Contingent Liabilities	3 Months Ended
Mar. 30, 2024
Contingent Liabilities [Abstract]
CONTINGENT LIABILITIES	NOTE 13 - CONTINGENT LIABILITIES As of March 30, 2024, the Company was a defendant in ten (10) lawsuits and is aware of certain other such claims. The lawsuits fall into five (5) categories: traditional product liability litigation, municipal litigation, negligence, unfair trade practices, and trademark litigation. 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. Company management 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 misuse of firearms by third parties. There are four lawsuits of this type: the City of Gary, filed in Indiana State Court in 1999; Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Smith & Wesson, et al., filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in August 2021; The City of Buffalo, filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for Erie County on December 20, 2022; and The City of Rochester, filed in the Supreme Court for the State of New York for Monroe County on December 21, 2022, each of which is described in more detail below. The City of Gary 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 Complaint 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. On March 15, 2024, Indiana Governor Eric Holcomb signed into law HB 1235, which reserves to the State of Indiana the right to bring an action on behalf of a political subdivision against a firearm or ammunition manufacturer, trade association, seller, or dealer, concerning certain matters. The new law also prohibits a political subdivision from bringing or maintaining such an action. With the passage of this new law, the Company and other defendants filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on March 18, 2024. The matter is being briefed. 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 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 motion to dismiss the Complaint, which was granted on September 30, 2022. Plaintiffs appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals and, on January 22, 2024, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Defendants sought a Stay of Proceedings Pending Review of a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. The District Court recently denied the stay and held that the defendants should request that the First Circuit recall its mandate or petition for a stay from the Supreme Court. 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. Defendants timely removed the matter to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. Defendants moved to consolidate the The City of Buffalo and The City of 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 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’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. On March 27, 2024, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ negligence and unjust enrichment claims against the Company. The Court denied the motion with respect to Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim, concluding that development of additional information is required to assess the applicability of the limitation of liability clause contained in the Company’s terms and conditions of use. The case is proceeding accordingly. 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 alleges 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 allege 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 oral argument on the motion was held on April 16, 2024. The parties are awaiting a ruling. Trademark Litigation On March 12, 2024, the Company was named as a defendant in FN Herstal, et al. v. Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc., which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The Complaint alleges that the Company’s use of the initialism “SFAR” in connection with the marketing of its Small Frame Autoloading Rifle infringes the Plaintiffs’ SCAR trademark. The Complaint alleges violations of the Lanham Act and the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, as well as trademark infringement under North Carolina common law. The Company believes that the allegations are meritless and is defending the action accordingly. 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 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. 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.

Contingent Liabilities

3 Months Ended

Mar. 30, 2024

NOTE 13 - CONTINGENT LIABILITIES

As of March 30, 2024, the Company was a defendant in ten (10) lawsuits and is aware of certain other such claims. The lawsuits fall into five (5) categories: traditional product liability litigation, municipal litigation, negligence, unfair trade practices, and trademark litigation. 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.

Company management 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 misuse of firearms by third parties. There are four lawsuits of this type: the City of Gary, filed in Indiana State Court in 1999; Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Smith & Wesson, et al., filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in August 2021; The City of Buffalo, filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for Erie County on December 20, 2022; and The City of Rochester, filed in the Supreme Court for the State of New York for Monroe County on December 21, 2022, each of which is described in more detail below.

The City of Gary 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 Complaint 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.

On March 15, 2024, Indiana Governor Eric Holcomb signed into law HB 1235, which reserves to the State of Indiana the right to bring an action on behalf of a political subdivision against a firearm or ammunition manufacturer, trade association, seller, or dealer, concerning certain matters. The new law also prohibits a political subdivision from bringing or maintaining such an action. With the passage of this new law, the Company and other defendants filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on March 18, 2024. The matter is being briefed.

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 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 motion to dismiss the Complaint, which was granted on September 30, 2022. Plaintiffs appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals and, on January 22, 2024, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Defendants sought a Stay of Proceedings Pending Review of a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. The District Court recently denied the stay and held that the defendants should request that the First Circuit recall its mandate or petition for a stay from the Supreme Court.

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

Defendants moved to consolidate the The City of Buffalo and The City of 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 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’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. On March 27, 2024, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ negligence and unjust enrichment claims against the Company. The Court denied the motion with respect to Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim, concluding that development of additional information is required to assess the applicability of the limitation of liability clause contained in the Company’s terms and conditions of use. The case is proceeding accordingly.

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 alleges 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 allege 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 oral argument on the motion was held on April 16, 2024. The parties are awaiting a ruling.

Trademark Litigation

On March 12, 2024, the Company was named as a defendant in FN Herstal, et al. v. Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc., which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The Complaint alleges that the Company’s use of the initialism “SFAR” in connection with the marketing of its Small Frame Autoloading Rifle infringes the Plaintiffs’ SCAR trademark. The Complaint alleges violations of the Lanham Act and the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, as well as trademark infringement under North Carolina common law. The Company believes that the allegations are meritless and is defending the action accordingly.

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 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. 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.