The Superior Court of the Virgin Islands has denied a motion for summary judgment filed by Glencore, Ltd. in a lawsuit involving former workers at an alumina refinery who allege they suffered health issues due to exposure to bauxite ore. The ruling allows the case to continue, impacting the plaintiffs who claim to have developed mixed dust pneumoconiosis (MDP) as a result of their work.
The plaintiffs, Rodney Felix, Miguel Velez, Gabriel Ramos, and Ronald Boston, worked at the alumina refinery on St. Croix and allege that Glencore failed to provide adequate warnings about the dangers of bauxite. This decision is significant as it keeps alive the possibility of compensation for the workers, who have battled health problems linked to their exposure.
Background
The lawsuit stems from claims filed by the four plaintiffs against Glencore, a New Jersey corporation that supplied bauxite ore to the refinery when it was owned by the Virgin Islands Aluminum Corporation (VIALCO). The refinery operated from 1972 to 1985 under various owners, including Martin Marietta and VIALCO, before closing. The plaintiffs allege that during their employment, they were exposed to harmful dust from bauxite ore, leading to their diagnosis of MDP.
Initially, the plaintiffs filed their complaints in 2011 against multiple defendants, including Lockheed Martin Corporation, which was later dismissed from the case. The plaintiffs amended their complaints several times, ultimately focusing on Glencore. The case reached the Superior Court after Glencore filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs could not prove their claims.
The Ruling
In a memorandum opinion filed on August 31, 2026, Judge Alphonso G. Andrews, Jr. ruled against Glencore's motion for summary judgment. The court found that there are genuine issues of material fact that prevent the issuance of summary judgment. Judge Andrews stated, "The Court finds that issues of material fact preclude the issuance of summary judgment," highlighting the uncertainties surrounding the adequacy of warnings provided by Glencore to the plaintiffs.
The court specifically addressed Glencore's arguments regarding the plaintiffs' claims under the Restatement (Second) of Torts, including claims of negligence and failure to warn. The judge noted that Glencore did not provide sufficient evidence to support its claims that it had adequately warned VIALCO about the dangers of bauxite. The court emphasized that the adequacy of any warnings remains a disputed issue that must be resolved at trial.
Impact
This ruling is significant for the plaintiffs, as it allows their case to proceed in court. If the plaintiffs succeed, it could lead to compensation for their alleged health issues. The decision also underscores the importance of supplier responsibilities regarding product safety and warnings, particularly in cases involving potentially hazardous materials like bauxite.
The court's ruling may set a precedent for similar cases involving exposure to hazardous materials, particularly in the context of workplace safety and the obligations of suppliers to warn about known dangers. This case could influence how companies handle safety communications in the future, especially in industries dealing with toxic substances.
What's Next
The case will continue to move forward in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands. Glencore may still have options to appeal certain aspects of the ruling, but the specifics regarding any potential appeals were not detailed in the court filing. The plaintiffs are expected to prepare for trial, where they will present their evidence regarding their exposure and the health impacts they claim to have suffered.