XML 37 R24.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.8.0.1

Contingent Liabilities | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Contingent Liabilities | 17. Contingent Liabilities As of December 31, 2017, the Company was a defendant in four (4) lawsuits and is aware of certain other such claims. The lawsuits fall into four categories: traditional product liability litigation, patent litigation, non-product litigation, and municipal litigation, discussed in turn below. Traditional Product Liability Litigation One of the four lawsuits mentioned above involves claims for damages related to an allegedly defective product due to its design and/or manufacture. This lawsuit stems from a specific incident of personal injury and is based on a traditional product liability theory such as strict liability, negligence and/or breach of warranty. The Company management believes that the allegation in this case is unfounded, that the incident was unrelated to the design or manufacture of the firearm, and that there should be no recovery against the Company. Patent Litigation Davies Innovations, Inc. v. Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. is a patent litigation suit originally filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Galveston Division. Upon motion by the Company, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. The suit is based upon alleged patent infringement as the plaintiff claims that certain features of the Ruger SR-556 and SR-762 modern sporting rifles infringe its patent. The complaint seeks a judgment of infringement and unspecified monetary damages including costs, fees and treble damages. Pursuant to the Company's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on February 15, 2017, the Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim of literal infringement, but allowed the case to proceed to discovery on alternate theories. Since then, the parties have been engaging in discovery and the Company has filed a renewed Motion for Summary Judgment, which has not yet been set for hearing. The Company management believes that the allegations in this case are unfounded, that there is no infringement of plaintiff’s patent, that plaintiffs patent is invalid, and there should be no recovery against the Company. Non-Product Litigation David S. Palmer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated vs. Sturm, Ruger & Co. is a putative class-action suit filed in Florida state court on October 17, 2017 on behalf of Florida consumers. The suit alleges breach of warranty and deceptive trade practices related to the sale of 10/22 Target Rifles. The Company filed an Answer denying all material allegations and a Motion to Strike the putative class representative’s claims. That motion remains pending. Municipal Litigation Municipal litigation generally includes those cases brought by cities or other governmental entities against firearms manufacturers, distributors and retailers seeking to recover damages allegedly arising out of the misuse of firearms by third-parties. There is only one remaining lawsuit of this type, filed by the City of Gary in Indiana State Court in 1999. 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 th e design, manufacture, mark e ting and distribution practices of th e 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. After a long procedural history, the case was scheduled for trial on June 15, 2009. The case was not tried on that date and was largely dormant until a status conference was held on July 27, 2015. At that time, the court entered a scheduling order setting deadlines for plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint, for defendants to answer, and for defendants to file dispositive motions. The plaintiff did not file a Second Amended Complaint by the deadline. In 2015, Indiana passed a new law such that Indiana Code §34-12-3-1 became applicable to the City's case. The defendants have filed a joint motion for judgment on the pleadings, asserting immunity under §34-12-3-1 and asking the court to revisit the Court of Appeals' decision holding the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act inapplicabl e to the City's claims. The motion was fully briefed by the parties. On September 29, 2016, the court entered an order staying the case pending a decision by the Indiana Supreme Court in KS&E Sports v. Runnels, which presents related issues. The Indiana Supreme Court decided KS&E Sports on April 24, 2017, and the Gary court lifted the stay. The Gary court also entered an order setting a supplemental briefing schedule under which the parties addressed the impact of the KS&E Sports decision on defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. A hearing on the motion for judgment on the pleadings was held on December 12, 2017. On January 2, 2018, the Court entered an order dismissing the case in its entirety. The City filed a Notice of Appeal on February 1, 2018. Summary of Claimed Damages and Explanation of Product Liability Accruals Punitive damages, as well as compensatory damages, are demanded in certain of the lawsuits and claims. In many instances, the plaintiff does not seek a specified amount of money, though aggregate amounts ultimately sought may exceed product liability accruals and applicable insurance coverage. For product liability 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 probable and is unlikely that litigation, including punitive damage claims, will have a material adverse effect on the financial position of the Compan y, but may have a material impact on the Company’s financial results and cash flows 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 the Company's 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 the Company's 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 losses 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 $0.1 million and $0.1 million at December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively, are set forth as an indication of possible maximum liability 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, 2017 and 2016, the Company was a defendant in 3 and 5 lawsuits, respectively, involving its products and is aware of other such claims. During 2017 and 2016, respectively, 0 and 3 product-related claims were filed against the Company, 0 and 1 claims were settled, and 2 and 0 claims were dismissed. The Company’s product liability expense was $0.4 million in 2017, $2.1 million in 2016, and $0.9 million in 2015. 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, 2017 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) |
2015 |  | $ | 845 |  |  |  | (77 | ) |  |  | (18 | ) |  |  | (6 | ) |  | $ | 744 |
2016 |  | $ | 744 |  |  |  | 1,221 |  |  |  | (133 | ) |  |  | (13 | ) |  | $ | 1,819 |
2017 |  | $ | 1,819 |  |  |  | (477 | ) |  |  | (290 | ) |  |  | (233 | ) |  | $ | 819 |
Income Statement Detail for Product Liability Expense
|  | Accrued Legal Expense (b) |  |  | Insurance Premium Expense (e) |  |  | Total Product Liability Expense |
2015 |  | $ | (77 | ) |  |  | 997 |  |  | $ | 920 |
2016 |  | $ | 1,221 |  |  |  | 834 |  |  | $ | 2,055 |
2017 |  | $ | (477 | ) |  |  | 837 |  |  | $ | 360 |
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 2015 and 2017, 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.

X
- References No definition available. + 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 legal proceedings, legal contingencies, litigation, regulatory and environmental matters and other contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LegalMattersAndContingenciesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration