XML 58 R14.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.0.8

Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2014
Contingencies |
Contingencies | 9. Contingencies Asbestos The Company is a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging bodily injury and death as a result of exposure to asbestos dust. From 1948 to 1958, one of the Company’s former business units commercially produced and sold approximately $40 million of a high-temperature, calcium-silicate based pipe and block insulation material containing asbestos. The Company exited the pipe and block insulation business in April 1958. The typical asbestos personal injury lawsuit alleges various theories of liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability and seeks compensatory and in some cases, punitive damages in various amounts (herein referred to as “asbestos claims”). As of March 31, 2014, the Company has determined that it is a named defendant in asbestos lawsuits and claims involving approximately 2,500 plaintiffs and claimants. Based on an analysis of the lawsuits pending as of December 31, 2013, approximately 80% of plaintiffs either do not specify the monetary damages sought, or in the case of court filings, claim an amount sufficient to invoke the jurisdictional minimum of the trial court. Approximately 16% of plaintiffs specifically plead damages above the jurisdictional minimum up to, and including, $15 million or less, and 3% of plaintiffs specifically plead damages greater than $15 million but less than $100 million. Fewer than 1% of plaintiffs specifically plead damages equal to or greater than $100 million. As indicated by the foregoing summary, current pleading practice permits considerable variation in the assertion of monetary damages. The Company’s experience resolving hundreds of thousands of asbestos claims and lawsuits over an extended period demonstrates that the monetary relief that may be alleged in a complaint bears little relevance to a claim’s merits or disposition value. Rather, the amount potentially recoverable is determined by such factors as the severity of the plaintiff’s asbestos disease, the product identification evidence against the Company and other defendants, the defenses available to the Company and other defendants, the specific jurisdiction in which the claim is made, and the plaintiff’s medical history and exposure to other disease-causing agents. In addition to the pending claims set forth above, the Company has claims-handling agreements in place with many plaintiffs’ counsel throughout the country. These agreements require evaluation and negotiation regarding whether particular claimants qualify under the criteria established by such agreements. The criteria for such claims include verification of a compensable illness and a reasonable probability of exposure to a product manufactured by the Company’s former business unit during its manufacturing period ending in 1958. The Company has also been a defendant in other asbestos-related lawsuits or claims involving maritime workers, medical monitoring claimants, co-defendants and property damage claimants. Based upon its past experience, the Company believes that these categories of lawsuits and claims will not involve any material liability and they are not included in the above description of pending matters or in the following description of disposed matters. Since receiving its first asbestos claim, the Company as of March 31, 2014, has disposed of the asbestos claims of approximately 393,000 plaintiffs and claimants at an average indemnity payment per claim of approximately $8,700. Certain of these dispositions have included deferred amounts payable over a number of years. Deferred amounts payable totaled approximately $24 million at March 31, 2014 ($12 million at December 31, 2013) and are included in the foregoing average indemnity payment per claim. The Company’s asbestos indemnity payments have varied on a per claim basis, and are expected to continue to vary considerably over time. As discussed above, a part of the Company’s objective is to achieve, where possible, resolution of asbestos claims pursuant to claims-handling agreements. Failure of claimants to meet certain medical and product exposure criteria in the Company’s administrative claims handling agreements has generally reduced the number of marginal or suspect claims that would otherwise have been received. In addition, certain courts and legislatures have reduced or eliminated the number of marginal or suspect claims that the Company otherwise would have received. These developments generally have had the effect of increasing the Company’s per-claim average indemnity payment over time. The Company believes that its ultimate asbestos-related liability (i.e., its indemnity payments or other claim disposition costs plus related legal fees) cannot reasonably be estimated. Beginning with the initial liability of $975 million established in 1993, the Company has accrued a total of approximately $4.3 billion through 2013, before insurance recoveries, for its asbestos-related liability. The Company’s ability to reasonably estimate its liability has been significantly affected by, among other factors, the volatility of asbestos-related litigation in the United States, the significant number of co-defendants that have filed for bankruptcy, the magnitude and timing of co-defendant bankruptcy trust payments, the inherent uncertainty of future disease incidence and claiming patterns against the Company, and the success of efforts by co-defendants to restrict or eliminate their liability in the litigation. The Company has continued to monitor trends that may affect its ultimate liability and has continued to analyze the developments and variables affecting or likely to affect the resolution of pending and future asbestos claims against the Company. The material components of the Company’s accrued liability are based on amounts determined by the Company in connection with its annual comprehensive review and consist of the following estimates, to the extent it is probable that such liabilities have been incurred and can be reasonably estimated: (i) the liability for asbestos