Debt, Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2017
Debt, Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Debt, Commitments and Contingencies	Debt, Commitments and Contingencies The debt, commitments and contingencies described below would require us, or our subsidiaries, to make payments to third parties under certain circumstances. Debt We have a $75.0 million revolving credit facility with Silicon Valley Bank, as administrative agent, and a syndicate of lenders that matures in November 2018, or the 2014 Facility. We have the option to increase the borrowing capacity of the 2014 Facility to $125.0 million with the consent of the lenders. The 2014 Facility is secured by substantially all of our assets, including our intellectual property. The outstanding principal balance on the 2014 Facility accrues interest at a rate equal to either (1) the Eurodollar Base Rate, or LIBOR, plus an applicable margin based on our consolidated leverage ratio, or (2) the higher of (a) the Wall Street Journal prime rate, and (b) the Federal Funds rate plus 0.50% plus an applicable margin based on our consolidated leverage ratio, at our option. For the six months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016, we elected for the outstanding principal balance to accrue interest at LIBOR plus 2.00%, LIBOR plus 2.25%, and LIBOR plus 2.50% when our consolidated leverage ratio was less than 1.00:1.00, greater than or equal to 1.00:1.00 but less than 2.00:1.00, and greater than or equal to 2.00:1.00, respectively. For the six months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016, the effective interest rate on the 2014 Facility was 3.34% and 2.64%. On March 7, 2017, we drew $67.0 million under the 2014 Facility to partially fund the Acquisition. On June 28. 2017, we repaid $1.0 million of the outstanding balance of the 2014 Facility. The carrying value of the 2014 Facility was $72.7 million and $6.7 million as of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016. Our outstanding amounts under the 2014 Facility are due at maturity in November 2018. The 2014 Facility includes a variable interest rate that approximates market rates and, as such, we determined that the carrying amount of the 2014 Facility approximates its fair value as of June 30, 2017. The 2014 Facility carries an unused line commitment fee of 0.20% to 0.25% depending on our consolidated leverage ratio. The 2014 Facility contains various financial and other covenants that require us to maintain a maximum consolidated leverage ratio not to exceed 3.00:1.00 and a consolidated fixed charge coverage ratio of at least 1.25:1.00. As of June 30, 2017, we were in compliance with all financial and non-financial covenants and there were no events of default. Commitments and Contingencies Repurchase of Subsidiary Units In 2012, we formed a subsidiary to develop and market home and commercial energy management devices and services. We granted an award of subsidiary stock to the founder and president. The terms of the award for the founder, who is also our employee, require a payment in cash on either the third or the fourth anniversary from the date the subsidiary first makes its products and services commercially available, which was determined to be April 1, 2014. The vesting of the award is based on the subsidiary meeting certain minimum financial targets. We did not record a liability in our condensed consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, as the fair value of this commitment was zero. In 2011, we formed a subsidiary that offers to professional residential property management and vacation rental management companies technology solutions for remote monitoring and control of properties, including access control and energy management. Since its formation, we granted an award of subsidiary stock to the founder and president. The vesting of the award is based upon the subsidiary meeting certain minimum financial targets from the date of commercial availability, which was determined to be June 1, 2013, until the fourth anniversary. In 2016, we amended the term of the award, extending the valuation date for the payment in cash to December 31, 2017, amending the financial targets and allowing for payments in cash from 2018 through 2020 based on collection of financed customer receivables that existed as of the valuation date. We recorded a liability of $2.6 million in accounts payable, accrued expenses and other current liabilities and $0.3 million in other liabilities related to this commitment in our condensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2017. We recorded a liability of $2.5 million in accounts payable, accrued expenses and other current liabilities and a liability of $0.3 million in other liabilities related to this commitment in our condensed consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2016. At each reporting date until the respective payment dates, we will remeasure these liabilities, and we will record any changes in fair value in general and administrative expense (see Note 9). Leases We lease office space and office equipment under non-cancelable operating leases with various expiration dates through 2026. In August 2014, we signed a lease for new office space in Tysons, Virginia, where we relocated our headquarters in February 2016. This lease term ends in 2026 and includes a five-year renewal option, an $8.0 million tenant improvement allowance and scheduled rent increases. During 2016, we entered into amendments to this lease, which provided for 30,662 square feet of additional office space and an additional $1.7 million tenant improvement allowance. We took possession of the additional space in February 2017 and we were allowed to utilize the tenant improvement allowance for design prior to moving into the space. As of June 30, 2017, we have utilized the entire $9.7 million tenant improvement allowances. Rent expense was $1.6 million and $2.9 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2017, as compared to $1.2 million and $2.5 million for the same periods in the prior year. Indemnification Agreements We have various agreements that may obligate us to indemnify the other party to the agreement with respect to certain matters. Generally, these indemnification provisions are included in contracts arising in the normal course of business. Although we cannot predict the maximum potential amount of future payments that may become due under these indemnification agreements, we do not believe any potential liability that might arise from such indemnity provisions is probable or material. Letters of Credit As of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, we had no outstanding letters of credit under our 2014 Facility. Legal Proceedings On April 25, 2017, Alarm.com Incorporated and its wholly owned subsidiary ICN Acquisition, LLC, filed a patent infringement complaint against Protect America, Inc., or Protect America, and SecureNet Technologies, LLC, or SecureNet, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The complaint seeks injunctive relief to stop the further sale of the infringing Protect America and SecureNet products and systems, and damages for the infringement of Alarm.com’s patents. The complaint asserts that the technology in the Protect America and SecureNet Alarm Systems products infringe one or more claims of Alarm.com’s patents: United States Patent Numbers 7,113,090; 7,633,385; 8,395,494; 8,493,202; 8,612,591; 8,860,804; and 9,141,276. If the litigation is successful, Alarm.com will be entitled to receive monetary damages, injunctive relief, and any other relief, including attorney’s fees, from Protect America and SecureNet. In June 2017, Alarm.com filed an amended complaint against Protect America only and voluntarily dismissed SecureNet from the suit, reserving the right to refile. Protect America responded to the amended complaint by filing a motion to dismiss or transfer the case to the Western District of Texas. Alarm.com opposed this motion. The Court has not yet issued a scheduling order. Protect America has not yet answered the complaint or asserted counterclaims and defenses. On June 2, 2015, Vivint, Inc., or Vivint, filed a lawsuit against us in U.S. District Court, District of Utah, alleging that our technology directly and indirectly infringes six patents that Vivint purchased. Vivint is seeking permanent injunctions, enhanced damages and attorney’s fees. We answered the complaint on July 23, 2015. Among other things, we asserted defenses based on non-infringement and invalidity of the patents in question. On August 19, 2016, the U.S. District Court, District of Utah stayed the litigation pending inter partes review (IPR) by the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of five of the patents in suit. In March of 2017, the PTAB issued final written decisions relating to two patents finding all challenged claims unpatentable. In May of 2017, the PTAB issued final written decisions relating to the remaining patents that found certain claims unpatentable, while certain other claims were not found to be unpatentable. Vivint has appealed the decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and we have cross-appealed. The U.S. District Court, District of Utah lifted the stay on the litigation on June 26, 2017, and Vivint is proceeding with its case on four of the six patents in its complaint. A trial date has not yet been scheduled. Should Vivint prevail on its claims that one or more elements of our solution infringe one or more of its patents, we could be required to pay damages of Vivint’s lost profits and/or a reasonable royalty for sales of our solution, enjoined from making, using and selling our solution if a license or other right to continue selling such elements is not made available to us or we are unable to design around such patents, and required to pay ongoing royalties and comply with unfavorable terms if such a license is made available to us. The outcome of the legal claim and proceeding against us cannot be predicted with certainty. We believe we have valid defenses to Vivint’s claims. Based on currently available information, we determined a loss is not probable or reasonably estimable at this time. On December 30, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against us in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or TCPA. The complaint does not allege that