Item 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Set forth below is information related to the Company’s material pending legal proceedings as of February 18, 2026, other than ordinary routine litigation incidental to the business, required to be disclosed in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The information below should be read together with Note 16—Commitments and Contingencies in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements. In accordance with the SEC’s disclosure rules, the Company has elected to disclose environmental proceedings involving the Company and a governmental authority if the amount of potential monetary sanctions, exclusive of interest and costs, that the Company reasonably believes will result from such proceeding is $1 million or more**.**

Alternative Water Supply in Lieu of Carmel River Diversions

Compliance with SWRCB Orders to Reduce Carmel River Diversions

Under the 2009 Order, Cal Am is required to decrease significantly its yearly diversions of water from the Carmel River according to a set reduction schedule. See Item 1—Business—Regulated Businesses—Water Supply and Wastewater Services and Item 1A—Risk Factors. The 2009 Order responded to claims that Cal Am had not sufficiently implemented actions to terminate its unpermitted diversions of water from the Carmel River as required by the 1995 Order issued by the SWRCB. In July 2016, at the request of Cal Am and several Monterey County government agencies, the SWRCB issued the 2016 Order approving a deadline of December 31, 2021, for Cal Am’s compliance with the 2009 Order.

The 2009 Order includes a condition prohibiting Cal Am from diverting water from the Carmel River for new service connections or for any increased use of water at existing service addresses resulting from a change in zoning or use. In 2011, the California Public Utilities Commission (the “CPUC”) issued a decision directing modifications in Cal Am’s utility tariffs to recognize the moratorium mandated by the 2009 Order, and directing Cal Am to seek written guidance from the SWRCB with respect to any unresolved issues of interpretation or implementation of this condition. In 2012, the Deputy Director of the SWRCB sent a letter to Cal Am providing an interpretation as to the calculation of a baseline to determine increases in use of water at existing service addresses. In March 2018, the MPWMD adopted a resolution directing Cal Am to interpret the baseline in a manner that conflicts with the SWRCB’s written interpretation. In May 2018, Cal Am notified the MPWMD and the SWRCB that it intends to seek declaratory relief concerning the conflicting regulatory interpretations under the 2009 Order. In an attempt to resolve these conflicting interpretations prior to seeking judicial intervention, Cal Am has met with the MPWMD and the SWRCB several times. The SWRCB agreed to circulate revisions to its 2012 interpretive letter, which would be subject to a public comment period. Any failure to follow the MPWMD’s resolution or the SWRCB’s written interpretation, despite these conflicting interpretations, could potentially result in fines, penalties and other actions against Cal Am.

During the fourth quarter of 2025, the MPWMD filed an application with the SWRCB seeking to modify the 2009 Order and the 2016 Order to rescind a condition included therein that prohibits (i) new service connections and (ii) increased water use at existing service connections resulting from a change in zoning or use, throughout Cal Am’s Monterey service territory. The MPWMD’s stated rationale for seeking to rescind this condition is a lack of threatened violation for the foreseeable future given a sufficient water supply to serve demand, and the current prohibitions restrict local housing construction needed to meet state affordable housing mandates. On December 19, 2025, Cal Am filed a response, requesting that the SWRCB deny the application or hold it in abeyance to permit Cal Am to meet with appropriate stakeholders and to develop a proposal for relief from the prohibitions.

Following issuance by the California Coastal Commission (the “Coastal Commission”) in November 2022, of a coastal development permit, as described below, Cal Am continues to work constructively with all appropriate agencies to obtain the remaining required permits for the Water Supply Project. However, there can be no assurance that the Water Supply Project in its current configuration will be completed on a timely basis, if ever. For the year ended December 31, 2025, Cal Am has complied with the diversion limitations contained in the 2016 Order. Continued compliance with the diversion limitations in 2026 and future years may be impacted by a number of factors, including without limitation potential recurrence of drought conditions in California and the reduction or exhaustion of water supply reserves, and will require successful development of alternate water supply sources sufficient to meet customer demand. The 2009 Order and the 2016 Order remain in effect until Cal Am certifies to the SWRCB, and the SWRCB concurs, that Cal Am has obtained a permanent supply of water to substitute for past unauthorized Carmel River diversions. While the Company cannot currently predict the likelihood or result of any adverse outcome associated with these matters, further attempts to comply with the 2009 Order and the 2016 Order in the future may result in material additional costs and obligations to Cal Am, including fines and penalties against Cal Am in the event of noncompliance with the 2009 Order and the 2016 Order.

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

CPUC Final Approval of Water Supply Project

Cal Am’s ability to move forward on the Water Supply Project is and has been subject to extensive administrative review by the CPUC and other government agencies, obtaining necessary permits, and intervention from other parties. In 2016, the CPUC unanimously approved a final decision to authorize Cal Am to enter into a water purchase agreement for the GWR Project and to construct a pipeline and pump station facilities and recover up to $50 million in associated incurred costs plus AFUDC, subject to meeting certain criteria.