claims already asserted against the Company; (ii) the liability for asbestos claims not yet asserted against the Company, but which the Company believes will be asserted in the next several years; and (iii) the legal defense costs likely to be incurred in connection with the foregoing types of claims. The significant assumptions underlying the material components of the Company’s accrual are: a) the extent to which settlements are limited to claimants who were exposed to the Company’s asbestos-containing insulation prior to its exit from that business in 1958; b) the extent to which claims are resolved under the Company’s administrative claims agreements or on terms comparable to those set forth in those agreements; c) the extent of decrease or increase in the incidence of serious disease cases and claiming patterns for such cases; d) the extent to which the Company is able to defend itself successfully at trial or on appeal; e) the number and timing of additional co-defendant bankruptcies; and f) the extent to which co-defendants with substantial resources and assets continue to participate significantly in the resolution of future asbestos lawsuits and claims. As noted above, the Company conducts a comprehensive review of its asbestos-related liabilities and costs annually in connection with finalizing and reporting its annual results of operations, unless significant changes in trends or new developments warrant an earlier review. If the results of an annual comprehensive review indicate that the existing amount of the accrued liability is insufficient to cover its estimated future asbestos-related costs, then the Company will record an appropriate charge to increase the accrued liability. The Company believes that a reasonable estimation of the probable amount of the liability for claims not yet asserted against the Company is not possible beyond a period of several years. Therefore, while the results of future annual comprehensive reviews cannot be determined, the Company expects the addition of one year to the estimation period will result in an annual charge. The Company’s reported results of operations for 2013 were materially affected by the $145 million fourth quarter charge for asbestos-related costs and asbestos-related payments continue to be substantial. Any future additional charge would likewise materially affect the Company’s results of operations for the period in which it is recorded. Also, the continued use of significant amounts of cash for asbestos-related costs has affected and may continue to affect the Company’s cost of borrowing and its ability to pursue global or domestic acquisitions. However, the Company believes that its operating cash flows and other sources of liquidity will be sufficient to pay its obligations for asbestos-related costs and to fund its working capital and capital expenditure requirements on a short-term and long-term basis. Other Matters The Company conducted an internal investigation into conduct in certain of its overseas operations that may have violated the anti-bribery provisions of the United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the “FCPA”), the FCPA’s books and records and internal controls provisions, the Company’s own internal policies, and various local laws. In October 2012, the Company voluntarily disclosed these matters to the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). On July 18, 2013, the Company received a letter from the DOJ indicating that it presently did not intend to take any enforcement action and is closing its inquiry into the matter. The Company is presently unable to predict the duration, scope or result of an investigation by the SEC, if any, or whether the SEC will commence any legal action. The SEC has a broad range of civil sanctions under the FCPA and other laws and regulations including, but not limited to, injunctive relief, disgorgement, penalties, and modifications to business practices. The Company could also be subject to investigation and sanctions outside the United States. While the Company is currently unable to quantify the impact of any potential sanctions or remedial measures, it does not expect such actions will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s liquidity, results of operations or financial condition. The Company received a non-income tax assessment from a foreign tax authority for approximately $90 million (including penalties and interest). The Company challenged this assessment, but the tax authority’s position was upheld in court. The Company strongly disagrees with this ruling and believes it to be contradictory to other court rulings in the Company’s favor. Although the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this case, it believes that it is probable that the tax authority’s assessment will be overturned by a higher court, and therefore, the Company has not established an accrual. In order to contest the lower court rulings, legal rules require the Company to deposit the amount of the tax assessment, which will be remitted in monthly installments over the next fifteen months. A favorable ruling by the higher court will result in a return to the Company of amounts paid. An unfavorable ruling will result in the forfeiture of the deposit, a charge of approximately $60 million and a non-income tax refund of $30 million. As of March 31, 2014, the Company has made installment payments totaling $60 million, which is included in Other assets on the balance sheet. Other litigation is pending against the Company, in many cases involving ordinary and routine claims incidental to the business of the Company and in others presenting allegations that are non-routine and involve compensatory, punitive or treble damage claims as well as other types of relief. The Company records a liability for such matters when it is both probable that the liability has been incurred and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated. Recorded amounts are reviewed and adjusted to reflect changes in the factors upon which the estimates are based, including additional information, negotiations, settlements and other events.

X
- Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration