Contingent Liabilities

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2011

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

16. Contingent Liabilities

As of December 31, 2011, the Company was a defendant in approximately four (4) lawsuits. The Company is aware of certain other such claims.

Lawsuits involving the Company’s products generally fall into one of two categories:

(i)

Those that claim damages from the Company related to allegedly defective product design and/or manufacture which stem from a specific incident. Pending lawsuits and claims are based principally on the theory of “strict liability” but also may be based on negligence, breach of warranty, and other legal theories; or

(ii)

Those brought by cities or other governmental entities, and individuals against firearms manufacturers, distributors and retailers seeking to recover damages allegedly arising out of the misuse of firearms by third-parties in the commission of homicides, suicides and other shootings involving juveniles and adults.

As to lawsuits of the first type, management believes that, in every case involving firearms, the allegations are unfounded, and that the shootings and any results therefrom were due to negligence or misuse of the firearms by third-parties or the claimant, and that there should be no recovery against the Company.

The only remaining lawsuit of the second type is the lawsuit filed by the City of Gary. The complaint in that case seeks damages, among other things, for the costs of medical care, police and emergency services, public health services, and other services as well as punitive damages. In addition, nuisance abatement and/or injunctive relief is sought to change the design, manufacture, marketing and distribution practices of the various defendants. The suit alleges, among other claims, negligence in the design of products, public nuisance, negligent distribution and marketing, negligence per se and deceptive advertising. The case does not allege a specific injury to a specific individual as a result of the misuse or use of any of the Company’s products. Market share allegations have been held inapplicable by the Indiana Supreme Court.

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the Gary case by the trial court, but the Indiana Supreme Court reversed this dismissal and remanded the case for discovery proceedings on December 23, 2003. On November 23, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to the PLCAA. The state court judge held the PLCAA unconstitutional and the defendants filed a motion with the Indiana Court of Appeals asking it to accept interlocutory appeal on the issue, which appeal was accepted on February 5, 2007. On October 29, 2007, the Indiana Appellate Court affirmed, holding that the PLCAA does not apply to the City’s claims. A petition for rehearing was filed in the Appellate Court and denied on January 9, 2008. On February 8, 2008, a Petition to Transfer the appeal to the Supreme Court of Indiana was filed. The petition was denied on January 13, 2009 and the case was remanded to the trial court. No trial date has been set.

In addition to the foregoing, on August 18, 2009, the Company was served with a complaint captioned Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fund, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Sturm, Ruger & Co. Inc., et al. pending in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The complaint seeks unspecified damages for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and is a purported class action on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s common stock between April 23, 2007 and October 29, 2007. On October 9, 2009, the Company waived service of a complaint captioned Alan R. Herrett, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Sturm, Ruger & Co. Inc., et al. pending in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. This matter is based upon the same facts and basic allegations set forth in the Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fund litigation. On October 12, 2009, a motion to consolidate the two actions was filed by counsel for the Steamfitters. On January 11, 2010, the court entered an order consolidating the two matters. A consolidated amended complaint was filed on March 11, 2010. The defendants, including the Company, filed a motion to dismiss on April 26, 2010 and plaintiffs filed a response on June 18, 2010. Defendants then filed a reply in support of the motion on July 19, 2010. Oral argument was held on November 22, 2010. On February 4, 2011, the Court entered an order granting the motion to dismiss in part and denying it in part. The matter is ongoing and no scheduling order has yet been entered.

Punitive damages, as well as compensatory damages, are demanded in certain of the lawsuits and claims. Aggregate claimed amounts presently exceed product liability accruals and applicable insurance coverage. For claims made after July 10, 2000, coverage is provided on an annual basis for losses exceeding $5 million per claim, or an aggregate maximum loss of $10 million annually, except for certain new claims which might be brought by governments or municipalities after July 10, 2000, which are excluded from coverage.

The Company management monitors the status of known claims and the product liability accrual, which includes amounts for asserted and unasserted claims. While it is not possible to forecast the outcome of litigation or the timing of costs, in the opinion of management, after consultation with special and corporate counsel, it is not reasonably possible that litigation, including punitive damage claims, will have a material adverse effect on the financial position of the Company, but may have a material impact on the Company’s financial results for a particular period.

Product liability claim payments are made when appropriate if, as, and when claimants and the Company reach agreement upon an amount to finally resolve all claims. Legal costs are paid as the lawsuits and claims develop, the timing of which may vary greatly from case to case. A time schedule cannot be determined in advance with any reliability concerning when payments will be made in any given case.

Provision is made for product liability claims based upon many factors related to the severity of the alleged injury and potential liability exposure, based upon prior claim experience. Because our experience in defending these lawsuits and claims is that unfavorable outcomes are typically not probable or estimable, only in rare cases is an accrual established for such costs. In most cases, an accrual is established only for estimated legal defense costs. Product liability accruals are periodically reviewed to reflect then-current estimates of possible liabilities and expenses incurred to date and reasonably anticipated in the future. Threatened product liability claims are reflected in our product liability accrual on the same basis as actual claims; i.e., an accrual is made for reasonably anticipated possible liability and claims-handling expenses on an ongoing basis.

A range of reasonably possible loss relating to unfavorable outcomes cannot be made. However, in product liability cases in which a dollar amount of damages is claimed, the amount of damages claimed, which totaled $5.4 million and $0.0 million at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively, are set forth as an indication of possible maximum liability that the Company might be required to incur in these cases (regardless of the likelihood or reasonable probability of any or all of this amount being awarded to claimants) as a result of adverse judgments that are sustained on appeal.

As of December 31, 2011 and 2010, the Company was a defendant in 3 and 1 lawsuits, respectively, involving its products and is aware of other such claims. As of December 31, 2011 and 2010, there were 1 and 1 ongoing lawsuits involving the Company’s products, respectively, from which the Company was dismissed, though the dismissals were not final. During the year ended December 31, 2011 and 2010, 2 and 0 lawsuits involving the Company’s products, respectively, were filed against the Company, 0 and 1 lawsuits involving the Company’s products, were dismissed, and 0 and 2 lawsuits involving the Company’s products, were settled.

The Company’s product liability expense was $1.6 million in 2011 and negligible in 2010. This expense includes the cost of outside legal fees, insurance, and other expenses incurred in the management and defense of product liability matters.

A roll-forward of the product liability reserve and detail of product liability expense for the three years ended December 31, 2011 follows:

Balance Sheet Roll-forward for Product Liability Reserve

						Cash Payments
	Balance Beginning of Year (a)		Accrued Legal Expense (Income) (b)			Legal Fees (c)			Settlements (d)			Balance End of Year (a)

2009		1,744		873			(274	)		(261	)		2,082

2010		2,082		(834	)		(64	)		(162	)		1,022

2011		1,022		755			(31	)		-			1,746

Income Statement Detail for Product Liability Expense

	Accrued Legal Expense (b)			Insurance Premium Expense (e)		Total Product Liability Expense

2009		873			745		1,618

2010		(834	)		843		9

2011		755			862		1,617

Notes

(a)	The beginning and ending liability balances represent accrued legal fees only. Settlements and administrative costs are expensed as incurred. Only in rare instances is an accrual established for settlements.

(b)	The expense accrued in the liability is for legal fees only. In 2010, the costs incurred related to cases that were settled or dismissed were less than the amounts accrued for these cases in prior years.

(c)	Legal fees represent payments to outside counsel related to product liability matters.

(d)	Settlements represent payments made to plaintiffs or allegedly injured parties in exchange for a full and complete release of liability.

(e)	Insurance expense represents the cost of insurance premiums.

There were no insurance recoveries during any of the above years.