The Company is involved in various litigation, claims and administrative proceedings, including those related to environmental and legal matters (including asbestos). In accordance with ASC 450, the Company records accruals for loss contingencies when it is probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. These accruals are generally based upon a range of possible outcomes. If no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other, the Company accrues the minimum amount. In addition, these estimates are reviewed periodically and adjusted to reflect additional information when it becomes available. The Company is unable to predict the final outcome of the following matters based on the information currently available, except as otherwise noted. However, the Company does not believe that the resolution of any of these matters will have a material adverse effect upon the Company's competitive position, results of operations, cash flows or financial condition.

The Company’s operations are subject to environmental regulation by various authorities. The Company has accrued for the costs of environmental remediation activities, including but not limited to, investigatory, remediation, operating and maintenance costs and performance guarantees. The most likely cost to be incurred is accrued based on an evaluation of currently available facts with respect to individual sites, including the technology required to remediate, current laws and regulations and prior remediation experience.

For sites with multiple responsible parties, the Company considers its likely proportionate share of the anticipated remediation costs and the ability of other parties to fulfill their obligations in establishing a provision for those costs. Accrued environmental liabilities are not reduced by potential insurance reimbursements and are undiscounted.

The Company has been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos allegedly integrated into certain Carrier products or business premises. While the Company has never manufactured asbestos and no longer incorporates it into any currently-manufactured products, certain products that the Company no longer manufactures contained components incorporating asbestos. A substantial majority of these asbestos-related claims have been dismissed without payment or have been covered in full or in part by insurance or other forms of indemnity. Additional cases were litigated and settled without any insurance reimbursement. The amounts involved in asbestos-related claims were not material individually or in the aggregate in any period.


(In millions)	2021		2020
Asbestos liabilities included in Accrued liabilities	$	17	$	17
Asbestos liabilities included in Other long-term liabilities	220		228
Total asbestos liabilities	$	237	$	245

Asbestos-related recoveries included in Other assets, current	$	5	$	6
Asbestos-related recoveries included in Other assets	93		97
Total asbestos-related recoveries	$	98	$	103

The amounts recorded for asbestos-related liabilities are based on currently available information and assumptions that the Company believes are reasonable and are made with input from outside actuarial experts. In connection with the recognition of liabilities for asbestos-related matters, the Company records asbestos-related insurance recoveries that are deemed probable. These amounts are undiscounted and exclude the Company’s legal fees to defend the asbestos claims, which are expensed as incurred. As of December 31, 2021, the estimated range of liability to resolve all pending and unasserted potential future asbestos claims through 2059 is approximately $237 million to $258 million.

On August 12, 2020, several former employees of UTC or its subsidiaries filed a putative class action complaint (the "Complaint") in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against RTX, Carrier, Otis, the former members of the UTC Board of Directors and the members of the Carrier and Otis Boards of Directors (Geraud Darnis, et al. v. Raytheon Technologies Corporation, et al.). The Complaint challenges the method by which UTC equity awards were converted to RTX, Carrier and Otis equity awards following the Separation and the Distribution. Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint. Plaintiffs amended their Complaint on September 13, 2021 (the "Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint, now with RTX, Carrier and Otis as the only defendants, asserts that the defendants are liable for breach of certain equity compensation plans and for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Amended Complaint also seeks specific performance. Carrier believes that the claims against the Company are without merit. Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint on October 13, 2021.

As of December 31, 2021, the Company has been named as a defendant in over 1,800 lawsuits filed by individuals in or removed to the federal courts of the United States alleging that the historic use of AFFF caused personal injuries and/or property damage. The Company has also been named as a defendant in over 160 lawsuits filed by several U.S. states, municipalities and water utilities in or removed to U.S. federal courts alleging that the historic use of AFFF caused contamination of property and water supplies. In December 2018, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred and consolidated all AFFF cases pending in the U.S. federal courts against the Company and others to the MDL Court for MDL Proceedings. The individual plaintiffs in the MDL Proceedings generally seek damages for alleged personal injuries, medical

monitoring and diminution in property value and injunctive relief to remediate alleged contamination of water supplies. The U.S. state, municipal and water utility plaintiffs in the MDL Proceedings generally seek damages and costs related to the remediation of public property and water supplies.

AFFF is a firefighting foam, developed beginning in the late 1960s pursuant to U.S. military specification, used to extinguish certain types of hydrocarbon-fueled fires primarily at military bases and airports. AFFF was manufactured by several companies, including National Foam and Angus Fire. UTC first entered the AFFF business with the acquisition of National Foam and Angus Fire in 2005 as part of the acquisition of Kidde. In 2013, Kidde divested the National Foam and Angus Fire businesses to a third party. The Company acquired Kidde as part of its separation from UTC in April 2020. During the eight year period of its operation by Kidde, National Foam manufactured AFFF for sale to government (including the U.S. federal government) and non-government customers in the U.S. at a single facility located in West Chester, Pennsylvania ("Pennsylvania Site"). During the same period, Angus Fire manufactured AFFF for sale outside the United States at a single facility located in Bentham, England.

The key components of AFFF that contribute to its fire-extinguishing capabilities are known as fluorosurfactants. National Foam and Angus Fire did not manufacture fluorosurfactants but instead purchased these substances from unrelated third parties. Plaintiffs in the MDL Proceedings allege that the fluorosurfactants used by various manufacturers in producing AFFF contained, or over time degraded into, compounds known as PFOS and/or PFOA. Plaintiffs further allege that, as a result of the use of AFFF, PFOS and PFOA were released into the environment and, in some instances, ultimately reached drinking water supplies.

Plaintiffs in the MDL Proceedings allege that PFOS and PFOA contamination has resulted from the use of AFFF containing fluorosurfactants manufactured using a process known as ECF. They also allege that PFOA contamination has resulted from the use of AFFF containing fluorosurfactants manufactured using a different process, known as telomerization. Plaintiffs further allege that 3M was the only AFFF manufacturer that used fluorosurfactants relying on the ECF process and that all other foam manufacturers (including National Foam and Angus Fire) relied solely on fluorosurfactants produced via telomerization. Compounds containing PFOS and PFOA (as well as many other per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances known collectively as "PFAS") have also been used for decades by many third parties in a number of different industries to manufacture carpets, clothing, fabrics, cookware, food packaging, personal care products, cleaning products, paints, varnishes and other consumer and industrial products.

Plaintiffs in the MDL Proceedings have named multiple defendants, including four suppliers of chemicals and raw materials used to manufacture fluorosurfactants, four fluorosurfactant manufacturers, two toll manufacturers of fluorosurfactants and seven current (including National Foam and Angus Fire) and former (including the Company) AFFF manufacturers.

General liability discovery in the MDL Proceedings continues. Preliminary stage discovery in ten "bellwether" water provider cases was concluded and three of these cases were selected for tier two site-specific discovery. That discovery is ongoing. The MDL Court has established a briefing schedule with respect to certain aspects of the government contractor defense, potentially applicable to AFFF sold to or used by the U.S. government or other customers requiring product manufactured to meet military specification, such that all briefs were filed at the end of January 2022 with a hearing to follow.

Outside of the MDL Proceedings, the Company and other defendants are also party to six lawsuits in U.S. state courts brought by oil refining companies alleging product liability claims related to legacy sales of AFFF and seeking damages for the costs to replace the product and for property damage. In addition, the Company and other defendants are party to two actions related to the Pennsylvania Site in which the plaintiff water utility company seeks remediation costs related to the alleged contamination of the local water supply.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims in the MDL Proceedings and the other AFFF lawsuits. Based on the 2013 agreement for the sale of National Foam and Angus Fire, the Company is pursuing indemnification against these claims from the purchaser and current owner of National Foam and Angus Fire. The Company is also pursuing insurance coverage for these claims. At this time, however, given the numerous factual, scientific and legal issues to be resolved relating to these claims, the Company is unable to assess the probability of liability or to reasonably estimate the damages, if any, to be allocated to the Company, if one or more plaintiffs were to prevail in these cases, and there can be no assurance that any such future exposure will not be material in any period.

Under the TMA, the Company is responsible to UTC for its share of the TCJA transition tax associated with foreign undistributed earnings as of December 31, 2017. As a result, a liability of $417 million is included within the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheet within Other Long-Term Liabilities as of December 31, 2021. This obligation is expected to be settled in annual installments ending in April 2026 with the next installment of $34 million due in 2023. The Company believes that the likelihood of incurring losses materially in excess of this amount is remote.

The Company maintains self-insurance for a number of risks, including but not limited to, workers’ compensation, general liability, automobile liability, property and employee-related healthcare benefits. It has obtained insurance coverage for amounts exceeding individual and aggregate loss limits. The Company accrues for known future claims and incurred but not reported losses.

The Company has other commitments and contingent liabilities related to legal proceedings, self-insurance programs and matters arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company accrues for contingencies generally based upon a range of possible outcomes. If no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other, the Company accrues the minimum amount.

In the ordinary course of business, the Company is also routinely a defendant in, party to or otherwise subject to many pending and threatened legal actions, claims, disputes and proceedings. These matters are often based on alleged violations of contract, product liability, warranty, regulatory, environmental, health and safety, employment, intellectual property, tax and other laws. In some of these proceedings, claims for substantial monetary damages are asserted against the Company and could result in fines, penalties, compensatory or treble damages or non-monetary relief. The Company does not believe that these matters will have a material adverse effect upon its competitive position, results of operations, cash flows or financial condition.