XML 76 R21.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.1.9

Commitments and Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies: We are currently engaged in the following environmental and legal proceedings: Superfund Sites We are currently involved as a potentially responsible party (PRP) in one active case involving a waste disposal site, the Chatham Superfund Site. The costs incurred since inception for this claim have been immaterial and have been primarily covered by insurance policies, for both legal and remediation costs. In this matter, we have been assessed a cost sharing percentage of approximately 2% in relation to the range for estimated total cleanup costs of $18.8 million to $29.6 million. We believe we have sufficient insurance coverage to fully cover this liability and have recorded a liability and related insurance receivable of approximately $0.4 million as of March 31, 2015, which approximates our share of the low end of the estimated range. We believe we are a de minimis participant and, as such, have been allocated an insignificant percentage of the total PRP cost sharing responsibility. Based on facts presently known to us, we believe that the potential for the final results of this case having a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position or cash flows is remote. This case has been ongoing for many years and we believe that it will continue on for the indefinite future. No time frame for completion can be estimated at the present time. PCB Contamination We have been working with the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region I, in connection with certain polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contamination at our facility in Woodstock, Connecticut. The issue was originally discovered in the soil at the facility in the late 1990s, and this initial issue was remediated in 2000. Further contamination was later found in the groundwater beneath the property, which was addressed with the installation of a pump and treat system in 2011. Additional PCB contamination at this facility was found in the original buildings, courtyards and surrounding areas including an on-site pond. Remediation activities of the affected building materials and courtyards were completed in 2014 at a total cost of $0.5 million. Remediation costs related to the soil contamination and the on-site pond are ongoing and expected to approximate $0.7 million. The soil contamination remediation is completed and we currently have a reserve of $0.2 million for the pond remediation recorded in our consolidated statements of financial position. We believe this reserve will be adequate to cover the remaining remediation work related to the soil and pond contamination based on the information known at this time. However, if additional contamination is found, the cost of the remaining remediation may increase. Overall, we have spent approximately $2.4 million in remediation and monitoring costs related to these various PCB contamination issues. The future costs related to the maintenance of the groundwater pump and treat system now in place at the site are expected to be minimal. We believe that the remaining remediation activity will continue for several more years and no time frame for completion can be estimated at the present time. Asbestos Litigation A significant number of asbestos-related product liability claims have been brought against numerous United States industrial companies where the third-party plaintiffs allege personal injury from exposure to asbestos-containing products. We have been named, along with hundreds of other companies, as a defendant in some of these claims. In virtually all of these claims filed against us, the plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages, or, if an amount is specified, such amount merely represents a jurisdictional amount. However, occasionally specific damages are alleged and in such situations, plaintiffs’ lawyers often sue dozens of defendants, frequently without factual basis or support. As a result, even when a specific amount of damages is alleged, such action can be arbitrary, both as to the amount being sought and the defendant being charged with such damages. We did not mine, mill, manufacture or market asbestos; rather we made a limited number of products which contained encapsulated asbestos. Such products were provided to industrial users. We stopped manufacturing these products in the late 1980s.
• | Claims
We have been named in asbestos litigation primarily in Illinois, Pennsylvania and Mississippi. As of March 31, 2015, there were 424 pending claims compared to 438 pending claims at December 31, 2014. The number of pending claims at a particular time can fluctuate significantly from period to period depending on how successful we have been in getting these cases dismissed or settled. Some jurisdictions prohibit specifying alleged damages in personal injury tort cases such as these, other than a minimum jurisdictional amount which may be required for such reasons as allowing the case to be litigated in a jury trial (which the plaintiffs believe will be more favorable to them than if heard only before a judge) or allowing the case to be litigated in federal court. This is in contrast to commercial litigation, in which specific alleged damage claims are often permitted. The prohibition on specifying alleged damages sometimes applies not only to the suit when filed but also during the trial – in some jurisdictions the plaintiff is not actually permitted to specify to the jury during the course of the trial the amount of alleged damages the plaintiff is claiming. Further, in those jurisdictions in which plaintiffs are permitted to claim specific alleged damages, many plaintiffs nonetheless still choose not to do so. In those cases in which plaintiffs are permitted to and choose to assert specific dollar amounts in their complaints, we believe the amounts claimed are typically not meaningful as an indicator of a company’s potential liability. This is because (1) the amounts claimed may bear no relation to the level of the plaintiff’s alleged injury and are often used as part of the plaintiff’s litigation strategy, (2) the complaints typically assert claims against numerous defendants, and often the alleged damages are not allocated against specific defendants, but rather the broad claim is made against all of the defendants as a group, making it impossible for a particular defendant to quantify the alleged damages that are being specifically claimed against it and therefore its potential liability, and (3) many cases are brought on behalf of plaintiffs who have not suffered any medical injury, and ultimately are resolved without any payment or payment of a small fraction of the damages initially claimed. We believe the rate at which plaintiffs filed asbestos-related suits against us increased in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 because of increased activity on the part of plaintiffs to identify those companies that sold asbestos-containing products, but which did not directly mine, mill or market asbestos. A significant increase in the volume of asbestos-related bodily injury cases arose in Mississippi in 2002. This increase in the volume of claims in Mississippi was apparently due to the passage of tort reform legislation (applicable to asbestos-related injuries), which became effective on September 1, 2003 and which resulted in a higher than average number of claims being filed in Mississippi by plaintiffs seeking to ensure their claims would be governed by the law in effect prior to the passage of tort reform. The number of asbestos related suits filed against us decreased slightly in 2005 and 2006, but increased slightly in 2007, declined in 2008 and increased again in 2009 and 2010. The number of lawsuits filed against us in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and the first quarter of 2015 (annualized) was significantly higher than in 2010. These new lawsuits are reflected in the National Economic Research Associates, Inc. ("NERA") and Marsh USA, Inc. ("Marsh") reports. (See "Impact on Financials Statements" section below.)
• | Defenses
In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable loss as a result of exposure to our asbestos-containing products. We continue to believe that the trend will continue and that a majority of the claimants in pending cases will not be able to demonstrate exposure or loss. This belief is based in large part on the limited number of asbestos-related products manufactured and sold by us and the fact that the asbestos was encapsulated in such products. In addition, even at sites where the presence of an alleged injured party can be verified during the same period those products were used, our liability cannot be presumed because even if an individual contracted an asbestos-related disease, not everyone who was employed at a site was exposed to the asbestos containing products that we manufactured. Based on these and other factors, we have and will continue to vigorously defend ourselves in asbestos-related matters.
• | Dismissals and Settlements
Cases involving us typically name 50-300 defendants, although some cases have had as few as one (1) and as many as 833 defendants. We have obtained the dismissal of many of these claims. For the three months ended March 31, 2015, 62 claims were dismissed and no (0) claims were settled. For the year ended December 31, 2014, 104 claims were dismissed and 13 were settled. The majority of costs have been paid by our insurance carriers, including the costs associated with the small number of cases that have been settled. Nothing was paid on settlements for the three months ended March 31, 2015, compared to $3.2 million for the year ended 2014. Although these figures provide some insight into our experience with asbestos litigation, no guarantee can be made as to the dismissal and settlement rates that we will experience in the future. Settlements are made without any admission of liability. Settlement amounts may vary depending upon a number of factors, including the jurisdiction where the action was brought, the nature and extent of the disease alleged and the associated medical evidence, the age and occupation of the claimant, the existence or absence of other possible causes of the alleged illness of the alleged injured party and the availability of legal defenses, as well as whether the action is brought alone or as part of a group of claimants. To date, we have been successful in obtaining dismissals for many of the claims and have settled only a limited number. Most of the settled claims were settled for nominal amounts, and the majority of such payments have been borne by our insurance carriers. In addition, to date, we have not been required to pay any punitive damage awards.
• | Potential Liability
NERA has historically been engaged to assist us in projecting our future asbestos-related liabilities and defense costs with regard to pending claims and future claims. Projecting future asbestos costs is subject to numerous variables that are extremely difficult to predict, including the number of claims that might be received, the type and severity of the disease alleged by each claimant, the long latency period associated with asbestos exposure, dismissal rates, costs of medical treatment, the financial resources of other companies that are co-defendants in claims, uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case and the impact of potential changes in legislative or judicial standards, including potential tort reform. Furthermore, any predictions with respect to these variables are subject to even greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens. In light of these inherent uncertainties, the variability of our claims history and consultations with NERA, we currently believe that ten years is the most reasonable period for recognizing a reserve for future costs, and that costs that might be incurred after that period are not reasonably estimable at this time. As a result, we also believe that our ultimate asbestos-related contingent liability (i.e., our indemnity or other claim disposition costs plus related legal fees) cannot be estimated with certainty. (See "Impact on Financials Statements" section below for further discussion.)
• | Insurance Coverage
Our applicable insurance policies generally provide coverage for asbestos liability costs, including coverage for both indemnity and defense costs. Following the initiation of asbestos litigation, an effort was made to identify all of our primary, umbrella and excess level insurance carriers that provided applicable coverage beginning in the 1950s through the mid-1980s. We located primary policies for all such years except for the early 1960s. With respect to this period, we entered into an arrangement with ACE Property & Casualty Insurance Company in 2005, pursuant to which we and they share in asbestos liabilities allocable to such period. We have located umbrella or excess layer policies for all such years except for the period from May 18, 1961 to May 18, 1964. We believe that a policy was purchased from Continental Casualty Company covering this period based upon documents we have found, but the insurer has denied coverage. This policy has not yet been triggered. Where appropriate, carriers were put on notice of the litigation. Marsh has historically been engaged to work with us to project our insurance coverage for asbestos-related claims. Marsh’s conclusions are based primarily on a review of our coverage history, application of reasonable assumptions on the allocation of coverage consistent with certain industry practices, an assessment of the creditworthiness of the insurance carriers, analysis of applicable deductibles, retentions and policy limits, the experience of NERA and a review of NERA’s reports.
• | Cost Sharing Agreement
To date, our insurance carriers have paid for substantially all of the settlement and defense costs associated with our asbestos-related claims. The current cost sharing agreement between us and such insurance carriers is primarily designed to facilitate the ongoing administration and payment of such claims by the carriers until the applicable insurance coverage is exhausted. This agreement, which replaced an older agreement that had expired, can be terminated by election of any party thereto after January 25, 2015. Absent any such election, the agreement will continue until a party elects to terminate it. As of the report filing date for this report, the agreement has not been terminated. In 2014, the primary layer insurance policies providing coverage for the January 1, 1966 to January 1, 1967 period exhausted. The cost sharing agreement contemplates that any excess carrier over exhausted primary layer carriers will become a party to the cost sharing agreement, replacing the coverage provided by the exhausted primary policies if the carrier providing such excess coverage is not already a party to the cost sharing agreement. The excess carrier providing coverage for the period set forth above is currently providing applicable insurance coverage in accordance with the allocation provisions of the cost sharing agreement, but has not yet signed that agreement.
• | Impact on Financial Statements
The models developed for determining the potential exposure and related insurance coverage were developed by outside consultants deemed to be experts in their respective fields with the forecast for asbestos related liabilities generated by NERA and the related insurance receivable projections developed by Marsh. The models contain numerous assumptions that significantly impact the results generated by the models. We believe the assumptions made are reasonable at the present time, but are subject to uncertainty based on the actual future outcome of our asbestos litigation. We determined that a ten year projection period i s now appropriate as we have experience in addressing asbestos related lawsuits over the last few years to use as a baseline to project the liability over ten years. However, we do not believe we have sufficient data to justify a longer projection period at this time. As of December 31, 2014, the estimated liability and estimated insurance recovery for the ten year period through 2024 was $56.5 million and $53.0 million, respectively. There were no changes to these projections during the first three months of 2015. We review our asbestos related forecasts annually in the fourth quarter of each year unless facts and circumstances materially change during the year, at which time we would analyze these forecasts. The amounts recorded for the asbestos-related liability and the related insurance receivables described above were based on facts known at the time and a number of assumptions. However, projecting future events, such as the number of new claims to be filed each year, the average cost of disposing of such claims, the length of time it takes to dispose of such claims, coverage issues among insurers and the continuing solvency of various insurance companies, as well as the numerous uncertainties surrounding asbestos litigation in the United States could cause the actual liability and insurance recoveries for us to be higher or lower than those projected or recorded. There can be no assurance that our accrued asbestos liabilities will approximate our actual asbestos-related settlement and defense costs, or that our accrued insurance recoveries will be realized. We believe that it is reasonably possible that we will incur additional charges for our asbestos liabilities and defense costs in the future, which could exceed existing reserves, but such excess amount cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. We will continue to vigorously defend ourselves and believe we have substantial unutilized insurance coverage to mitigate future costs related to this matter. Other Environmental and General Litigation
• | In the second quarter of 2010, the CT DEEP contacted us to discuss a disposal site in Killingly, Connecticut. We undertook internal due diligence work related to the site to better understand the issue and our alleged involvement. As a matter of procedure, we have submitted an insurance claim for the disposal site, but we currently do not know the nature and extent of any alleged contamination at the site, how many parties could be potentially involved in any remediation, if necessary, or the extent to which we could be deemed a potentially responsible party. CT DEEP has not made any assessment of the nature of any potential remediation work that may be done, nor have they made any indication of any potential costs associated with such remediation. Therefore, based on the facts and circumstances known to us at the present time, we are not able to estimate the probability of incurring a contingent liability related to this site, nor are we able to reasonably estimate any potential range of exposure at this time. As such, no reserve has been established for this matter at this time. We continually monitor this situation and are in correspondence with the CT DEEP as appropriate. When and if facts and circumstances related to this matter change, we will review our position and our ability to estimate the probability of any potential loss contingencies, as well as the range of any such potential exposure.
• | The Rogers Corporate Headquarters located in Rogers, Connecticut is part of the Connecticut Voluntary Corrective Action Program (VCAP). As part of this program, we have had conversations with the CT DEEP to begin to determine if any corrective actions need to be taken at the site related to any potential contamination issues. We are currently in the early stages of evaluating this matter and have initiated internal due diligence work related to the site to better understand any potential issues.
As of March 31, 2015, a reserve of $0.1 million was recorded for the continuing assessments to determine the extent of any potential remediation that may be required. However, at this time, it is currently unknown what the nature and extent of any potential contamination is at the site, nor what any potential remediation or associated costs would be if any such issues were found. Therefore, based on the facts and circumstances known to us at the present time, we are unable to estimate the probability of incurring a contingent liability related to environmental remediation at this site, nor are we able to reasonably estimate any potential range of exposure at this time. As such, no reserve specific to environmental remediation activity has been established for this matter at this time.
• | In 2013, we became aware of a claim made by a sales agent/distributor in Europe for alleged improper termination of our relationship. The sales agent/distributor is seeking compensation for the terminated relationship. During 2014, a mediation process was initiated and was completed during the three month period ended March 31, 2015. We reached a settlement related to this matter in the amount of $0.5 million.
In addition to the above issues, the nature and scope of our business brings us in regular contact with the general public and a variety of businesses and government agencies. Such activities inherently subject us to the possibility of litigation, including environmental and product liability matters that are defended and handled in the ordinary course of business. We have established accruals for matters for which management considers a loss to be probable and reasonably estimable. It is the opinion of management that facts known at the present time do not indicate that such litigation, after taking into account insurance coverage and the aforementioned accruals, will have a material adverse impact on our results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.

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=51674963&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