids used as fertilizer and/or soil enhancers on or nearby adjacent

to residences like Plaintiffs’ properties. Huhtamaki knew that its PFAS contaminated

waste would contaminate the soil, property and water where ever it ended up in the

environment. Unfortunately, it ended up on Plaintiffs’ properties. Huhtamaki’s activities

injured Plaintiffs and provided no value added to the community.

132. Huhtamaki’s ultra-hazardous activities, including use, emission, discharge,

disposal, distribution, spreading, and/or spraying of PFAS contaminated products,

caused current actual harm and a high degree of risk of future harm to Plaintiffs.

133. PFAS toxicity, persistence in the environment and in the human body, and

other properties pose an inherent and extraordinary danger of lasting contamination of

property and of threats to human health.

134. The contamination of the property, drinking water, and bodies of Plaintiffs

were all probable and foreseeable consequences that resulted from the Huhtamaki’s use,

emission, discharge, disposal, distribution and spraying of PFAS-contaminated

byproducts.

135. There is a reasonable likelihood that the Huhtamaki’s use, emission,

discharge, disposal, distribution, and spraying of PFAS contaminated materials will

result in life-threatening cancer and other illness, disease, and disease processes.

136. Because these activities are ultrahazardous, Huhtamaki is strictly liable for

damages proximately resulting therefrom.

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint 27

 137. As a direct and proximate result of Huhtamaki’s ultrahazardous activity

and the exposure to PFAS resulting therefrom, Plaintiffs presently suffer, and will

continue to suffer, real property damage, out of pocket expense, personal property

damage, loss of use and enjoyment of property and the fruits thereof, diminution in

property value, lost profits, annoyance, upset, aggravation, and inconvenience.

CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE CHEMICAL COMPANIES

COUNT VI
NEGLIGENCE

138. Plaintiffs repeat, reallege, and incorporate by reference all allegations of this

Complaint as if set forth more particularly at length here.

139. The Chemical Companies knew or should have known that PFAS

chemicals, which they were designing, researching, testing, marketing, supplying,

promoting, packaging, selling, and/or distributing, were unsafe and unfit for use because

of the dangers to those who would be exposed to those chemicals. The Chemical

Companies knew or should have known that the PFAS chemicals which they were

designing, researching, testing, marketing, supplying, promoting, packaging, selling,

and/or distributing to Huhtamaki would remain toxic in residuals and byproducts of

Huhtamaki’s manufacturing processes.

140. The Chemical Companies owed Plaintiffs duties to exercise reasonable care

in designing, researching, testing, marketing, supplying, promoting, packaging, labeling,

selling, and/or distributing PFAS chemicals into the stream of commerce. Those duties

included, without limitation, a duty to warn both those in privity of contract with them

and those whose exposure to the toxic chemical was reasonably foreseeable, including

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint 28

those who would be exposed to PFAS-containing, toxic residuals and byproducts of the

manufacturing processes upon the disposal of those residuals and byproducts.

141. The Chemical Companies failed to exercise reasonable care in the

designing, researching, testing, marketing, supplying, promoting, packaging, selling,

and/or distributing of PFAS chemicals. The Chemical Companies knew or should have

known that persons foreseeably exposed to PFAS chemicals were placed at a high risk of

suffering unreasonable and dangerous side effects. Plaintiffs have suffered loss of

enjoyment of property due to the contamination of their soil, water and homes.

142. Plaintiffs were foreseeable victims located within the scope of the risk

created by the Chemical Companies’ conduct. Specifically, Plaintiffs live in an area that

is geographically proximate to the locations of the mills in which the Manufacturing

Defendants’ products were used in manufacturing processes that created PFAS-

containing residuals and byproducts. It was foreseeable, therefore, that if the PFAS-

containing residuals and byproducts were not properly disposed by Huhtamaki, those

toxic materials would contaminate the land and waters close to the mills and cause harm

to people living near the mills, including Plaintiffs.

143. The Chemical Companies owed both Huhtamaki and Plaintiffs a duty of

reasonable care commensurate with the risk of selling, supplying, or otherwise

distributing PFAS chemicals to Huhtamaki for use at the Mill.

144. As manufacturers, distributors, suppliers, disposers and/or sellers of

PFAS, the Chemical Companies knew or should have known of the extraordinary risks

posed by their toxic PFAS Chemicals.

145. The Chemical Companies negligently breached their duty of care by

distributing PFAS chemicals to Huhtamaki and failing to take steps to minimize,

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint 29

eliminate, and/or warn about the failure to properly dispose of waste containing their

PFAS Chemicals.

146. The Chemical Companies had a duty to investigate the extent to which their

PFAS Chemicals used, emitted, discharged, disposed, distributed, and/or sold was likely

contaminating property at levels to materially increase nearby residents’ risk of diseases.

147. The negligence of the Chemical Companies, their agents, servants, and/or

employees included, but was not limited to, the following acts and/or omissions:

a. Failing to adequately, sufficiently, and properly test PFAS chemicals;

b. Failing to provide adequate cautions and warnings with their PFAS

products to protect both the environment and the health of persons

who would reasonably and foreseeably be exposed to their PFAS

Chemicals if users were not warned that they must be properly

disposed of;

c. Negligently marketing, advertising, and recommending the use of

PFAS chemicals without sufficient knowledge as to their dangerous

propensities;

d. Negligently representing that PFAS chemicals were safe for use for

their intended purpose when, in fact, they were unsafe;

e. Negligently selling PFAS chemicals with inadequate, false, and

misleading labels.

148. As a direct and proximate result of the Chemical Companies’ negligent

conduct and omissions, Huhtamaki discharged, distributed, disposed of, and/or spread

waste products laden with Chemical Companies’ PFAS Chemicals in a manner that

allowed them to reach Plaintiffs’ property. Had Chemical Companies properly warned

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint 30

Huhtamaki of the hazardous nature of their PFAS Chemicals, Huhtamaki would have

used safer alternative products or insured its waste, laden with Chemical Companies’

PFAS Chemicals, was properly disposed of to ensure that those chemicals would never

reach Plaintiffs or their property.

149. Plaintiffs presently suffer, and will continue to suffer in the future, real

property damage, out-of-pocket expenses, personal property damage, loss of use and

enjoyment of property, lost profits, diminution in property value, annoyance, upset,

aggravation, and inconvenience.

COUNT VII
STRICT LIABILITY – FAILURE TO WARN

150. Plaintiffs repeat, reallege, and incorporate by reference all allegations of this

Complaint as if set forth more particularly at length here.

151. The Chemical Companies engaged in the business of selling, testing,

distributing, supplying, manufacturing, marketing, and/or promoting PFAS Chemicals,

and through that conduct have knowingly and intentionally placed PFAS Chemicals into

the stream of commerce with full knowledge that those products would be utilized in the

production of paper products by Huhtamaki and resulting in waste containing their toxic

PFAS Chemicals. Chemical Companies further new that, without adequate warning,

Huhtamaki would discharge, distribute, dispose of, and/or spread PFAS laden waste

products in a manner that would allow them to be released into the environment and

contaminate properties, like those owned by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs therefore are persons

whom the Chemical Companies might reasonably expected to be exposed to and be

affected by the PFAS chemicals that the Chemical Companies designed, manufactured,

produced, and marketed, and sold to Huhtamaki.

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint 31

 152. The Chemical Companies did in fact sell, distribute, supply, manufacture,

and/or promote their PFAS Chemicals. Additionally, the Chemical Companies knew, or

reasonably should have foreseen, that their PFAS Chemicals when sold, distributed,

supplied, manufactured, and/or promoted to Huhtamaki would reach Plaintiffs, or

someone like Plaintiffs, without any substantial change in the essential features of the

PFAS chemicals from their state when initially manufactured and distributed to

Huhtamaki; which is what actually happened. That is, the Chemical Companies

expected, or reasonably should have foreseen, that the PFAS chemicals in the products

sold to Huhtamaki would persist after the manufacturing process and remain present,

unchanged, and toxic in the residuals and byproducts of Huhtamaki’s manufacturing

processes.

153. At the time of manufacture, the Chemical Companies knew, or in the

exercise of ordinary care, should have known that:

a. Without adequate warnings, which were not provided, waste

containing their PFAS Chemicals would enter the environment

uncontained and pollute the ground and water, including residential

well water; and

b. The Chemical Companies’ PFAS Chemicals were designed,

manufactured, and sold such that they were likely to be inhaled,

ingested, and absorbed into the bodies of people in the community

whose water and/or land was contaminated by their PFAS

Chemicals.

154. At all relevant times, the Chemical Companies’ PFAS Chemicals were in a

defective condition such that it was unreasonably dangerous to those exposed to them

and was so at the time they were distributed by the Chemical Companies and at the time

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint 32

Plaintiffs were exposed to and/or ingested the chemicals. The defective condition of

PFAS Chemicals was due in part to the fact that it was not accompanied by proper

warnings regarding its toxic qualities and possible health effects as a result of exposure.

That defective condition was not a common propensity of the PFAS Chemicals that

would be obvious to a user of those products.

155. The Chemical Companies failed to include or otherwise provide a necessary

warning or caution statement that, if complied with, would have prevented the damages

suffered by Plaintiffs.

156. The Chemical Companies could have revised the label for PFAS Chemicals

to provide additional warnings.

157. This defect resulted in significant damage to Plaintiffs, whose properties

were contaminated with Defendants’ PFAS Chemicals.

158. At all relevant times, the Chemical Companies had a duty to properly

design, manufacture, compound, test, inspect, package, label, distribute, market,

examine, maintain, supply, warn, and take such steps to assure that the product did not

escape into the environment and cause damages such as those suffered by Plaintiffs.

159. The Chemical Companies labeled, distributed, and promoted a product

that was dangerous and unsafe for the use and purpose for which it was intended.

160. The Chemical Companies failed to warn of the nature and scope of the

health risks associated with PFAS, namely its toxic properties and its propensity to cause

or serve as a substantial contributing factor in the development of various serious

diseases.

161. The Chemical Companies knew of the probable consequences of exposure

to PFAS. Despite this fact, the Chemical Companies failed to exercise reasonable care to

warn of the dangerous toxic properties and risks of developing various diseases, even

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint 33

though these risks were known or reasonably scientifically knowable at the time of

distribution.

162. At the time of exposure, Plaintiffs could not have reasonably discovered

any defect in PFAS through the exercise of reasonable care.

163. The Chemical Companies, as manufacturers and/or distributors of PFAS,

are held to the level of knowledge of experts in the field. There was unequal knowledge

with respect to the risk of harm, and the Chemical Companies, as manufacturers of PFAS

products, possessed superior knowledge compared to Plaintiffs and Huhtamaki and

knew or should have known that harm would occur in the absence of a necessary

warning.

164. Plaintiffs and Huhtamaki reasonably relied on the skill, superior

knowledge, and judgment of the Chemical Companies.

165. Had the Chemical Companies properly disclosed the risks associated with

PFAS, neither Plaintiffs, nor their properties, would never have been exposed to excessive

levels of the toxic chemicals because Huhtamki would have either not used those toxic

PFAS Chemicals or it would have properly disposed of their PFAS laden waste.

166. The information that the Chemical Companies did provide failed to contain

adequate warnings and precautions. Adequate warnings and precautions would have

enabled users, like Huhtamaki, to use the product safely and to properly dispose of waste

contaminated with the PFAS Chemicals. Instead, the Chemical Companies disseminated

information that was inaccurate, false, and misleading, and that failed to communicate

accurately or adequately the comparative severity, duration, and extent of the risk of

injuries associated with use of, exposure to and/or improper disposal of PFAS

contaminated waste products; continued to promote the efficacy of PFAS, even after they

knew or should have known of the unreasonable risks from exposure; and concealed,

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint 34

downplayed, or otherwise suppressed, through aggressive marketing and promotion,

any information or research about the risks and dangers of exposure to PFAS.

167. To this day, the Chemical Companies have failed to adequately warn of the

true risks of exposure to their PFAS Chemicals, including the risks of numerous diseases

which have been associated with exposure to PFAS Chemicals.

168. As a result of its inadequate warnings, Chemical Companies’ PFAS

Chemicals were defective and unreasonably dangerous when it left the Chemical

Companies’ possession and/or control, was distributed by the Chemical Companies to

Huhtamaki, and when those toxins contaminated Plaintiff’s properties.

169. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiffs presently suffer, and will

continue to suffer: real property damage; out-of-pocket expenses; loss of use and

enjoyment of property; lost profits and diminution in property value. These injuries will

continue until their properties are completely remediated.

COUNT VIII
NUISANCE

170. Plaintiffs repeat, reallege, and incorporate by reference all allegations of this

Complaint as if set forth more particularly at length here.

171. At all relevant times, the Chemical Companies were engaged in the

chemical business and were manufacturers, distributors and/or sellers of the toxic PFAS

Chemicals.

172. At all relevant times, the Chemical Companies intended and expected that

the Chemical Companies’ PFAS chemicals would be sold and used in the State of Maine

by Huhtamaki.

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint 35

 173. The Chemical Companies developed, registered, manufactured,

distributed, and/or sold the PFAS Chemicals with knowledge that they would be used

by Huhtamaki at the Mill.

174. It is axiomatic that Plaintiffs, like all Mainers, have a right to clean land and

water. As Mainers, Plaintiffs have a common right to enjoy their real property free of

dangerous contamination and to live their lives without unreasonable exposure to toxic

chemicals.

175. At all times relevant hereto, the Chemical Companies knew or should have

known that PFAS chemicals are hazardous and harmful to real property, animals, and

human beings. At all relevant times, it was substantially certain that the Chemical

Companies’ distribution and/or sale of the PFAS Chemicals without proper warnings

would would cause injury to properties, like those owned by Plaintiffs.

176. The Chemical Companies owed a duty to those whom they could

reasonably foresee were likely to come in contact with the Chemical Companies’ PFAS

Chemicals or otherwise be in or near places where they were being or deposited,

including Plaintiffs, to provide and maintain a healthful environment in connection with

the design, manufacture, and distribution of the PFAS Chemicals for use by the

Huhtamaki.

177. When the Chemical Companies designed, manufactured, and distributed

PFAS for use by Huhtamaki, and designed, formulated, packaged, labeled, and

distributed Defendants’ PFAS Chemicals without adequate warnings, it was reasonably

foreseeable and in the exercise of reasonable care that the Chemical Companies knew, or

in the exercise of ordinary care, should have known that:

a. The Chemical Companies’ PFAS chemicals were designed,

manufactured, and sold such that they would likely be disposed of

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint 36

 in such a manner as to contaminate the environment as well as

properties such as those owned by Plaintiffs.

178. In doing so, the Chemical Companies created a condition that was harmful

to Plaintiffs’ property and threatened their health.

179. The Chemical Companies’ negligent, reckless and/or intentional acts and

omissions were unreasonable and constitute invasion of the property rights of Plaintiffs.

180. Plaintiffs, unlike the public generally, have suffered specific injuries as a

result of the Chemical Companies' tortious conduct. As demonstrated by the DEP test

results, many tests of private water wells have not revealed contamination; and the vast

majority of wells in and around Somerset County were not tested as DEP has no reason

to believe they are contaminated.

181. The Chemical Companies’ distribution and/or sale of their PFAS

Chemicals without adequate warnings and the resulting contamination of Plaintiffs’

property constitutes both a public and a private nuisance. This nuisance has caused

Plaintiffs to presently suffer, and cause such suffering in the future, real property

damage, out of pocket expense (including expenses to remove and/or remediate the

contamination of their properties), personal property damage, loss of use and enjoyment

of property, lost profits and diminution in property value. These injuries will continue

until their properties are completely remediated.

COUNT IX
STATUTORY NUISANCE

182. Plaintiffs repeat, reallege, and incorporate by reference all allegations of this

Complaint as if set forth more particularly at length here.

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint 37

 183. 17 M.R.S.A. § 2701 states that “[a]ny person injured in his comfort, property

or the enjoyment of his estate by a common and public or a private nuisance may

maintain against the offender a civil action for his damages…”

184. At all times relevant hereto, the Chemical Companies knew or should have

known their PFAS Chemicals to be hazardous and harmful to real property and human

beings, and it was substantially certain that their distribution and/or sale of PFAS

Chemicals to Huhtamaki would cause injury to properties like those owned by Plaintiffs.

185. As a direct and proximate result of the Chemical Companies’ distribution

and/or sale of their PFAS Chemicals, Chemical Companies are liable for damages under

17 M.R.S.A. § 2701, including damages for real property damage (presently and in the

future), out of pocket expense (including expenses to remove and/or remediate the

contamination of their properties), personal property damage, lost profits, loss of use and

enjoyment of property, and diminution in property value.

186. Plaintiffs’ have been specially harmed by contamination from the Chemical

Companies’ PFAS chemicals. Each of the Plaintiffs’ properties has received elevated test

results indicating that their land, water, and/or bodies contain well above normal and

safe limits for PFAs contamination.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, respectfully request that the Court enter judgment in

their favor and against all Defendants, jointly and severally, or in proportion to the share

of contamination each Defendant can prove it is responsible for, as follows:

a. For an award of damages, nominal and compensatory damages, as allowed

by law and in an amount to be determined by a jury for all injuries alleged

herein;

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint 38

 b. For an award of the cost of abating and remediating Plaintiffs’ lands, homes

and waters from toxic PFAS contamination;

c. For an award to Plaintiffs in an amount sufficient to compensate them for real

property damage, out of pocket expense, lost economic opportunity costs,

personal property damage, loss of use and enjoyment of property,

diminution in property value, the necessity for long-term contamination

remediation and loss of income/profits from their lands;

d. For an award of attorneys’ fees, costs, and litigation expenses, as allowed by

law;

e. For prejudgment and post judgment interest on all amounts awarded;

f. Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

Plaintiffs are not seeking personal injury damages.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiffs demand a jury trial on all issues so triable.

Dated: September 6, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Russell Abney

Russell Abney
WATTS GUERRA LLP
State Bar No. 00818100
811 Barton Springs Rd., Ste. 725
Austin, TX 78704
Telephone: (512) 479-0500
Telephone: (210) 448-0500
Facsimile: (512) 479-0502
russ@wattsllp.com
Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint 39

 Terry Garmey, Esq., Bar No. 1656
Alexis Garmey Chardon, Esq., Bar No. 5932
Christopher A. Harmon, Esq. Bar No. 5432
TERRY GARMEY & ASSOCIATES
482 Congress Street, Suite 402
Portland, Maine 04101
Telephone: (207) 899-4644
tgarmey@garmeylaw.com
achardon@garmeylaw.com
charmon@garmeylaw.com
Local Counsel for Plaintiffs

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the date set out below, I electronically filed the foregoing document

using the Court’s CM/ECF system. Pursuant to Rule 5(d)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, no certificate of service is required when a paper is served by filing it with the court's

electronic-filing system.

Date: September 6, 2024 By: /s Russell T. Abney

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint 40