XML 40 R28.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT

Contingent Liabilities

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2022

21. Contingent Liabilities

As of December 31, 2022, the Company was a defendant in eight (8) lawsuits and is aware of certain other such claims. The lawsuits generally fall into three categories: traditional product liability litigation, municipal litigation and negligence. Each is discussed in turn below.

Traditional Product Liability Litigation

One lawsuit mentioned above involves a claim for damages related to an allegedly defective product due to its design and/or manufacture. The lawsuit stems from a specific incident of personal injury and is based on traditional product liability theories such as strict liability, negligence, and/or breach of warranty.

The Company management believes that the allegations in these cases are unfounded, that the incidents are unrelated to the design or manufacture of the firearms involved, and that there should be no recovery against the Company.

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 are four (4) lawsuits of this type, as follows:

(i) City of Gary v. Smith & Wesson Corp., et al, filed in Indiana State Court in 1999; (ii) Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al., filed in August 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts; (iii) The City of Buffalo v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al., filed in December 2022 in the New York State Supreme Court for Erie County, New York and presently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York; and (iv) The City of Rochester v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al., filed in December 2022 in the New York State Supreme Court for Monroe County, New York and presently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York.

The Complaint in City of Gary v. Smith & Wesson Corp., et al. was filed in 1999 and 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.

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 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 inapplicable to the City's claims.

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 presented related issues. The Indiana Supreme Court decided KS&E Sports on April 24, 2017, and the City of Gary court lifted the stay. The City of 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 issued an order granting defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, but denying defendants’ request for attorney’s fees and costs. On January 8, 2018, the court entered judgment for the defendants. The City filed a Notice of Appeal on February 1, 2018. Defendants cross-appealed the order denying attorney’s fees and costs.

Briefing in the Indiana Court of Appeals was completed on the City’s appeal and Defendants’ cross appeal on September 10, 2018. The Court of Appeals issued its ruling on May 23, 2019, affirming dismissal of the City’s negligent design and warnings count on the basis that the City had not alleged that Manufacturer Defendants’ conduct was unlawful. However, the court reversed dismissal of the City’s negligent sale and distribution and related public nuisance counts for damages and injunctive relief.

The Manufacturer Defendants filed a Petition to Transfer the case to the Indiana Supreme Court on July 8, 2019. The Petition was denied on November 26, 2019. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

During the quarter ended April 3, 2021, the City initiated discovery and the Manufacturer Defendants reciprocated. Discovery is ongoing.

Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al. was filed by the Country of Mexico and names seven defendants, mostly U.S.-based firearms manufacturers, including the Company. The Complaint advances a variety of legal theories including negligence, public nuisance, unjust enrichment, restitution, and others. Plaintiff essentially alleges that the defendants design, manufacture, distribute, market and sell firearms in a way that they know results in the illegal trafficking of firearms into Mexico, where they are used by Mexican drug cartels for criminal activities. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages.

On November 22, 2021, Defendants filed a joint Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the Mexican Government’s complaint based on the Government’s lack of Article III standing, Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act immunity, and lack of proximate cause. The Company, along with other non-Massachusetts defendants, also filed a Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss based on lack of specific personal jurisdiction. The motions were fully briefed and the court heard oral argument on April 12, 2022. On September 30, 2022, the court entered an order granting the defendants’ joint Rule 12(b)(6) motion. The Company’s Rule 12(b)(2) motion was denied as moot, without prejudice. On October 26, 2022, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal and the Court has entered a briefing schedule.

On December 20, 2022, the City of Buffalo, New York filed a lawsuit captioned The City of Buffalo v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al. in the New York State Supreme Court for Erie County, New York. The suit names a number of firearm manufacturers, distributors, and retailers as defendants, including the Company, and purports to state causes of action for violations of Sections 898, 349 and 350 of the New York General Business Law, as well as common law public nuisance. Generally, plaintiff alleges that the criminal misuse of firearms in the City of Buffalo is the result of the manufacturing, sales, marketing, and distribution practices of the defendants. The

defendants timely removed the matter to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York.

On December 21, 2022, the City of Rochester, New York filed a lawsuit captioned The City of Rochester v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al. in the New York State Supreme Court for Monroe County, New York. The suit names a number of firearm manufacturers, distributors, and retailers as defendants, including the Company, and purports to state causes of action for violations of Sections 898, 349 and 350 of the New York General Business Law, as well as common law public nuisance. The allegations essentially mirror those in The City of Buffalo, discussed in the preceding paragraph, as plaintiff claims that the criminal misuse of firearms in Rochester, New York is the result of the manufacturing, sales, marketing, and distribution practices of the defendants. The defendants timely removed the matter to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York.

Negligence

Rossiter v. Sturm, Ruger, et al. is a lawsuit arising out of a slip and fall accident by a contract security officer in December 2019. The Complaint was filed in the Superior Court for Sullivan County, New Hampshire on December 13, 2022 and names Pine Hill Construction, a snow removal contractor, as a co-defendant. The Company has tendered the defense of this matter to its insurance carrier and is assisting as required.

The Company was named in two purported class action lawsuits arising out of a data breach at Freestyle Solutions, Inc., the vendor who was hosting the Company ShopRuger.com website at the time of the breach. Jones v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., was filed in the U.S. District Court for Connecticut on October 4, 2022 and Copeland v. Sturm, Ruger & Company, et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for New Jersey on October 27, 2022. Copeland also named Freestyle Solutions, Inc. as a defendant. By agreement of the parties, Copeland was dismissed, without prejudice, and consolidated with Jones in the pending Connecticut case. On January 20, 2023, five plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint naming the Company and Freestyle Software, Inc. as defendants. The Complaint alleges causes of action for negligence, breach of implied warranties, and unjust enrichment.

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 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 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 $1.1 million at December 31, 2021, is 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. At December 31, 2022, the total amount claimed specifically in these cases was de minimis.

During 2022, no traditional product liability lawsuit was filed against the Company and one (1) was resolved. As of December 31, 2022, the Company was a defendant five lawsuits involving its products, including one (1) traditional product liability lawsuit and four (4) municipal lawsuits. The Company also was a defendant in three (3) negligence lawsuits though, as discussed above, that number has since been reduced to two (2) lawsuits with the consolidation of the Jones and Copeland matters.

During 2021, one (1) traditional product liability lawsuit was filed against the Company. As of December 31, 2021, the Company was a defendant in four (4) lawsuits involving its products, including two (2) traditional lawsuits and two (2) municipal lawsuits.

During 2020, one (1) traditional product liability lawsuit was filed against the Company and one (1) was resolved. As of December 31, 2020, the Company was a defendant in three (3) lawsuits involving its products, including two (2) traditional lawsuits and one (1) municipal lawsuit.

The Company’s product liability expense was $1.3 million in 2022, $1.1 million in 2021, and $1.1 million in 2020. This expense includes the cost of outside legal fees, 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, 2022 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)

2020	$	818		800			(492	)		—	$	1,126

2021	$	1,126		(7	)		(227	)		—	$	892

2022	$	892		(417	)		(167	)		—	$	308

Income Statement Detail for Product Liability Expense

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

2020	$	800			839	$	1,639

2021	$	(7	)		1,119	$	1,112

2022	$	(417	)		1,524	$	1,107

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 2022 and 2021, 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.