Note 18: Contingent Liabilities

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2012

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements [Abstract]

Note 18: Contingent Liabilities

Note 18: Contingent Liabilities

Leases. We occupy space and use certain equipment under lease arrangements. Rental commitments of $2,486 million at December 31, 2012 under long-term non-cancelable operating leases are payable as follows: $646million in 2013, $510million in 2014, $378million in 2015, $255million in 2016, $158million in 2017and $539million thereafter. Rent expense was $457million in 2012, $453million in 2011and $445million in 2010.

Additional information pertaining to commercial aerospace rental commitments is included in Note 5to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

Environmental. Our operations are subject to environmental regulation by federal, state and local authorities in the United States and regulatory authorities with jurisdiction over our foreign operations. As described in Note 1to the Consolidated Financial Statements, we have accrued for the costs of environmental remediation activities and periodically reassess these amounts. We believe that the likelihood of incurring losses materially in excess of amounts accrued is remote. At December 31, 2012, we had $847million reserved for environmental remediation. Additional information pertaining to environmental matters is included in Note 1 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

Government. We are now, and believe that in light of the current U.S. Government contracting environment we will continue to be, the subject of one or more U.S. Government investigations. If we or one of our business units were charged with wrongdoing as a result of any of these investigations or other government investigations (including violations of certain environmental or export laws) the U.S. Government could suspend us from bidding on or receiving awards of new U.S. Government contracts pending the completion of legal proceedings. If convicted or found liable, the U.S. Government could fine and debar us from new U.S. Government contracting for a period generally not to exceed three years. The U.S. Government could void any contracts found to be tainted by fraud.

Our contracts with the U.S. Government are also subject to audits. Like many defense contractors, we have received audit reports, which recommend that certain contract prices should be reduced to comply with various government regulations. Some of these audit reports involved substantial amounts. We have made voluntary refunds in those cases we believe appropriate, have settled some allegations and continue to litigate certain cases. In addition, we accrue for liabilities associated with those matters that are probable and can be reasonably estimated. The most likely settlement amount to be incurred is accrued based upon a range of estimates. Where no amount within a range of estimates is more likely, then we accrued the minimum amount.

As previously disclosed, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) sued us in 1999 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, claiming that Pratt & Whitney violated the civil False Claims Act and common law. This lawsuit relates to the “Fighter Engine Competition” between Pratt & Whitney's F100 engine and General Electric's F110 engine. The DOJ alleges that the government overpaid for F100 engines under contracts awarded by the U.S. Air Force in fiscal years 1985 through 1990 because Pratt & Whitney inflated its estimated costs for some purchased parts and withheld data that would have revealed the overstatements. At trial of this matter, completed in December 2004, the government claimed Pratt & Whitney's liability to be $624 million.On August 1, 2008, the trial court judge held that the Air Force had not suffered any actual damages because Pratt & Whitney had made significant price concessions. However, the trial court judge found that Pratt & Whitney violated the False Claims Act due to inaccurate statements contained in its 1983 offer. In the absence of actual damages, the trial court judge awarded the DOJ the maximum civil penalty of $7.09 million, or $10,000 for each of the 709 invoices Pratt & Whitney submitted in 1989 and later under the contracts.In September 2008, both the DOJ and UTC appealed the decision to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. In November 2010, the Sixth Circuit affirmed Pratt & Whitney's liability under the False Claims Act and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

On June 18, 2012, the trial court found that Pratt & Whitney had breached other obligations imposed by common law based on the same conduct with respect to which the court previously found liability under the False Claims Act. Under the common law claims, the U.S. Air Force may seek damages for events occurring before March 3, 1989, which are not recoverable under the False Claims Act. Further proceedings at the trial court will determine the damages, if any, relating to the False Claims Act and common law claims. The government continues to seek damages of $624 million, plus interest.Pratt & Whitney continues to contend that the government suffered no actual damages. The parties have submitted briefs and await a decision from the trial court. Should the government ultimately prevail, the outcome of this matter could result in a material adverse effect on our results of operations in the period in which a liability would be recognized or cash flows for the period in which damages would be paid.

As previously disclosed, in December 2008, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a contract claim against Sikorsky to recover overpayments the DOD alleges it has incurred since January 2003 in connection with cost accounting changes approved by the DOD and implemented by Sikorsky in 1999 and 2006. These changes relate to the calculation of material overhead rates in government contracts. The DOD claims that Sikorsky's liability is approximately $94 million (including interest through December 31, 2012).We believe this claim is without merit and Sikorsky filed an appeal in December 2009 with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Trial in the matter concluded in January 2013 and we await a decision from the court. We do not believe the resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, results of operations, cash flows or financial condition.

As previously disclosed, UTC has been involved in administrative review proceedings with the German Tax Office concerning €203 million (approximately $270 million) of tax benefits that we have claimed related to a 1998 reorganization of the corporate structure of Otis operations in Germany. A portion of these tax benefits were disallowed by the local German Tax Office on July 5, 2012, as a result of the audit of tax years 1999 to 2000. The legal and factual issues relating to the denial of the tax benefits center on the interpretation and application of a German tax law.On August 3, 2012, the Company filed suit in the local German tax court and intends to litigate vigorously the matter to conclusion. We do not believe the resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows or financial condition.

Other.Except as otherwise noted, we do not believe that resolution of any of the above matters will have a material adverse effect upon our competitive position, results of operations, cash flows or financial condition.

As described in Note 16to the Consolidated Financial Statements, we extend performance and operating cost guarantees beyond our normal warranty and service policies for extended periods on some of our products. We have accrued our estimate of the liability that may result under these guarantees and for service costs that are probable and can be reasonably estimated.

We have accrued for environmental investigatory, remediation, operating and maintenance costs, performance guarantees and other litigation and claims based on our estimate of the probable outcome of these matters. While it is possible that the outcome of these matters may differ from the recorded liability, we believe that resolution of these matters will not have a material impact on our competitive position, results of operations, cash flows or financial condition.

We also have other commitments and contingent liabilities related to legal proceedings, self-insurance programs and matters arising out of the normal course of business. We accrue contingencies based upon a range of possible outcomes. If no amount within this range is a better estimate than any other, then we accrue the minimum amount.

We are also subject to a number of routine lawsuits, investigations and claims (some of which involve substantial amounts) arising out of the ordinary course of our business. We do not believe that these matters will have a material adverse effect upon our competitive position, results of operations, cash flows or financial condition.