Loss Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2022

Loss Contingencies

From time to time, the Company is named a defendant in legal actions arising out of the normal course of business. The Company is not a party to any pending legal proceeding other than ordinary, routine litigation incidental to our business. The Company does not believe that any of our pending litigation will have a material impact on its business.

Accrued general and product liability costs are actuarially estimated reserves based on amounts determined from loss reports, individual cases filed with the Company, and an amount for losses incurred but not reported. The aggregate amounts of reserves were $22,575,000 (gross of estimated insurance recoveries of $9,160,000) and $21,227,000 (gross of estimated insurance recoveries of $8,052,000) of which $18,675,000 and $17,727,000 are included in Other non current liabilities and $3,900,000 and $3,500,000 in Accrued liabilities as of March 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively. The liability for accrued general and product liability costs are funded by investments in marketable securities (see Notes 2 and 7).

The following table provides a reconciliation of the beginning and ending balances for accrued general and product liability:


	Year Ended March 31,
	2022		2021		2020
Accrued general and product liability, beginning of year	$	21,227	$	11,944	$	12,686
Estimated insurance recoveries	1,109		8,052		—
Add provision for claims	6,648		4,634		3,233
Deduct payments for claims	(6,409)		(3,403)		(3,975)
Accrued general and product liability, end of year	$	22,575	$	21,227	$	11,944

Estimated insurance recoveries	(9,160)		(8,052)		—
Net accrued general and product liability, end of year	$	13,415	$	13,175	$	11,944

The per occurrence limits on the self-insurance for general and product liability coverage to Columbus McKinnon through its wholly-owned captive insurance company were $2,000,000 from inception through fiscal 2003 and $3,000,000 for fiscal 2004 and thereafter. In addition to the per occurrence limits, the Company’s coverage is also subject to an annual aggregate limit, applicable to losses only. These limits range from $2,000,000 to $6,000,000 for each policy year from inception through fiscal 2022. The Company also purchases excess general and product liability insurance up to an aggregate $75,000,000 limit.

Asbestos

Like many industrial manufacturers, the Company is involved in asbestos-related litigation. In continually evaluating costs relating to its estimated asbestos-related liability, the Company reviews, among other things, the incidence of past and recent claims, the historical case dismissal rate, the mix of the claimed illnesses and occupations of the plaintiffs, its recent and historical resolution of the cases, the number of cases pending against it, the status and results of broad-based settlement discussions, and the number of years such activity might continue. Based on this review, the Company has estimated its share of liability to defend and resolve probable asbestos-related personal injury claims. This estimate is highly uncertain due to the limitations of the available data and the difficulty of forecasting with any certainty the numerous variables that can affect the range of the liability. The Company will continue to study the variables in light of additional information in order to identify trends that may become evident and to assess their impact on the range of liability that is probable and estimable.

Based on actuarial information, the Company has estimated its net asbestos-related aggregate liability including related legal costs to range between $5,800,000 and $10,600,000, net of insurance recoveries, using actuarial parameters of continued claims for a period of 37 years from March 31, 2022. The Company has estimated its asbestos-related aggregate liability that is probable and estimable, net of insurance recoveries, in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles approximates $7,836,000. The Company has reflected the liability gross of insurance recoveries of $9,160,000 as a liability in the consolidated financial statements as of March 31, 2022. The recorded liability does not consider the impact of any potential favorable federal legislation. This liability will fluctuate based on the uncertainty in the number of future claims that will be filed and the cost to resolve those claims, which may be influenced by a number of factors, including the outcome of the ongoing broad-based settlement negotiations, defensive strategies, and the cost to resolve claims outside the broad-based settlement program. Of this amount, management expects to incur asbestos liability payments of approximately $2,400,000 over the next 12 months. Because payment of the liability is likely to extend over many years, management believes that the potential additional costs for claims will not have a material effect on the financial condition of the Company or its liquidity, although the effect of any future liabilities recorded could be material to earnings in a future period.

A share of the Company's previously incurred asbestos-related expenses and future asbestos-related expenses are covered by pre-existing insurance policies. The Company had been engaged in a legal action against the insurance carriers for those policies to recover past expenses and future costs incurred. The Company came to an agreement with the insurance carriers to settle its case against them for recovery of a portion of past costs and future costs for asbestos-related legal defense costs. The agreement was finalized during the quarter ended September 30, 2020. The terms of the settlement require the carriers to pay gross defense costs prior to retro-premiums of 65% for future asbestos-related defense costs subject to an annual cap of $1,650,000 for claims covered by the settlement. The reimbursement net of retro-premiums is approximately 47% which resulted in a $1,830,000 increase to the Company's asbestos liability during the second quarter of fiscal 2021.

In addition, the insurance carriers were required to reimburse the Company for past defense costs through the date of the settlement amounting to $3,006,000 which was paid during the second quarter of fiscal 2021. The reimbursement for past cost was recorded net of a contingent legal fee of $1,500,000 which was paid in the third quarter of fiscal 2021. Further, the insurance carriers are expected to cover 100% of indemnity costs related to all covered cases. Estimates of the future cost sharing have been included in the loss reserve calculation as of March 31, 2022 and 2021. The Company has recorded a receivable for the estimated future cost sharing in Other assets in the Balance Sheet in the amount of $9,160,000 and $8,052,000, which offsets its asbestos reserves, at March 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively.

Product Liability

The Company is also involved in other unresolved legal actions that arise in the normal course of business. The most prevalent of these unresolved actions involve disputes related to product design, manufacture and performance liability. The Company's estimation of its product-related aggregate liability that is probable and estimable, in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles approximates $4,951,000, which has been reflected as a liability in the consolidated financial statements as of March 31, 2022. In some cases, the Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss because there is insufficient information regarding the matter. Management believes that the potential additional costs for claims will not have a material effect on the financial condition of the Company or its liquidity, although the effect of any future liabilities recorded could be material to earnings in a future period.

In addition, one of the Company's subsidiaries, Magnetek, Inc. ("Magnetek") has been named, along with multiple other defendants, in asbestos-related lawsuits associated with business operations previously acquired but which are no longer owned. During Magnetek's ownership, none of the businesses produced or sold asbestos-containing products. For such claims, Magnetek is uninsured and either contractually indemnified against liability, or contractually obligated to defend and indemnify the purchaser of these former business operations. The Company aggressively seeks dismissal from these proceedings. The asbestos-related liability including legal costs is estimated to be approximately $562,000 and $565,000, which has been reflected as a liability in the consolidated financial statements at March 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively.

Litigation-Other

In October 2010, Magnetek received a request for indemnification from Power-One, Inc. ("Power-One") for an Italian tax matter arising out of the sale of Magnetek's power electronics business to Power-One in October 2006. With a reservation of rights, Magnetek affirmed its obligation to indemnify Power-One for certain pre-closing taxes. The sale included an Italian company, Magnetek, S.p.A., and its wholly owned subsidiary, Magnetek Electronics (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd. (the “Power-One China Subsidiary”). The tax authority in Arezzo, Italy, issued a notice of audit report in September 2010 wherein it asserted that the Power-One China Subsidiary had its administrative headquarters in Italy and therefore it should be considered resident in Italy and subject to taxation in Italy. In November 2010, the tax authority issued a notice of tax assessment for the period of July 2003 to June 2004, alleging that taxes of approximately $2,100,000 (Euro 1,900,000), plus interest, were due in Italy on taxable income earned by the Power-One China Subsidiary during this period. In addition, the assessment alleges potential penalties in the amount of approximately $2,400,000 (Euro 2,200,000) for the alleged failure of the Power-One China Subsidiary to file its Italian tax return. The Power-One China Subsidiary filed its response with the provincial tax commission of Arezzo, Italy in January 2011. A hearing before the Tax Court was held in July 2012 on the tax assessment for the period of July 2003 to June 2004. In September 2012, the Tax Court ruled in favor of the Power-One China Subsidiary dismissing the tax assessment for the period of July 2003 to June 2004. In February 2013, the tax authority filed an appeal of the Tax Court's September 2012 ruling. The Regional Tax Commission of Florence heard the appeal of the tax assessment dismissal for the period of July 2003 to June 2004 and thereafter issued its ruling finding in favor of the tax authority. Magnetek believed the court’s decision was based upon erroneous interpretations of the applicable law and appealed the ruling to the Italian Supreme Court in April 2015. In April 2022 the Supreme Court upheld the appeal in favor of Power-One.

