XML 42 R28.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT

Contingent Liabilities

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2024

20. Contingent Liabilities

As of December 31, 2024, the Company was a defendant in eight (8) lawsuits and is aware of certain other such claims. The lawsuits generally fall into four (4) categories: municipal litigation, breach of contract, unfair trade practices, and trademark litigation. Each is discussed in turn below.

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.

In City of Gary v. Smith & Wesson Corp., et al, filed in Indiana State Court in 1999, the City of Gary, Indiana 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. Following passage of this new law, the Company and other Defendants filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on March 18, 2024. On August 12, 2024, the Court denied Defendants’ motion. The Court granted Defendants’ subsequent request to certify the Order for appeal. On October 2, 2024, Defendants filed a motion with the Indiana Court of Appeals to accept jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal, which was granted over Plaintiff’s objection on November 1, 2024. On October 16, 2024, the trial court entered an Order staying all proceedings pending the interlocutory appeal. Briefing of the appeal is underway.

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 jointly filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint, which was granted on September 30, 2022. Several defendants, including the Company, also filed Rule 12(b)(2) motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, which the Court declined to rule on in light of its dismissal. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal 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 filed a Petition for Writ of

Certiorari seeking review by the United States Supreme Court while the case moved forward at the District Court.

On June 17, 2024, the District Court heard argument on the pending Rule 12(b)(2) motions to dismiss. On August 7, 2024, the Court granted the motions, dismissing the Company and some of the other Defendants from the case, but has not yet entered judgement in favor of these Defendants. Because judgment has not entered in favor of the Company, the 30-day period in which Plaintiff may appeal the Court’s August 7, 2024 ruling has not yet begun to run. Subsequently, the Supreme Court granted the Defendants’ Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Oral argument at the Supreme Court is scheduled for March 4, 2025.

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 the same defendants and makes essentially the same allegations raised 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 and 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.

Breach of Contract

The Company is a defendant in Jones v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., a purported class action lawsuit 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. On January 20, 2023, five Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint naming the Company and Freestyle Solutions, Inc. as Defendants. The Complaint alleged causes of action for negligence, breach of implied warranties, and unjust enrichment.

The Company moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint, and 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 Connecticut Superior Court and arises out of the criminal shooting 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 Connecticut Superior Court on behalf of five Plaintiffs. Like Estate of Suzanne Fountain, the claims arise from the criminal shooting 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 and, following briefing and oral argument, the matter was remanded on April 25, 2024.

On June 12, 2024, Ruger filed Motions to Dismiss the Connecticut state court cases based upon the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Following oral argument on September 9, 2024, the Court allowed Plaintiffs limited, additional discovery and requested further briefing on the matter. The briefing has been completed and the parties are awaiting a decision from the Court.

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 between July 10, 2000 and August 31, 2024, insurance coverage was provided on an annual basis for losses exceeding $5 million per claim, with an aggregate maximum loss of $10 million annually, except for certain claims brought by governments or municipalities, which are excluded from coverage. Insurance coverage was not renewed with incumbent carriers effective September 1, 2024. Rather, the Company established a wholly-owned captive insurance company for claims made on or after September 1, 2024.

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.

Often, a Complaint does not specify the amount of damages being sought and range of reasonably possible losses relating to unfavorable outcomes cannot be made. The dollar amount of damages claimed at December 31, 2024, 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 2024, one (1) trademark lawsuit was filed against the Company, one (1) negligence lawsuit was resolved, and one (1) traditional product liability lawsuit was resolved. One (1) municipal lawsuit was dismissed, however the time period in which to file an appeal has been stayed by the Court and the Company considers this matter still open. As of December 31, 2024, the Company was a defendant in eight (8) lawsuits involving its products, including four (4) municipal lawsuits, two (2) lawsuits based upon unfair trade practices, one (1) breach of contract, and one (1) trademark litigation.

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 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.

The Company’s product liability expense was $0.7 million in 2024, $1.5 million in 2023, $1.3 million in 2022. 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, 2024 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)

2022	$	892		(417	)		(167	)		—	$	308

2023	$	308		500			(129	)		—	$	679

2024	$	679		67			(254	)		—	$	492

Income Statement Detail for Product Liability Expense

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

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

2023	$	500			1,226	$	1,726

2024	$	67			908	$	975

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, 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.