In 2018, the CPUC unanimously approved another final decision finding that the Water Supply Project meets the CPUC’s requirements for a CPCN and an additional procedural phase was not necessary to consider alternative projects. The CPUC’s 2018 decision concludes that the Water Supply Project is the best project to address estimated future water demands in Monterey, and, in addition to the cost recovery approved in its 2016 decision, adopts Cal Am’s cost estimates for the Water Supply Project, which amounted to an aggregate of $279 million plus AFUDC at a rate representative of Cal Am’s actual financing costs. The 2018 final decision specifies the procedures for recovery of all of Cal Am’s prudently incurred costs associated with the Water Supply Project upon its completion, subject to the frameworks included in the final decision related to cost caps, O&M costs, financing, ratemaking and contingency matters. The reasonableness of the Water Supply Project costs will be reviewed by the CPUC when Cal Am seeks cost recovery for the Water Supply Project. Cal Am is also required to implement mitigation measures to avoid, minimize or offset significant environmental impacts from the construction and operation of the Water Supply Project and comply with a mitigation monitoring and reporting program, a reimbursement agreement for CPUC costs associated with that program, and reporting requirements on plant operations following placement of the Water Supply Project in service. Cal Am has incurred $324 million in aggregate costs as of December 31, 2025, related to the Water Supply Project, which includes $107 million in AFUDC.

In September 2021, Cal Am, Monterey One Water and the MPWMD reached an agreement on Cal Am’s purchase of additional water from an expansion to the GWR Project. On December 5, 2022, the CPUC issued a final decision that authorized Cal Am to enter into the amended water purchase agreement, and specifically to increase pumping capacity and reliability of groundwater extraction from the Seaside Groundwater Basin. The final decision sets the cost cap for the proposed facilities at approximately $62 million. Cal Am may seek recovery of amounts above the cost cap in a subsequent rate filing or general rate case. Additionally, the final decision authorizes AFUDC at Cal Am’s actual weighted average cost of debt for most of the facilities.

On December 30, 2022, Cal Am filed with the CPUC an application for rehearing of the CPUC’s December 5, 2022 final decision, and in March 2023, the CPUC issued a decision denying Cal Am’s application for rehearing but adopting its proposed AFUDC for already incurred and future costs. The decision also provided Cal Am the opportunity to serve supplemental testimony to increase its cost cap for certain of the Water Supply Project’s extraction wells. On May 21, 2025, the CPUC issued a decision authorizing an increase to the cost cap of $11 million for the specified extraction wells.

The amended water purchase agreement and a memorandum of understanding to negotiate certain milestones related to the expansion of the GWR Project have been signed by the relevant parties. Further hearings were scheduled in a Phase 2 to this CPUC proceeding to focus on updated supply and demand estimates for the Water Supply Project. On August 14, 2025, the CPUC approved a final decision, which was updated on October 9, 2025, finding that, as to the supply and demand estimates for the Water Supply Project, projected demand will outstrip supply by approximately 2,500 acre-feet per year as of 2050. On September 17, 2025, the City of Marina (the “City”), the Marina Coast Water District (“MCWD”) and the MPWMD filed applications for rehearing of the final decision. On September 22, 2025, these parties also filed a motion to stay the final decision. The CPUC has not yet ruled on these motions.

While Cal Am believes that its expenditures to date have been prudent and necessary to comply with the 2009 Order and the 2016 Order, as well as relevant final decisions of the CPUC related thereto, Cal Am cannot currently predict its ability to recover all of its costs and expenses associated with the Water Supply Project and there can be no assurance that Cal Am will be able to recover all of such costs and expenses in accordance with the CPUC’s prior decisions. See Note 16—Commitments and Contingencies in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further discussion. Subject to the impacts, outcomes or resolution of applicable litigation and other proceedings, construction of the desalination plant for the Water Supply Project is expected to begin in 2026, and the desalination plant is currently anticipated to be in service by the end of 2029.

Coastal Development Permit Application

In 2018, Cal Am submitted a coastal development permit application (the “Marina Application”) to the City for those project components of the Water Supply Project located within the City’s coastal zone. Members of the City’s Planning Commission, as well as City councilpersons, have publicly expressed opposition to the Water Supply Project. In May 2019, the City issued a notice of final local action based upon the denial by the Planning Commission of the Marina Application. Thereafter, Cal Am appealed this decision to the Coastal Commission, as permitted under the City’s code and the California Coastal Act. At the same time, Cal Am submitted an application (the “Original Jurisdiction Application”) to the Coastal Commission for a coastal development permit for those project components located within the Coastal Commission’s original jurisdiction. After Coastal Commission staff issued reports recommending denial of the Original Jurisdiction Application, noting potential impacts on environmentally sensitive habitat areas and wetlands and possible disproportionate impacts to communities of concern, in September 2020, Cal Am withdrew the Original Jurisdiction Application in order to address the staff’s environmental justice concerns. In November 2020, Cal Am refiled the Original Jurisdiction Application.

In October 2022, Cal Am announced a phasing plan for the proposed desalination plant component of the Water Supply Project. The desalination plant and slant wells originally approved by the CPUC would produce up to 6.4 million gallons of desalinated water per day. Under the phased approach, the facilities would initially be constructed to produce up to 4.8 million gallons per day of desalinated water, enough to meet anticipated demand through about 2030, and would limit the number of slant wells initially constructed. As demand increases in the future, desalination facilities would be expanded to meet the additional demand. The phased approach seeks to meet near-term demand by allowing for additional supply as it becomes needed, while also providing an opportunity for regional future public participation and was developed by Cal Am based on feedback received from the community.

In November 2022, the Coastal Commission approved the Marina Application and the Original Jurisdiction Application with respect to the phased development of the proposed desalination plant, subject to compliance with a number of conditions, all of which Cal Am expects to satisfy. Cal Am continues to seek the remaining permits necessary to construct the Water Supply Project.

In December 2022, the City, MCWD, MCWD’s groundwater sustainability agency (“GSA”), and the MPWMD jointly filed a petition for writ of mandate in Monterey County Superior Court against the Coastal Commission, alleging that the Coastal Commission violated the California Coastal Act and the California Environmental Quality Act in issuing a coastal development permit to Cal Am for construction of slant wells for the Water Supply Project. Cal Am is named as a real party in interest. In April 2024, the court granted defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed one of MCWD’s causes of action in its petition. After trial and subsequent proceedings ending in the first quarter of 2025, on May 12, 2025, the court entered its final decision denying the petition in full. On July 24, 2025, a notice of appeal was filed. This matter remains pending.

Proposed Zoning Changes at CEMEX, Inc. Site for Slant Wells

In August 2018, the City circulated a public review draft of proposed amendments to its local coastal program and zoning ordinance, and placed the matter for consideration on the Planning Commission’s agenda for its September 2018 meeting. The proposed amendments would change zoning at a site owned by CEMEX, Inc. (“CEMEX”) to open space and restrict future uses, including with respect to Cal Am’s planned use of the site for the slant wells for the Water Supply Project. Any change to the City’s local coastal program must ultimately be approved by the Coastal Commission. Cal Am, CEMEX and the Coastal Commission each submitted letters opposing the proposed amendments. At its November 2018 meeting, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending that the Marina City Council consider approving the amendments.

In December 2018, the Marina City Council considered the proposed amendments. Cal Am, CEMEX and the Coastal Commission again submitted letters opposing the proposed changes, but the City Council unanimously adopted a resolution amending its local coastal plan and a draft amendment to its zoning ordinance. Changes to the ordinance require a second reading before becoming final, which occurred at the City’s December 2018 meeting. The changes to the local coastal plan would need to be submitted to the Coastal Commission for approval; however, the Coastal Commission’s November 2022 approval of Cal Am’s coastal development permit application has rendered moot the impact of these proposed local coastal program and zoning changes on the issuance of the coastal development permit.

Test Slant Well Permitting

A preliminary step to building the Water Supply Project desalination plant is the construction and operation of a test slant well to confirm the suitability of the property on which intake wells will be located to draw water from under Monterey Bay. In November 2014, the Coastal Commission approved coastal development permits for the test slant well, enabling Cal Am to construct and operate the test slant well. Effective February 28, 2018, test slant well pumping ceased, except for minimal maintenance pumping activities, in accordance with Cal Am’s coastal development permits. Because Cal Am may use the test slant well as one of the slant wells for the Water Supply Project, Cal Am sought and obtained from the Coastal Commission permit amendments to allow the test slant well to remain in place and be maintained until February 28, 2027. A required lease obtained from the California State Lands Commission, as amended, expires on December 16, 2027.

Water Supply Project Land Acquisition and Slant Well Site Use

In July 2017, the Coastal Commission adopted a consent agreement and cease and desist order requiring sand mining operations on the property owned by CEMEX on which intake wells for the Water Supply Project will be located, to cease by the end of 2020 and the property to be sold to either a non-profit or governmental entity. The consent agreement strictly limits future use of the property but preserves Cal Am’s existing property rights and allows uses consistent with existing easements and other rights of record. A permanent easement granted by CEMEX to Cal Am was recorded in June 2018 to allow Cal Am access to the property and to construct, operate and maintain the Water Supply Project intake wells. In November 2019, the City notified CEMEX that, based on this permanent easement and Cal Am’s proposed use of the site for the intake wells, CEMEX has breached or will soon breach a prior 1996 annexation agreement (to which Cal Am was not a party). The City states that it intends to seek declaratory relief from CEMEX and Cal Am ordering that Cal Am’s extraction is limited to 500 acre-feet per year of groundwater, that Cal Am cannot export extracted water out of the basin, and that the permanent easement granted by CEMEX to Cal Am is void. CEMEX has denied the City’s claims and requested indemnification from Cal Am under the terms of the permanent easement. Cal Am and CEMEX believe that there is no valid limitation under the annexation agreement on Cal Am’s right to pump brackish groundwater and seawater at the site for desalination and use by Cal Am’s customers.

In May 2020, the City filed a lawsuit in Monterey County Superior Court, naming Cal Am and CEMEX as defendants, and Monterey County Water Resources Agency (“MCWRA”) and MCWD as real parties in interest. The lawsuit, as amended, alleges a claim for breach of contract against CEMEX and seeks declaratory relief to void the permanent easement and prohibiting extraction of water by Cal Am’s slant wells at the CEMEX site in excess of 500 acre-feet per year and the export of such water outside the groundwater basin. In November 2020, Cal Am, CEMEX and MCWRA filed demurrers, which were overruled by the court at a hearing held in February 2021.

In August 2020, MCWD filed a cross-complaint in the May 2020 lawsuit against Cal Am, CEMEX and MCWRA, alleging claims for specific performance of certain provisions of the 1996 annexation agreement related to the property owned by CEMEX on which intake wells for the Water Supply Project will be located, as well as claims of water rights, nuisance and unreasonable water use, and seeking additional declaratory relief. Following various rulings on demurrers filed by Cal Am, CEMEX and MCWRA, in February 2021, the court sustained, without leave to amend, the demurrer to MCWD’s nuisance claim and overruled the remainder of the demurrers. In October 2021, the court granted a motion filed by Cal Am related to MCWD’s cross-complaint, which motion requested a referral of certain issues related to MCWD’s water rights and unreasonable use claims to the SWRCB for its expert advisory opinion. The SWRCB held hearings in 2022 and 2023, on the referred issues before its administrative hearing officer. On June 25, 2025, the SWRCB administrative hearing officer transmitted a final report of an advisory opinion to the SWRCB’s board for approval, as well as to the parties and the Monterey County Superior Court. The final report analyzes potential impacts to the groundwater basin and groundwater users based on predictive modeling presented by the parties’ experts, and concludes, among other things, that the slant well pumping is not expected to materially impact MCWD’s water rights, or its ability to draw water from its wells. The report also finds that although some harm to the groundwater basin may occur in the form of increased seawater intrusion and lowering of groundwater levels, any such harm should be balanced against the benefits of the project, and could be avoided or remedied by a physical solution. Trial commenced on November 12, 2025, and is expected to continue into the first quarter of 2026.

Regional Water Quality Control Board Approval of NPDES Permit Amendment

A requirement of the desalination plant that is a key component of the Water Supply Project is the discharge of brine through Monterey One Water’s outfall. As a condition to Cal Am’s coastal development permit, an amendment of a NPDES permit must be obtained by Monterey One Water as the outfall owner from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (the “RWQCB”). The RWQCB must also determine that the proposed brine discharge complies with the desalination facility requirements under the California Ocean Plan. Working in cooperation with Monterey One Water staff and consultants, Cal Am prepared an application for submission to the RWQCB, which application and submission were approved by Monterey One Water's board in September 2024. Following submission of the application to amend the relevant NPDES permit to the RWQCB, Cal Am’s and Monterey One Water’s consultants developed a less environmentally impactful alternative that reduces the number of outfall modifications required to accommodate brine discharge. The alternatives analysis was approved by Monterey One Water’s board on June 30, 2025, and was submitted to the RWQCB on July 1, 2025.

Cal Am’s Action for Damages Following Termination of Regional Desalination Project (“RDP”)

In 2010, the CPUC had approved the RDP, which was a precursor to the current Water Supply Project and called for the construction of a desalination facility in the City of Marina. The RDP was to be implemented through a Water Purchase Agreement and ancillary agreements (collectively, the “Agreements”) among MCWD, Cal Am and MCWRA. In 2011, due to a conflict of interest concerning a former member of MCWRA’s Board of Directors, MCWRA stated that the Agreements were void, and, as a result, Cal Am terminated the Agreements. In ensuing litigation filed by Cal Am in 2012 to resolve the termination of the RDP, the court in 2015 entered a final judgment agreeing with Cal Am’s position that four of the five Agreements are void, and one, the credit line agreement, is not void. As a result of this litigation, Cal Am was permitted to institute further proceedings, discussed below, to determine the amount of damages that may be awarded to Cal Am as a result of the failure of the RDP.

In 2015, Cal Am and MCWRA filed a complaint in San Francisco County Superior Court against MCWD and RMC Water and Environment, a private engineering consulting firm (“RMC”), seeking to recover compensatory, consequential and incidental damages associated with the failure of the RDP, as well as punitive and treble damages, statutory penalties and attorneys’ fees. In 2019, MCWD was granted a motion for summary judgment related to the tort claims in the complaint. A settlement as to the non-tort claims was finalized and entered into in March 2020, in which MCWD and RMC paid Cal Am an aggregate of $5.2 million to resolve Cal Am’s contract claims against MCWD and all claims against RMC relating to the RDP. Under this agreement, Cal Am’s and MCWRA’s right to appeal the dismissal of their tort claims against MCWD were expressly reserved.

In July 2020, Cal Am appealed the grant of summary judgment on MCWD’s tort claims, and in December 2022, the trial court’s decision was reversed on appeal with instructions to vacate its prior orders granting MCWD’s motions for summary judgment and to enter new orders denying the motions. In February 2023, MCWD filed a petition for review of the appellate decision with the California Supreme Court, which was denied in March 2023. In June 2024, MCWD filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. In December 2024, the court granted MCWD’s motion without leave to amend, dismissing all of Cal Am’s remaining claims. On February 27, 2025, Cal Am and MCWRA each filed a Notice of Appeal of the trial court’s decision. This matter remains pending.

Proposed Acquisition of Monterey System Assets — Potential Condemnation

Local Agency Formation Commission Litigation

In November 2018, voters in Monterey, California passed “Measure J,” which decided that the MPWMD should conduct a feasibility study concerning the potential purchase of Cal Am’s Monterey system assets, and, if feasible, to proceed with a purchase of those assets without an additional public vote. This service territory represents approximately 40,000 customers. In 2019, the MPWMD issued a preliminary valuation and cost of service analysis report, finding in part that (i) an estimate of the Monterey system assets’ total value plus adjustments would be approximately $513 million, (ii) the cost of service modeling results indicate significant annual reductions in revenue requirements and projected monthly water bills, and (iii) the acquisition of the Monterey system assets by the MPWMD would be economically feasible. In 2020, the MPWMD certified a final environmental impact report, analyzing the environmental impacts of the MPWMD’s project to (i) acquire the Monterey system assets through the power of eminent domain, if necessary, and (ii) expand its geographic boundaries to include all parts of this system.

In February 2021, the MPWMD filed an application with the Local Agency Formation Commission of Monterey County (“LAFCO”) seeking approval to become a retail water provider and annex approximately 58 parcels of land into the MPWMD’s boundaries. In June 2021, LAFCO’s commissioners voted to require a third-party independent financial study as to the feasibility of an acquisition by the MPWMD of the Monterey system assets. In December 2021, LAFCO’s commissioners denied the MPWMD’s application to become a retail water provider, determining that the MPWMD does not have the authority to proceed with a condemnation of the Monterey system assets. In April 2022, the MPWMD filed a lawsuit against LAFCO challenging its decision to deny the MPWMD’s application seeking approval to become a retail water provider. In June 2022, the court granted, with conditions, a motion by Cal Am to intervene in the MPWMD’s lawsuit against LAFCO. In December 2022, the court sustained in part, and denied in part, demurrers that had been filed by LAFCO seeking to dismiss the MPWMD’s lawsuit.

In December 2023, the Monterey County Superior Court issued a writ of mandate directing LAFCO to vacate and set aside its original denial of the MPWMD’s application to serve as a retail water provider (in conjunction with its effort to acquire the Monterey system assets) and, if requested, to re-hear the application in compliance with all applicable law. The court held that LAFCO incorrectly applied two statutory standards and noted a lack of sufficient evidence to support certain of LAFCO’s factual findings. As a result, the LAFCO denial has been nullified and LAFCO will be required to hold another hearing on the MPWMD’s application. In February 2024, each of Cal Am and LAFCO filed a notice of appeal with the California Court of Appeal regarding the Monterey County Superior Court’s decision to issue the writ of mandate, and the MPDMD filed a notice of cross-appeal. This matter remains pending.

MPWMD Condemnation Action

Separate from the proceedings related to the MPWMD’s application with LAFCO, the MPWMD notified Cal Am in October 2022 of a decision to appraise the Monterey system assets and requested access to a number of Cal Am’s properties and documents to assist the MPWMD with such an appraisal. Cal Am responded shortly thereafter, denying the request for access, and stating that the MPWMD does not have the right to appraise Cal Am’s system without LAFCO approval to become a retail water provider. In April 2023, Cal Am rejected an offer by the MPWMD to purchase the Monterey system assets for $448.8 million. Over the written and oral objections of Cal Am, at a hearing held in October 2023, the MPWMD adopted a resolution of necessity to authorize it to file an eminent domain lawsuit with respect to the Monterey system assets.

In December 2023, the MPWMD filed a lawsuit against Cal Am in Monterey County Superior Court seeking to condemn the Monterey system assets. In February 2024, Cal Am filed a motion requesting the Monterey County Superior Court dismiss the MPWMD’s eminent domain lawsuit seeking to condemn Cal Am’s Monterey system assets. Cal Am’s motion asserted that the MPWMD lacks legal authorization from both the California legislature and LAFCO to become a retail water provider and the lawsuit improperly seeks to effect a taking of property outside the boundaries of the MPWMD’s territory. In November 2024, the court issued a ruling denying Cal Am’s motion to dismiss, and Cal Am filed its answer to the complaint in December 2024. On August 20, 2025, Cal Am filed a motion for summary judgment as to the MPWMD’s condemnation action, alleging that without LAFCO approval, the MPWMD does not have legal authority to pursue eminent domain. On the same date, the MPWMD filed a motion for summary adjudication of the same issue, arguing that LAFCO approval is not required to proceed with its condemnation action. By orders dated December 29, 2025, the court denied both motions. This lawsuit remains pending.

