Commitments And Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2013

Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract]

Legal Matters

17. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Legal Matters

From time to time we are a party to various claims, lawsuits and other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. We maintain various insurance coverages to minimize financial risk associated with these proceedings. None of these proceedings, separately or in the aggregate, are expected to have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. With respect to all such proceedings, we record reserves when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. We expense routine legal costs related to these proceedings as they are incurred.

The following is a discussion of our significant legal matters:

Ward Transformer Site

One of our subsidiaries has been identified as one of more than 200 potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”) with respect to the clean-up of an electric transformer resale and reconditioning facility, known as the Ward Transformer Site, located in Raleigh, North Carolina, due to Polychlorinated Biphenyls (“PCBs”) contamination on and off the site.. The subsidiary, which we acquired in January 1999, is believed to have sent transformers to the facility during the 1990s. Based on our investigation to date, there is evidence to support our defense that our subsidiary contributed no PCB contamination to the site.

In April 2009, two PRPs, Carolina Power and Light Company and Consolidation Coal Company, filed suit against us and most of the other PRPs in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina (Western Division) to contribute to the cost of the clean-up. The plaintiffs were two of four PRPs that have commenced clean-up of on-site contaminated soils under an Emergency Removal Action pursuant to a settlement agreement and Administrative Order on Consent entered into between the four PRPs and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) in September 2005. We are not a party to that settlement agreement or Order on Consent.

In addition to the on-site clean-up, the EPA has selected approximately 50 PRPs to which it sent a Special Notice Letter in late 2008 to organize the clean-up of soils off site and address contamination of groundwater and other miscellaneous off-site issues. We were not a recipient of that letter. On January 8, 2013, the EPA held a meeting with those PRPs as well as others that were not recipients of the letter to discuss potential settlement of its costs associated with the site. The Company was invited to attend this meeting and asked to confirm whether it would participate in settlement discussions, which the Company confirmed. The Company intends to present to the EPA the evidence developed in litigation to support the argument that the Company did not contribute PCB contamination to the site. The Company has tendered a demand for indemnification to the former owner of the acquired corporation that may have transacted business with the facility. As of September 30, 2013, we have not recorded a reserve for this matter, as we believe the likelihood of our responsibility for damages is not probable and a potential range of exposure is not estimable.

Hamilton Wage and Hour

The Company is a defendant in three wage-and-hour suits seeking class action certification that were filed between August 29, 2012 and June 24, 2013, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Each of these cases is among several others filed by Plaintiffs’ attorney against contractors working in the Port Arthur, Texas Motiva plant on various projects over the last few years. The claims are based on alleged failure to compensate for time spent bussing to and from the plant, donning safety wear and other activities. It does not appear the Company will face significant exposure for any unpaid wages. In a separate earlier case based on the same allegations, a federal district court ruled that the time spent traveling on the busses is not compensable. On January 11, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the district court’s ruling finding no liability for wages for time spent bussing into the facility. On October 8, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review plaintiffs’ appeal of the Fifth Circuit dismissal of their claims for compensation for time spent bussing to the facility, effectively reducing the Company’s risk of liability on this issue in its cases. Our investigation indicates that all claims for time spent on other activities either were inapplicable to the Company’s employees or took place during times for which the Company’s employees were compensated. We have filed responsive pleadings and, following initial discovery are positioning the cases to obtain a dismissal of all claims. As of September 30, 2013, we have not recorded a reserve for this matter, as we believe the likelihood of our responsibility for damages is not probable and a potential range of exposure is not estimable.

Risk-Management

We retain the risk for workers’ compensation, employer’s liability, automobile liability, general liability and employee group health claims, as well as pollution coverage, resulting from uninsured deductibles per accident or occurrence which are subject to annual aggregate limits. Our general liability program provides coverage for bodily injury and property damage. Losses up to the deductible amounts are accrued based upon our known claims incurred and an estimate of claims incurred but not reported. As a result, many of our claims are effectively self-insured. Many claims against our insurance are in the form of litigation. At September 30, 2013, we had $4,963 accrued for insurance liabilities. We are also subject to construction defect liabilities, primarily within our Residential segment. As of September 30, 2013, we had $520 reserved for these claims.

Some of the underwriters of our casualty insurance program require us to post letters of credit as collateral. This is common in the insurance industry. To date, we have not had a situation where an underwriter has had reasonable cause to effect payment under a letter of credit. At September 30, 2013, $6,147 of our outstanding letters of credit were utilized to collateralize our insurance program.

Surety

Many customers, particularly in connection with new construction, require us to post performance and payment bonds issued by a surety. Those bonds provide a guarantee to the customer that we will perform under the terms of our contract and that we will pay our subcontractors and vendors. If we fail to perform under the terms of our contract or to pay subcontractors and vendors, the customer may demand that the surety make payments or provide services under the bond. We must reimburse the sureties for any expenses or outlays they incur on our behalf. To date, we have not been required to make any reimbursements to our sureties for bond-related costs.