The tax authority in Arezzo, Italy also issued a tax inspection report in January 2011 for the periods July 2002 to June 2003 (fiscal period 2002/2003) and July 2004 to December 2006 (fiscal periods 2004/2005 and 2005/2006) claiming that the Power-One China Subsidiary failed to file Italian tax returns for the reported periods. In August 2012, the tax authority in Arezzo, Italy issued four notices of tax assessment for the periods July 2002 to June 2003 and July 2004 to December 2006, alleging that taxes of approximately $7,400,000 (Euro 6,700,000) were due in Italy on taxable income earned by the Power-One China Subsidiary together with an allegation of potential penalties in the amount of approximately $3,100,000 (Euro 2,800,000) for the alleged failure of the Power-One China Subsidiary to file its Italian tax returns. On June 3, 2015, the Tax Court, with four judgements, ruled in favor of the Power-One China Subsidiary dismissing the tax assessments for the periods of July 2002 to

June 2003 and July 2004 to December 2006. On July 27, 2015, the tax authority filed four appeals of the Tax Court's ruling of June 3, 2015. In May 2016, the Regional Tax Court of Florence rejected the appeals of the tax authority and at the same time canceled the notices of assessment for the fiscal years of 2004/2005 and 2005/2006. The tax authority had up to six months to appeal the decisions. In December 2016, the Power-One China Subsidiary was served by the Italian Revenue Agency with two appeals to the Italian Supreme Court regarding the two positive judgments on the tax assessments for the fiscal periods 2004/2005 and 2005/2006. In February 2017 the Power-One China Subsidiary filed two memorandum before the Italian Supreme Court in response to the appeals made by the tax authority against the positive judgments on the tax assessments for fiscal years 2004/2005 and 2005/2006. In March 2017, the Regional Tax Court of Florence rejected the appeal of the assessment for 2006 fiscal year (period July 2006-December 2006). The tax authority had until October 2017 to appeal this decision. In October 2017, the Power-One China Subsidiary was served by the Italian Revenue Agency with an appeal to the Italian Supreme Court against the positive judgment on the tax assessment for fiscal year 2006. In November 2017 the Power-One China Subsidiary filed a memorandum before the Italian Supreme Court in response to the appeal made by the tax authority against the positive judgment on the tax assessment for fiscal year 2006. In February 2018 an appeal hearing was held at the Regional Tax Court of Florence regarding the Italian tax authority's claim for taxes due for fiscal year 2002/2003. In March 2018, the Regional Tax Court of Florence rejected the appeal of the assessment for 2002/2003 fiscal year. In October 2018 the Power-One China Subsidiary was served by the Italian Revenue Agency with an appeal to the Italian Supreme Court against the positive judgment on the tax assessment for fiscal year 2002/2003. In November 2018 the Power-One China Subsidiary filed a memorandum with the Italian Supreme Court in response to the appeal made by the tax authority. In April 2022 the Supreme Court filed judgments concerning the tax assessments for fiscal years 2002/2003 and 2006. The Supreme Court upheld the appeals of the Italian Tax Authority and remitted the proceedings back to the Regional Tax Court for a new evaluation of the substance of the dispute. The proceedings should be resumed before the Regional Tax Court within six months from the filing of the judgements.

The Company believes it will be successful and does not expect to incur a liability related to these assessments.

In September of 2017, Magnetek received a request for defense and indemnification from Monsanto Company, Pharmacia, LLC, and Solutia, Inc. (collectively, “Monsanto”) with respect to: (1) lawsuits brought by plaintiffs claiming that Monsanto manufactured polychlorinated biphenyls ("PCBs"), exposure to which allegedly caused injury to plaintiffs; and (2) lawsuits brought by municipalities and municipal entities claiming that Monsanto should be responsible for a variety of damages due to the presence of PCBs in bodies of water in those municipalities and/or in water treated by those municipal entities. Monsanto claims to be entitled to defense and indemnification from Magnetek under a so-called “Special Undertaking” apparently executed by Magnetek's predecessor Universal Manufacturing ("Universal") in January of 1972, which purportedly required Universal to defend and indemnify Monsanto from liabilities “arising out of or in connection with the receipt, purchase, possession, handling, use, sale or disposition of” PCBs by Universal.

Magnetek has declined Monsanto’s tender, and believes that it has meritorious legal and factual defenses to the demands made by Monsanto. Magnetek is vigorously defending against those demands and has commenced litigation to, among other things, declare the Special Undertaking void and unenforceable. Monsanto has, in turn, commenced an action to enforce the Special Undertaking. Magnetek intends to continue to vigorously prosecute its declaratory judgment action and to defend against Monsanto’s action against it. The Company cannot reasonably estimate a potential range of loss with respect to Monsanto’s tender because there is insufficient information regarding the underlying matters. Management believes, however, that the potential additional legal costs related to such matters will not have a material effect on the financial condition of the Company or its liquidity, although the effect of any future liabilities recorded could be material to earnings in a future period.