While the Company cannot currently predict the outcome of this lawsuit, the Company believes that, given existing legal authorities and its other defenses, Cal Am should be able to defend itself successfully against the MPWMD’s eminent domain lawsuit.

Dunbar, West Virginia Class Action Litigation

On the evening of June 23, 2015, a 36-inch pre-stressed concrete transmission water main, installed in the early 1970s, failed. The water main is part of the West Relay pumping station located in the City of Dunbar, West Virginia and owned by West Virginia-American Water Company, the Company’s West Virginia subsidiary (“WVAWC”). Water service was fully restored by July 1, 2015, to all customers affected by this event.

On June 2, 2017, a complaint captioned Jeffries, et al. v. West Virginia-American Water Company was filed in West Virginia Circuit Court in Kanawha County on behalf of an alleged class of residents and business owners who lost water service or pressure as a result of the Dunbar main break. The complaint alleged breach of contract by WVAWC for failure to supply water, violation of West Virginia law regarding the sufficiency of WVAWC’s facilities and negligence by WVAWC in the design, maintenance and operation of the water system. In July 2020, the Circuit Court entered an order granting the Jeffries plaintiffs’ motion for certification of a class regarding certain liability issues but denying certification of a class to determine a punitive damages multiplier.

Trial in this matter had been scheduled, but before trial commenced, the parties notified the Circuit Court that an agreement in principle to settle this litigation was reached. On May 2, 2025, the parties jointly filed with the Circuit Court a proposed class action settlement agreement (the “Dunbar Settlement”) with respect to the certified liability claims. On September 12, 2025, the Circuit Court issued an order granting final approval of the Dunbar Settlement. Under the terms of the approved Dunbar Settlement, WVAWC has not admitted, and will not admit, any fault or liability for any of the allegations made by the Jeffries plaintiffs. The maximum pre-tax amount of the Dunbar Settlement is approximately $18 million, of which the final amount of the Company’s and WVAWC’s contributions to the Dunbar Settlement is approximately $5 million (which have been funded through existing sources of liquidity), and the remainder has been contributed by certain of the Company’s general liability insurance carriers. The Company previously recorded in the fourth quarter of 2024 a charge to earnings, net of insurance receivables, of $5 million ($4 million after-tax), with respect to the Dunbar Settlement. The actual total amount to be paid to claimants through the Dunbar Settlement will depend upon the claims approved through the claims process, but the Company does not currently anticipate that its maximum liability for the settlement will materially exceed $5 million. The deadline for claims submissions was August 25, 2025, and the settlement administrator is evaluating claim submissions to identify compensable claims.

Chattanooga, Tennessee Class Action Litigation

On September 12, 2019, Tennessee-American Water Company, the Company’s Tennessee subsidiary (“TAWC”), experienced a leak in a 36-inch water transmission main, which caused service fluctuations or interruptions to TAWC customers and the issuance of a boil water notice. TAWC repaired the main by early morning on September 14, 2019, and restored full water service by the afternoon of September 15, 2019, with the boil water notice lifted for all customers on September 16, 2019.

On September 17, 2019, a complaint captioned Bruce, et al. v. American Water Works Company, Inc., et al. was filed in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee against TAWC, the Company and Service Company (collectively, the “Tennessee-American Water Defendants”), on behalf of a proposed class of individuals or entities who lost water service or suffered monetary losses as a result of the Chattanooga incident (the “Tennessee Plaintiffs”). The complaint alleged breach of contract and negligence against the Tennessee-American Water Defendants, as well as an equitable remedy of piercing the corporate veil. In the complaint as originally filed, the Tennessee Plaintiffs were seeking an award of unspecified alleged damages for wage losses, business and economic losses, out-of-pocket expenses, loss of use and enjoyment of property and annoyance and inconvenience, as well as punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and pre- and post-judgment interest. In September 2020, the court dismissed all of the Tennessee Plaintiffs’ claims in their complaint, except for the breach of contract claims against TAWC.

In January 2023, after hearing oral argument, the court issued an oral ruling denying the Tennessee Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. In February 2023, the Tennessee Plaintiffs sought reconsideration of the ruling by the court, and any final ruling is appealable to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, as allowed under Tennessee law. In September 2023, the court upheld its prior ruling but gave the Tennessee Plaintiffs the option to file an amended class definition. In October 2023, the Tennessee Plaintiffs filed an amended class definition seeking certification of a business customer-only class. On June 14, 2024, the court issued its written order denying the Tennessee Plaintiffs’ amended class and incorporating its denial of certification of the original residential class. On June 21, 2024, the Tennessee Plaintiffs appealed both of the court’s orders denying class certification. On December 4, 2025, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee denied the Tennessee Plaintiffs’ appeal, and on January 30, 2026, the Tennessee Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of Tennessee. This matter remains pending.

The Company and TAWC believe that TAWC has valid, meritorious defenses to the claims raised in this class action complaint, and TAWC will continue to vigorously defend itself against these allegations.

Mountaineer Gas Company Main Break

During the afternoon of November 10, 2023, WVAWC was informed that an 8-inch ductile iron water main owned by WVAWC, located on the West Side of Charleston, West Virginia and originally installed in approximately 1989, experienced a leak. In the early morning hours of November 11, 2023, WVAWC crews successfully completed a repair to the water main. A precautionary boil water advisory was issued the same day to approximately 300 WVAWC customers and ultimately lifted on November 12, 2023.

On November 10, 2023, a break was reported in a low-pressure natural gas main located near the affected WVAWC water main, and an inflow of water into the natural gas main and associated delivery pipelines occurred. The natural gas main and pipelines are owned by Mountaineer Gas Company, a regulated natural gas distribution company serving over 220,000 customers in West Virginia (“Mountaineer Gas”). The resulting inflow of water into the natural gas main and related pipelines resulted in a loss of natural gas service to approximately 1,500 Mountaineer Gas customers, as well as water entering customer service lines and certain natural gas appliances owned or used by some of the affected Mountaineer Gas customers. Mountaineer Gas reported that restoration of natural gas service to all affected gas mains occurred on November 24, 2023. The timing, order and causation of both the WVAWC water main break and Mountaineer Gas’s main break are currently unknown and under investigation.

To date, a total of four pending lawsuits have been filed against Mountaineer Gas and WVAWC purportedly on behalf of customers in Charleston, West Virginia related to these incidents. On November 14, 2023, a complaint captioned Ruffin et al. v. Mountaineer Gas Company and West Virginia-American Water Company was filed in West Virginia Circuit Court in Kanawha County on behalf of an alleged class of Mountaineer Gas residential and business customers and other households and businesses supplied with natural gas in Kanawha County, which lost natural gas service on November 10, 2023, as a result of these events. The complaint alleges, among other things, breach of contract by Mountaineer Gas, trespass by WVAWC, nuisance by WVAWC, violation of statutory obligations by Mountaineer Gas and WVAWC, and negligence by Mountaineer Gas and WVAWC. The complaint seeks class-wide damages against Mountaineer Gas and WVAWC for loss of use of natural gas, annoyance, inconvenience and lost profits, as well as punitive damages.

On November 15, 2023, a complaint captioned Toliver et al. v. West Virginia-American Water Company and Mountaineer Gas Company was filed in West Virginia Circuit Court in Kanawha County on behalf of an alleged class of all natural persons or entities who are citizens of the State of West Virginia and who are customers of WVAWC and/or Mountaineer Gas in the affected areas. The complaint alleges against Mountaineer Gas and WVAWC, among other things, negligence, nuisance, trespass and strict liability, as well as breach of contract against Mountaineer Gas. The complaint seeks class-wide damages against Mountaineer Gas and WVAWC for property damage, loss of use and enjoyment of property, annoyance and inconvenience and business losses, as well as punitive damages.

On November 16, 2023, a complaint captioned Dodson et al. v. West Virginia American Water and Mountaineer Gas Company was filed in West Virginia Circuit Court in Kanawha County on behalf of an alleged class of all West Virginia citizens living between Pennsylvania Avenue south of Washington Street, and Iowa Street, who are customers of Mountaineer Gas. The complaint alleges against Mountaineer Gas and WVAWC, among other things, negligence, nuisance, trespass, statutory code violations and unfair or deceptive business practices. The complaint seeks class-wide damages against Mountaineer Gas and WVAWC for property loss and damage, loss of use and enjoyment of property, mental and emotional distress, and aggravation and inconvenience, as well as punitive damages.

On January 4, 2024, a fourth complaint, captioned Thomas v. West Virginia-American Water Company and Mountaineer Gas Company, was filed in West Virginia Circuit Court in Kanawha County asserting similar allegations as those included in the Ruffin, Toliver and Dodson lawsuits, with the addition of counts alleging unjust enrichment and violations of the West Virginia Human Rights Act and the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act.

On November 17, 2023, the Ruffin plaintiff filed a motion to consolidate the class action lawsuits before a single judge in Kanawha County Circuit Court. On June 14, 2024, the judge in the Ruffin case partially granted the motion by transferring all of the four class action lawsuits to her court but deferring as premature consolidation of the cases.

On December 5, 2023, a complaint captioned Mountaineer Gas Company v. West Virginia-American Water Company was filed in West Virginia Circuit Court in Kanawha County seeking damages under theories of trespass, negligence and implied indemnity. The damages being sought related to the incident include, among other things, repair and response costs incurred by Mountaineer Gas and attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred by Mountaineer Gas. On March 6, 2024, the motion to transfer this complaint to the West Virginia Business Court was granted and trial and resolution judges were assigned. The Business Court has set a trial date of August 10, 2026 for this matter.

On December 20, 2023, Mountaineer Gas filed answers to each of the first three class action lawsuits, which included cross-claims against WVAWC alleging that Mountaineer Gas is without fault for the claims and damages alleged in the lawsuits and WVAWC should be required to indemnify Mountaineer Gas for any damages and for attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred by Mountaineer Gas in the lawsuits. WVAWC has filed a partial motion to dismiss certain claims in the Ruffin, Toliver, Dodson and Thomas lawsuits and a motion to dismiss the cross-claims asserted against WVAWC therein by Mountaineer Gas. Mountaineer Gas subsequently voluntarily dismissed its cross-claims. On November 14, 2025, the Plaintiffs in the Ruffin and Toliver lawsuits jointly filed a motion for class certification. On December 22, 2025, the Kanawha County Circuit Court entered a joint order setting a schedule for class certification with a hearing on the motion to be held on March 17, 2026. The Court also ordered mediation and continued the previously set February 2, 2026 trial date.

On December 6, 2023, WVAWC initiated a process whereby Mountaineer Gas customers could file claims with WVAWC and seek payment from WVAWC of up to $2,000 in damages per affected household for the inconvenience arising from a loss of use of their appliances and documented out-of-pocket expenses as a result of the natural gas outage. In light of the diminishing number of new claims that had been filed, the claims process was concluded on March 8, 2024. As of December 31, 2024, a total of 594 Mountaineer Gas customers completed this claims process and each of those customers has been paid by WVAWC an average of approximately $1,500. In return, these customers were required to execute a partial release of liability in favor of WVAWC.

On November 16, 2023, the Public Service Commission of West Virginia (the “WVPSC”) issued an order initiating a general investigation into both the water main break and natural gas outages occurring in this incident to determine the cause or causes thereof, as well as breaks and outages generally throughout the systems of WVAWC and Mountaineer Gas and the utility practices of both utilities. Following a series of disagreements among the parties regarding the scope of discovery, the WVPSC closed the general investigation into both utilities and ordered a separate general investigation for each utility. The WVPSC focused the two general investigations away from the cause of the events and instead on the maintenance practices of each utility during and after the main breaks. On January 29, 2024, the Consumer Advocate Division of the WVPSC filed a motion to intervene in the WVAWC general investigation.

On April 24, 2024, the staff issued a final joint memorandum in the Mountaineer Gas general investigation stating its view that Mountaineer Gas responded appropriately, reasonably and according to Mountaineer Gas’s written procedures. The staff is making no recommendations for improvements to Mountaineer Gas and is recommending that the Mountaineer Gas general investigation be closed. On July 24, 2024, the staff issued a final joint memorandum in the WVAWC general investigation finding no indication of systematic failure by WVAWC and concluding WVAWC’s maintenance and operating procedures were adequate to ensure safe and reliable service, subject to the implementation by WVAWC of three recommended operational improvements. Both general investigations remain pending.

The Company and WVAWC believe that the causes of action and other claims asserted against WVAWC in the class action complaints and the lawsuit filed by Mountaineer Gas are without merit and that WVAWC has valid, meritorious defenses to such claims. WVAWC continues to defend itself vigorously in these litigation proceedings. Given the current stage of these proceedings and the general investigation, the Company and WVAWC are currently unable to predict the outcome of any of the proceedings described above.

PFAS Multi-District Litigation

Several of the Company’s utility subsidiaries are parties to a multi-district litigation (the “MDL”) lawsuit, which commenced on December 7, 2018, in U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, against manufacturers of certain PFAS for damages, contribution and reimbursement of costs incurred and continuing to be incurred to address the presence of such PFAS in public water supply systems owned and operated by these utility subsidiaries and throughout their service areas. Settlements with several defendants in the MDL proceeding have received final approval by the MDL court.

As of December 31, 2025, the Company has received settlement payments from defendants 3M Company and DuPont de Nemours, Inc. totaling $159 million, net of legal fees and administrative costs and exclusive of interest. The Company intends to seek regulatory approval from its respective PUCs to apply the net proceeds for the benefit of customers, where permissible. Regulatory approvals have been obtained with respect to seven of the Company’s utility subsidiaries that are parties to the MDL, and two regulatory applications have been denied. Most of the funds received by the Company are being held in a law firm escrow account and are awaiting distribution to the Company’s utility subsidiaries that are parties to the MDL after approval or denial is received from the applicable PUCs. As of December 31, 2025, approximately $47 million of the escrowed funds, including escrow interest, has been transferred from the law firm escrow account for distribution to utility subsidiaries that have received approval. The Company anticipates that, during 2026, it may receive one or more additional settlement payments from the defendants in the MDL.

During 2025, the Company was made aware of a number of substantially similar personal injury short-form complaints that had been filed in the MDL naming, in addition to various other water providers and manufacturers, certain Company utility subsidiaries as defendants. The Company believes that the claims that had been asserted are without merit and the relevant utility subsidiaries have valid, meritorious defenses to the claims. In October 2025, all MDL personal injury complaints that the Company had been made aware of were dismissed by the plaintiffs without prejudice.

General

Periodically, the Company is involved in other proceedings or litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. Other than those proceedings described in this Item 3—Legal Proceedings, the Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these matters will materially affect its financial position or results of operations. However, litigation and other proceedings are subject to many uncertainties, and the outcome of individual matters is not predictable with assurance. It is possible that some litigation and other proceedings could be decided unfavorably to the Company, and that any such unfavorable decisions could have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.