As is common in the surety industry, sureties issue bonds on a project-by-project basis and can decline to issue bonds at any time. We believe that our relationships with our sureties will allow us to provide surety bonds as they are required. However, current market conditions, as well as changes in our sureties' assessment of our operating and financial risk, could cause our sureties to decline to issue bonds for our work. If our sureties decline to issue bonds for our work, our alternatives would include posting other forms of collateral for project performance, such as letters of credit or cash, seeking bonding capacity from other sureties, or engaging in more projects that do not require surety bonds. In addition, if we are awarded a project for which a surety bond is required but we are unable to obtain a surety bond, the result can be a claim for damages by the customer for the costs of replacing us with another contractor.

As of September 30, 2013, the estimated cost to complete our bonded projects was approximately$49,149. We evaluate our bonding requirements on a regular basis, including the terms offered by our sureties. We believe the bonding capacity presently provided by our current sureties is adequate for our current operations and will be adequate for our operations for the foreseeable future. As of September 30, 2013, we had cash totaling $999 to collateralize our obligations to certain of our previous sureties (as is included in Other Non-Current Assets in our Consolidated Balance Sheet). Posting letters of credit in favor of our sureties reduces the borrowing availability under our 2012 Credit Facility.

On May 7, 2013, the Company and certain of its current and future subsidiaries and affiliates entered into a new agreement of indemnity (the “Surety Agreement”) with certain entities affiliated with Suremerica Surety Underwriting Services, LLC (“Suremerica”). Pursuant to the Surety Agreement, we have agreed to assign to Suremerica, among other things, as collateral to secure our obligations under the Surety Agreement, our rights, title and interest in, and all accounts receivable and related proceeds arising pursuant to, any contract bonded by Suremerica on our behalf. Further, under the Surety Agreement, we have also agreed that, upon written demand, we will deposit with Suremerica, as additional collateral, an amount determined by Suremerica to be sufficient to discharge any claim made against Suremerica on a bond issued on our behalf.

Other Commitments and Contingencies

Some of our customers and vendors require us to post letters of credit as a means of guaranteeing performance under our contracts and ensuring payment by us to subcontractors and vendors. If our customer has reasonable cause to effect payment under a letter of credit, we would be required to reimburse our creditor for the letter of credit. At September 30, 2013, $200 of our outstanding letters of credit were to collateralize our vendors.

On January 9, 2012, we entered into a settlement agreement with regard to $2,000 of collateral held by a surety who previously issued construction payment and performance bonds for us. The agreement called for a total settlement of $2,200 to be paid in monthly installments through February 2013, and based on subsequent payment defaults, was amended to provide for additional collateral and a total settlement amount of $2,025 ($2,200 less the $175 already received) to be paid in monthly installments beginning September 30, 2012 through July 2014 with an interest rate of 12%. Following a subsequent amendment to postpone or modify payment dates, on January 2, 2013, the Company tendered a notice of default to the surety and its coal mining operations, which had been pledged as additional collateral. Given the surety’s failure to make the payments due on December 31, 2012, and January 31, 2013, and its continued attempts to restructure the underlying settlement agreement, the Company concluded the collection of the receivable was not probable as of December 31, 2012, and recorded a reserve in the amount $1,725 for the first quarter of fiscal 2013, bringing the receivable’s net carrying value to zero. The charge was recorded as other expense within our Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income and the reserve was recorded within our current assets within the Consolidated Balance Sheet.

On March 8, 2013, the Company issued a notice of acceleration of the promissory notes signed by the two mining companies, and subsequently filed suit to enforce the acceleration and to domesticate the agreed judgment against the surety and its owner in Virginia. Following these actions, the surety entered into an amended agreement with the Company which provided for payment of $300, which was received on June 24, 2013, and additional monthly installments with final payment due June 30, 2014. As of December 11, 2013, the Company has received installment payments totaling $450. If the defendants default on this agreement, the Company expects to move forward with the collection activities that led to the June amendment and payments. The extent of recovery of the remaining balance, if any, cannot be determined. However, the possibility of a partial or full recovery exists as installment payments continue, and the Company remains poised to aggressively pursue collection in the event of a default. We have classified the $450 received as of September 2013 as other income within our Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income. Any subsequent recovery will be included in other income.

From time to time, we may enter into firm purchase commitments for materials such as copper or aluminum wire which we expect to use in the ordinary course of business. These commitments are typically for terms less than one year and require us to buy minimum quantities of materials at specific intervals at a fixed price over the term. As of September 30, 2013, we had no such open purchase commitments.