The Company had previously filed suit against Travelers in District Court seeking coverage under insurance policies in the name of Universal. In July 2019, the District Court ruled that Travelers is obligated to defend Magnetek under these policies in connection with Magnetek’s litigation against Monsanto. The Court held that Monsanto’s claims against Magnetek fall within the insuring agreement of the Travelers policies and that none of the policy exclusions precluded the possibility of coverage. The Court also held that Travelers prior settlements with other insureds under the policies did not cut off or release Magnetek’s rights under the policies. Travelers moved for reconsideration and had sought discovery from Magnetek and Monsanto in connection with that motion. On September 22, 2020, the Court issued an order denying the motion to reconsider and denying the motion to compel discovery from Magnetek. The result was that the Court’s prior order granting Magnetek partial summary judgment and requiring Travelers’ to reimburse Magnetek’s defense costs to date and fund its defense costs moving forward was now binding, subject to Travelers right to appeal. Travelers moved for a reconsideration of the order which was denied in September 2020 and in March 2021 Traveler’s window to appeal the court order closed. As a result, the Company recorded a receivable for approximately $900,000 as of March 31, 2021 for past defense costs which are to be reimbursed. The

receivable was reflected as a reduction to Cost of products sold in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2021. The receivable was paid in full in April 2021.

The Company is also engaged in similar insurance coverage litigation against Transportation Insurance Company in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The Company has sought a ruling that Transportation Insurance Company is also obligated to reimburse Magnetek’s defense costs to date and fund its defense costs moving forward. That motion is not yet fully briefed.

Environmental Matters

Along with other manufacturing companies, the Company is subject to various federal, state, and local laws relating to the protection of the environment. To address the requirements of such laws, the Company has adopted a corporate environmental protection policy which provides that all of its owned or leased facilities shall, and all of its employees have the duty to, comply with all applicable environmental regulatory standards, and the Company utilizes an environmental auditing program for its facilities to ensure compliance with such regulatory standards. The Company has also established managerial responsibilities and internal communication channels for dealing with environmental compliance issues that may arise in the course of its business. Because of the complexity and changing nature of environmental regulatory standards, it is possible that situations will arise from time to time requiring the Company to incur expenditures in order to ensure environmental regulatory compliance. However, the Company is not aware of any environmental condition or any operation at any of its facilities, either individually or in the aggregate, which would cause expenditures having a material adverse effect on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows and, accordingly, has not budgeted any material capital expenditures for environmental compliance for fiscal 2022.

In 1986, Magnetek acquired the stock of Universal Manufacturing Corporation (“Universal”) from a predecessor of Fruit of the Loom (“FOL”), and the predecessor agreed to indemnify Magnetek against certain environmental liabilities arising from pre-acquisition activities at a facility in Bridgeport, Connecticut. Environmental liabilities covered by the indemnification agreement included completion of additional cleanup activities, if any, at the Bridgeport facility and defense and indemnification against liability for potential response costs related to offsite disposal locations. Magnetek's leasehold interest in the Bridgeport facility was assigned to the buyer in connection with the sale of Magnetek's transformer business in June 2001. FOL, the successor to the indemnification obligation, filed a petition for Reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in 1999 and Magnetek filed a proof of claim in the proceeding for obligations related to the environmental indemnification agreement. Magnetek believes that FOL had substantially completed the clean-up obligations required by the indemnification agreement prior to the bankruptcy filing. In November 2001, Magnetek and FOL entered into an agreement involving the allocation of certain potential tax benefits and Magnetek withdrew its claims in the bankruptcy proceeding. Magnetek further believes that FOL's obligation to the state of Connecticut was not discharged in the reorganization proceeding.

In January 2007, the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) requested parties, including Magnetek, to submit reports summarizing the investigations and remediation performed to date at the site and the proposed additional investigations and remediation necessary to complete those actions at the site. DEP requested additional information relating to site investigations and remediation. Magnetek and the DEP agreed to the scope of the work plan in November 2010. The Company has recorded a liability of $323,000, included in the amount specified above, related to the Bridgeport facility, representing the best estimate of future site investigation costs and remediation costs which are expected to be incurred in the future.

For all of the currently known environmental matters, the Company has accrued as of March 31, 2022 a total of $822,000 which, in our opinion, is sufficient to deal with such matters. The Company is not aware of any environmental condition or any operation at any of its facilities, either individually or in the aggregate, which would cause expenditures to have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows and, accordingly, has not budgeted any material capital expenditures for environmental compliance for fiscal 2023.