Alarm.com itself violated the TCPA, but instead seeks to hold us responsible for the marketing activities of our service provider partners under principles of agency and vicarious liability. The complaint seeks monetary damages under the TCPA, injunctive relief, and other relief, including attorney’s fees. We answered the complaint on February 26, 2016. On May 5, 2017, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Discovery is underway, and the matter remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Based on the current schedule, we anticipate a trial will take place at the end of 2018. Based on currently available information, we determined a loss is not probable or reasonably estimable at this time. On February 9, 2016, we were sued along with one of our service provider partners in the Circuit Court for the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia by the estate of a deceased service provider partner customer alleging wrongful death, among other claims. The suit seeks a total of $7 million in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages. We filed our answer on March 22, 2016. Discovery has commenced, and the matter remains pending. Based on currently available information, we determined a loss is not probable or reasonably estimable at this time. On February 22, 2017, Honeywell International Inc., or Honeywell, filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against us and Icontrol Networks, Inc., or Icontrol, seeking to enjoin the completion of our acquisition of two business units from Icontrol. On March 3, 2017, we settled the litigation effective upon the closing of the acquisition of the business units from Icontrol, which occurred on March 8, 2017. On March 21, 2017, Taraneh Vessal filed a complaint against us and Monitronics International, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging violation of the TCPA and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, or ICFDBA. We filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on May 12, 2017. Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint on June 2, 2017, alleging similar violations of the TCPA and ICFDBA. We filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on June 16, 2017, and Plaintiff filed her response on July 31, 2017. Our reply is due August 21, 2017. Discovery has commenced, and the matter remains pending. Based on currently available information, we determined a loss is not probable or reasonably estimable at this time. In September 2014, Icontrol Networks, Inc., or Icontrol, filed a Complaint in the United States District Court, District of Delaware, asserting that Zonoff Inc., or Zonoff, infringes certain U.S. Patents owned by Icontrol, all of which are now owned by Alarm.com through a subsidiary. In November, 2015, Icontrol filed a second lawsuit, also in the United States District Court, District of Delaware, alleging that Zonoff infringes additional U.S. Patents owned by Icontrol, now owned by Alarm.com through a subsidiary. The Court held a claim construction hearing in the first case on March 14, 2016 and consolidated the cases on August 1, 2016. Zonoff has not filed any proceedings at the United States Patent Office, or asserted any counterclaims. Because Zonoff has ceased business operations, Court has declined to enter a schedule for the remainder of the case. In September 2014, Icontrol filed a Complaint in the United States District Court, District of Delaware, asserting that SecureNet Technologies LLC, or SecureNet, infringes certain U.S. Patents owned by Icontrol, patents now owned by Alarm.com through a subsidiary. In March, 2015, Icontrol voluntarily agreed to dismiss the case, reserving the right to refile. In September, 2015, Icontrol refiled the case against SecureNet in the same district court alleging infringement of some of the same patents. SecureNet filed petitions for inter partes review of the patents-in-suit before the PTAB. Proceedings as to one of the patents in suit has been instituted. The PTAB has rejected the remaining applications for inter partes review, and SecureNet has appealed the rejection as to one of the patents in suit. The Court has scheduled a claim construction hearing for March 20, 2018 and commencement of trial on February 4, 2019. From time to time, we may be a party to litigation and subject to claims incident to the ordinary course of business. Although the results of litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, we currently believe that the final outcome of these ordinary course matters will not have a material adverse effect on our business. Other than the preceding matters, we are not a party to any lawsuit or proceeding that, in the opinion of management, is reasonably possible or probable of having a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. We reserve for contingent liabilities based on ASC 450, “Contingencies,” when it is determined that a liability, inclusive of defense costs, is probable and reasonably estimable. Litigation is subject to many factors that are difficult to predict, so there can be no assurance that, in the event of a material unfavorable result in one or more claims, we will not incur material costs.

Debt, Commitments and Contingencies

The debt, commitments and contingencies described below would require us, or our subsidiaries, to make payments to third parties under certain circumstances.

Debt

We have a $75.0 million revolving credit facility with Silicon Valley Bank, as administrative agent, and a syndicate of lenders that matures in November 2018, or the 2014 Facility. We have the option to increase the borrowing capacity of the 2014 Facility to $125.0 million with the consent of the lenders. The 2014 Facility is secured by substantially all of our assets, including our intellectual property.

The outstanding principal balance on the 2014 Facility accrues interest at a rate equal to either (1) the Eurodollar Base Rate, or LIBOR, plus an applicable margin based on our consolidated leverage ratio, or (2) the higher of (a) the Wall Street Journal prime rate, and (b) the Federal Funds rate plus 0.50% plus an applicable margin based on our consolidated leverage ratio, at our option. For the six months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016, we elected for the outstanding principal balance to accrue interest at LIBOR plus 2.00%, LIBOR plus 2.25%, and LIBOR plus 2.50% when our consolidated leverage ratio was less than 1.00:1.00, greater than or equal to 1.00:1.00 but less than 2.00:1.00, and greater than or equal to 2.00:1.00, respectively. For the six months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016, the effective interest rate on the 2014 Facility was 3.34% and 2.64%.

On March 7, 2017, we drew $67.0 million under the 2014 Facility to partially fund the Acquisition. On June 28. 2017, we repaid $1.0 million of the outstanding balance of the 2014 Facility. The carrying value of the 2014 Facility was $72.7 million and $6.7 million as of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016. Our outstanding amounts under the 2014 Facility are due at maturity in November 2018.

The 2014 Facility includes a variable interest rate that approximates market rates and, as such, we determined that the carrying amount of the 2014 Facility approximates its fair value as of June 30, 2017. The 2014 Facility carries an unused line commitment fee of 0.20% to 0.25% depending on our consolidated leverage ratio. The 2014 Facility contains various financial and other covenants that require us to maintain a maximum consolidated leverage ratio not to exceed 3.00:1.00 and a consolidated fixed charge coverage ratio of at least 1.25:1.00. As of June 30, 2017, we were in compliance with all financial and non-financial covenants and there were no events of default.

Commitments and Contingencies

Repurchase of Subsidiary Units

In 2012, we formed a subsidiary to develop and market home and commercial energy management devices and services. We granted an award of subsidiary stock to the founder and president. The terms of the award for the founder, who is also our employee, require a payment in cash on either the third or the fourth anniversary from the date the subsidiary first makes its products and services commercially available, which was determined to be April 1, 2014. The vesting of the award is based on the subsidiary meeting certain minimum financial targets. We did not record a liability in our condensed consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, as the fair value of this commitment was zero.

In 2011, we formed a subsidiary that offers to professional residential property management and vacation rental management companies technology solutions for remote monitoring and control of properties, including access control and energy management. Since its formation, we granted an award of subsidiary stock to the founder and president. The vesting of the award is based upon the subsidiary meeting certain minimum financial targets from the date of commercial availability, which was determined to be June 1, 2013, until the fourth anniversary. In 2016, we amended the term of the award, extending the valuation date for the payment in cash to December 31, 2017, amending the financial targets and allowing for payments in cash from 2018 through 2020 based on collection of financed customer receivables that existed as of the valuation date. We recorded a liability of $2.6 million in accounts payable, accrued expenses and other current liabilities and $0.3 million in other liabilities related to this commitment in our condensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2017. We recorded a liability of $2.5 million in accounts payable, accrued expenses and other current liabilities and a liability of $0.3 million in other liabilities related to this commitment in our condensed consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2016.

At each reporting date until the respective payment dates, we will remeasure these liabilities, and we will record any changes in fair value in general and administrative expense (see Note 9).

Leases

We lease office space and office equipment under non-cancelable operating leases with various expiration dates through 2026. In August 2014, we signed a lease for new office space in Tysons, Virginia, where we relocated our headquarters in February 2016. This lease term ends in 2026 and includes a five-year renewal option, an $8.0 million tenant improvement allowance and scheduled rent increases. During 2016, we entered into amendments to this lease, which provided for 30,662 square feet of additional office space and an additional $1.7 million tenant improvement allowance. We took possession of the additional space in February 2017 and we were allowed to utilize the tenant improvement allowance for design prior to moving into the space.

As of June 30, 2017, we have utilized the entire $9.7 million tenant improvement allowances. Rent expense was $1.6 million and $2.9 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2017, as compared to $1.2 million and $2.5 million for the same periods in the prior year.

Indemnification Agreements

We have various agreements that may obligate us to indemnify the other party to the agreement with respect to certain matters. Generally, these indemnification provisions are included in contracts arising in the normal course of business. Although we cannot predict the maximum potential amount of future payments that may become due under these indemnification agreements, we do not believe any potential liability that might arise from such indemnity provisions is probable or material.

Letters of Credit

As of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, we had no outstanding letters of credit under our 2014 Facility.

Legal Proceedings

On April 25, 2017, Alarm.com Incorporated and its wholly owned subsidiary ICN Acquisition, LLC, filed a patent infringement complaint against Protect America, Inc., or Protect America, and SecureNet Technologies, LLC, or SecureNet, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The complaint seeks injunctive relief to stop the further sale of the infringing Protect America and SecureNet products and systems, and damages for the infringement of Alarm.com’s patents. The complaint asserts that the technology in the Protect America and SecureNet Alarm Systems products infringe one or more claims of Alarm.com’s patents: United States Patent Numbers 7,113,090; 7,633,385; 8,395,494; 8,493,202; 8,612,591; 8,860,804; and 9,141,276. If the litigation is successful, Alarm.com will be entitled to receive monetary damages, injunctive relief, and any other relief, including attorney’s fees, from Protect America and SecureNet. In June 2017, Alarm.com filed an amended complaint against Protect America only and voluntarily dismissed SecureNet from the suit, reserving the right to refile. Protect America responded to the amended complaint by filing a motion to dismiss or transfer the case to the Western District of Texas. Alarm.com opposed this motion. The Court has not yet issued a scheduling order. Protect America has not yet answered the complaint or asserted counterclaims and defenses.

On June 2, 2015, Vivint, Inc., or Vivint, filed a lawsuit against us in U.S. District Court, District of Utah, alleging that our technology directly and indirectly infringes six patents that Vivint purchased. Vivint is seeking permanent injunctions, enhanced damages and attorney’s fees. We answered the complaint on July 23, 2015. Among other things, we asserted defenses based on non-infringement and invalidity of the patents in question. On August 19, 2016, the U.S. District Court, District of Utah stayed the litigation pending inter partes review (IPR) by the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of five of the patents in suit. In March of 2017, the PTAB issued final written decisions relating to two patents finding all challenged claims unpatentable. In May of 2017, the PTAB issued final written decisions relating to the remaining patents that found certain claims unpatentable, while certain other claims were not found to be unpatentable. Vivint has appealed the decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and we have cross-appealed. The U.S. District Court, District of Utah lifted the stay on the litigation on June 26, 2017, and Vivint is proceeding with its case on four of the six patents in its complaint. A trial date has not yet been scheduled.

Should Vivint prevail on its claims that one or more elements of our solution infringe one or more of its patents, we could be required to pay damages of Vivint’s lost profits and/or a reasonable royalty for sales of our solution, enjoined from making, using and selling our solution if a license or other right to continue selling such elements is not made available to us or we are unable to design around such patents, and required to pay ongoing royalties and comply with unfavorable terms if such a license is made available to us. The outcome of the legal claim and proceeding against us cannot be predicted with certainty. We believe we have valid defenses to Vivint’s claims. Based on currently available information, we determined a loss is not probable or reasonably estimable at this time.

On December 30, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against us in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or TCPA. The complaint does not allege that Alarm.com itself violated the TCPA, but instead seeks to hold us responsible for the marketing activities of our service provider partners under principles of agency and vicarious liability. The complaint seeks monetary damages under the TCPA, injunctive relief, and other relief, including attorney’s fees. We answered the complaint on February 26, 2016. On May 5, 2017, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Discovery is underway, and the matter remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Based on the current schedule, we anticipate a trial will take place at the end of 2018. Based on currently available information, we determined a loss is not probable or reasonably estimable at this time.

On February 9, 2016, we were sued along with one of our service provider partners in the Circuit Court for the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia by the estate of a deceased service provider partner customer alleging wrongful death, among other claims. The suit seeks a total of $7 million in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages. We filed our answer on March 22, 2016. Discovery has commenced, and the matter remains pending. Based on currently available information, we determined a loss is not probable or reasonably estimable at this time.

On February 22, 2017, Honeywell International Inc., or Honeywell, filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against us and Icontrol Networks, Inc., or Icontrol, seeking to enjoin the completion of our acquisition of two business units from Icontrol. On March 3, 2017, we settled the litigation effective upon the closing of the acquisition of the business units from Icontrol, which occurred on March 8, 2017.

On March 21, 2017, Taraneh Vessal filed a complaint against us and Monitronics International, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging violation of the TCPA and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, or ICFDBA. We filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on May 12, 2017. Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint on June 2, 2017, alleging similar violations of the TCPA and ICFDBA. We filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on June 16, 2017, and Plaintiff filed her response on July 31, 2017. Our reply is due August 21, 2017. Discovery has commenced, and the matter remains pending. Based on currently available information, we determined a loss is not probable or reasonably estimable at this time.

In September 2014, Icontrol Networks, Inc., or Icontrol, filed a Complaint in the United States District Court, District of Delaware, asserting that Zonoff Inc., or Zonoff, infringes certain U.S. Patents owned by Icontrol, all of which are now owned by Alarm.com through a subsidiary. In November, 2015, Icontrol filed a second lawsuit, also in the United States District Court, District of Delaware, alleging that Zonoff infringes additional U.S. Patents owned by Icontrol, now owned by Alarm.com through a subsidiary. The Court held a claim construction hearing in the first case on March 14, 2016 and consolidated the cases on August 1, 2016. Zonoff has not filed any proceedings at the United States Patent Office, or asserted any counterclaims. Because Zonoff has ceased business operations, Court has declined to enter a schedule for the remainder of the case.

In September 2014, Icontrol filed a Complaint in the United States District Court, District of Delaware, asserting that SecureNet Technologies LLC, or SecureNet, infringes certain U.S. Patents owned by Icontrol, patents now owned by Alarm.com through a subsidiary. In March, 2015, Icontrol voluntarily agreed to dismiss the case, reserving the right to refile. In September, 2015, Icontrol refiled the case against SecureNet in the same district court alleging infringement of some of the same patents. SecureNet filed petitions for inter partes review of the patents-in-suit before the PTAB. Proceedings as to one of the patents in suit has been instituted. The PTAB has rejected the remaining applications for inter partes review, and SecureNet has appealed the rejection as to one of the patents in suit. The Court has scheduled a claim construction hearing for March 20, 2018 and commencement of trial on February 4, 2019.

From time to time, we may be a party to litigation and subject to claims incident to the ordinary course of business. Although the results of litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, we currently believe that the final outcome of these ordinary course matters will not have a material adverse effect on our business.

Other than the preceding matters, we are not a party to any lawsuit or proceeding that, in the opinion of management, is reasonably possible or probable of having a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. We reserve for contingent liabilities based on ASC 450, “Contingencies,” when it is determined that a liability, inclusive of defense costs, is probable and reasonably estimable. Litigation is subject to many factors that are difficult to predict, so there can be no assurance that, in the event of a material unfavorable result in one or more claims, we will not incur material costs.