XML 40 R28.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.24.0.1

Contingent Liabilities | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2023
Contingent Liabilities [Abstract] |
Contingent Liabilities |
| 20. | Contingent Liabilities
As of December 31, 2023, the Company was a defendant in nine (9) lawsuits and is aware of certain other such claims. The lawsuits generally fall into four (4) categories: traditional product liability litigation, municipal litigation, negligence, and unfair trade practices. Each is discussed in turn below. Traditional Product Liability Litigation One lawsuit 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 believes that the allegations in this case are unfounded, that the incident is unrelated to the design or manufacture of the firearm 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 criminal misuse of firearms by third parties. There are four (4) lawsuits of this type, as follows: The Complaint in City of Gary v. Smith & Wesson Corp., et al. was filed in Indiana State Court 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 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, 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 in August 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts 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 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 motion to dismiss the Complaint for, among other things, failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. On September 30, 2022, the court entered an order granting Defendants’ motion. On October 26, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal and the matter was briefed before the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument was held on July 24, 2023. On January 22, 2024, the First Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion reversing the District Court’s dismissal case and remanding the case for further proceedings. 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 Buffalo, discussed in the preceding paragraph. Defendants timely removed the matter to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. Defendants moved to consolidate the Buffalo and Rochester cases for pretrial purposes only. Defendants also moved to stay the cases pending a decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. et al. v. James, which challenges the constitutionality of the recently enacted N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §§ 898-a–e. On June 8, 2023, the court granted Defendants’ motions and the cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes and stayed. 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 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’s 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 Solutions, Inc. as defendants. The Complaint alleges causes of action for negligence, breach of implied warranties, and unjust enrichment. The Company moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint, the motion has been briefed fully, and the parties are awaiting a ruling. Unfair Trade Practices Estate of Suzanne Fountain v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc., was filed in the Connecticut Superior Court in Stamford and arises out of the criminal shootings at the King Soopers supermarket in Boulder, Colorado on March 22, 2021. On that date, Plaintiff’s decedent, Suzanne Fountain, was murdered by 21-year-old Ahmad Al Aliwi Al-Issa. The Complaint alleged that the Company’s advertising and marketing of the Ruger AR-556 pistol violate the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and were a substantial factor in bringing about the wrongful death of Suzanne Fountain. Estate of Neven Stanisic et al. v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc., was filed in the Connecticut Superior Court in Stamford on behalf of five plaintiffs. Like Estate of Suzanne Fountain, the claims arise from the criminal shootings at the King Soopers supermarket in Boulder, Colorado on March 22, 2021. Plaintiffs’ decedents were murdered by Ahmad Al Aliwi Al-Issa and Plaintiffs alleged that the Company’s advertising and marketing of the Ruger AR-556 pistol violate the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and were a substantial factor in causing the wrongful death of Plaintiffs’ decedents. The Fountain and Stanisic cases were consolidated for discovery purposes only and transferred by the court to the Complex Litigation Docket. Plaintiffs then sought leave to file an Amended Complaint, essentially abandoning their negligent marketing allegations and advancing a new theory predicated upon alleged violations of the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act. Over the Company’s objections, Plaintiffs were permitted to file the Amended Complaint. The matter was timely removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut based upon the new allegations and federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiffs moved to remand the case to state court, the matter has been briefed fully, and the parties are awaiting a ruling. 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 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 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. Often, a Complaint does not specify the amount of damages being sought and a range of reasonably possible losses relating to unfavorable outcomes cannot be made. The dollar amount of damages claimed at December 31, 2023 and December 31, 2022 was de minimis. The amount claimed at December 31, 2021 was $1.1 million and 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. During 2023, one (1) traditional product liability lawsuit was filed against the Company and one (1) was resolved. As of December 31, 2023, the Company was a defendant in seven (7) lawsuits involving its products, including one (1) traditional product liability lawsuit, four (4) municipal lawsuits and two (2) lawsuits based upon alleged unfair trade practices. The Company was also a defendant in two (2) negligence lawsuits. During 2022, no traditional product liability lawsuits were filed against the Company and one (1) was resolved. As of December 31, 2022, the Company was a defendant in five (5) 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. The Company’s product liability expense was $1.5 million in 2023, $1.3 million in 2022, and $1.1 million in 2021. 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, 2023 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) |
2021 |  | $ | 1,126 |  |  |  | (7 | ) |  |  | (227 | ) |  |  | — |  |  | $ | 892 |
2022 |  | $ | 892 |  |  |  | (417 | ) |  |  | (167 | ) |  |  | — |  |  | $ | 308 |
2023 |  | $ | 308 |  |  |  | 500 |  |  |  | (129 | ) |  |  | — |  |  | $ | 679 |
Income Statement Detail for Product Liability Expense
|  | Accrued Legal Expense (b) |  |  | Insurance Premium Expense (e) |  |  | Total Product Liability Expense |
2021 |  | $ | (7 | ) |  |  | 1,119 |  |  | $ | 1,112 |
2022 |  | $ | (417 | ) |  |  | 1,524 |  |  | $ | 1,107 |
2023 |  | $ | 500 |  |  |  | 1,226 |  |  | $ | 1,726 |
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.

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for legal proceedings, legal contingencies, litigation, regulatory and environmental matters and other contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//450/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LegalMattersAndContingenciesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LossContingencyAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration