On March 23, 2010, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, state court jury found us responsible for a 1/11th share of a $14.5 million verdict in the James Nelson claim. On February 23, 2011, the court entered judgment on the verdict in the amount of $4.0 million, jointly, against us and two other defendants, with additional interest in the amount of $0.01 million being assessed against us, only. All defendants, including us, and the plaintiffs took timely appeals of certain aspects of those judgments. On September 5, 2013, a panel of the Pennsylvania Superior Court, in a 2-1 decision, vacated the Nelson verdict against all defendants, reversing and remanding for a new trial. Plaintiffs requested a rehearing in the Superior Court and by order dated November 18, 2013, the Superior Court vacated the panel opinion, and granted en banc reargument. On December 23, 2014, the Superior Court issued a second opinion reversing the jury verdict. Plaintiffs sought leave to appeal to the Pennsylvania

On February 25, 2013, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, state court jury found us responsible for a 1/10th share of a $2.5 million verdict in the Thomas Amato claim and a 1/5th share of a $2.3 million verdict in the Frank Vinciguerra claim, which were consolidated for trial. We filed post-trial motions requesting judgments in our favor notwithstanding the jury’s verdicts or new trials, and also requesting that settlement offsets be applied to reduce the judgment in accordance with Pennsylvania law. These motions were denied. We appealed, and on April 17, 2015, a panel of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the trial court’s ruling. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania accepted our petition for review and heard oral arguments on September 13, 2016. On November 22, 2016, the Court dismissed our appeal as improvidently granted. We paid the Vinciguerra judgment in the amount of $0.6 million in the fourth quarter 2016. We paid the Amato judgment, with interest, in the amount of $0.3 million in the second quarter of 2017.

On March 1, 2013, a New York City state court jury entered a $35 million verdict against us in the Ivo Peraica claim. We filed post-trial motions seeking to overturn the verdict, to grant a new trial, or to reduce the damages, which we argue was excessive under New York appellate case law governing awards for non-economic losses and further were subject to settlement offsets. After the trial court remitted the verdict to $18 million, but otherwise denied our post-trial motion, judgment was entered against us in the amount of $10.6 million (including interest). We appealed. We took a separate appeal of the trial court’s denial of our summary judgment motion. The Court consolidated the appeals, which were heard in the fourth quarter of 2014. In July 2016, we supplemented our briefing based on the New York Court of Appeals Dummitt/Suttner decision. On October 6, 2016, a panel of the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the rulings of the trial court on liability issues but further reduced the damages award to $4.25 million, which after settlement offsets was calculated to be $1.94 million. Plaintiff had the option of accepting the reduced amount or having a new trial on damages. We filed a motion with the Appellate Division requesting a rehearing on liability issues. The motion was denied. The New York Court of Appeals also denied review. We paid the Peraica judgment in the amount of $2.7 million in the first quarter of 2017.

On September 17, 2013, a Fort Lauderdale, Florida state court jury in the Richard DeLisle claim found us responsible for 16% of an $8 million verdict. The trial court denied all parties’ post-trial motions, and entered judgment against us in the amount of $1.3 million. We appealed and oral argument on the appeal took place on February 16, 2016. On September 14, 2016, a panel of the Florida Court of Appeals reversed and entered judgment in favor of us. Plaintiff filed with the Court of Appeals a motion for rehearing and/or certification of an appeal to the Florida Supreme Court, which the Court denied on November 9, 2016. Plaintiffs subsequently requested review by the Supreme Court of Florida. Plaintiffs' motion was granted on July 11, 2017. Oral argument took place on March 6, 2018. On October 15, 2018, the Supreme Court of Florida reversed and remanded with instructions to reinstate the trial court’s judgment. We paid the judgment on December 28, 2018. That payment is reflected in the fourth quarter 2018 indemnity amount.

On June 16, 2014, a New York City state court jury entered a $15 million verdict against us in the Ivan Sweberg claim and a $10 million verdict against us in the Selwyn Hackshaw claim. The two claims were consolidated for trial. We filed post-trial motions seeking to overturn the verdicts, to grant new trials, or to reduce the damages, which were denied, except that the Court reduced the Sweberg award to $10 million, and reduced the Hackshaw award to $6 million. Judgments were entered in the amount of $5.3 million in Sweberg and $3.1 million in Hackshaw. We appealed. Oral argument on Sweberg took place on February 16, 2016, and oral argument on Hackshaw took place on March 9, 2016. On October 6, 2016, two panels of the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the rulings of the trial court on liability issues but further reduced the Sweberg damages award to $9.5 million and further reduced the Hackshaw damages award to $3 million, which after settlement offsets are calculated to be $4.73 million in Sweberg and $0 in Hackshaw. Plaintiffs were given the option of accepting the reduced awards or having new trials on damages. Plaintiffs subsequently brought an appeal in Hackshaw before the New York Court of Appeals, which the Court denied. We filed a motion with the Appellate Division requesting a rehearing on liability issues in Sweberg. That motion was denied. The New York Court of Appeals also denied review. We paid in the first quarter of 2017 the Sweberg plaintiffs $5.7 million, which was the amount owed under this judgment. No damages were owed in Hackshaw.

On July 2, 2015, a St. Louis, Missouri state court jury in the James Poage claim entered a $1.5 million verdict for compensatory damages against us. The jury also awarded exemplary damages against us in the amount of $10 million. We filed a motion seeking to reduce the verdict to account for the verdict set-offs. That motion was denied, and judgment was entered against us in the amount of $10.8 million. We initiated an appeal. Oral argument was held on December 13, 2016. In an opinion dated May 2, 2017, a Missouri Court of Appeals panel affirmed the judgment in all respects. The Court of Appeals denied our motion to transfer the case to the Supreme Court of Missouri. We sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Missouri, which denied that request. The Supreme Court of the United States denied further review on March 26, 2018. We settled the matter. The settlement was reflected in the second quarter 2018 indemnity amount.

On February 9, 2016, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, federal court jury found us responsible for a 30% share of a $1.085 million verdict in the Valent Rabovsky claim. The court ordered briefing on the amount of the judgment. We argued, among other things, that settlement offsets reduce the award to plaintiff under Pennsylvania law. A further hearing was held April 26, 2016, after which the court denied our request and entered judgment in the amount of $0.4 million. We filed post-trial motions, which were denied in two decisions issued on August 26, 2016 and September 28, 2016. We pursued an appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which was argued on June 12, 2017. On September 27, 2017, the Court entered an order asking the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to decide one of the issues raised in our appeal. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania accepted the request, and we settled the matter. The settlement was reflected in the fourth quarter 2017 indemnity amount.

On April 22, 2016, a Phoenix, Arizona federal court jury found us responsible for a 20% share of a $9 million verdict in the George Coulbourn claim, and further awarded exemplary damages against us in the amount of $5 million. The jury also awarded compensatory and exemplary damages against the other defendant present at trial. The court entered judgment against us in the amount of $6.8 million. We filed post-trial motions, which were denied on September 20, 2016. We pursued an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which affirmed the judgment on March 29, 2018. We settled the matter. The settlement was reflected in the second quarter 2018 indemnity amount.

The gross settlement and defense costs incurred (before insurance recoveries and tax effects) by us for the six-month periods ended June 30, 2019 and 2018 totaled $40.3 million and $55.9 million, respectively. In contrast to the recognition of settlement and defense costs, which reflect the current level of activity in the tort system, cash payments and receipts generally lag the tort system activity by several months or more, and may show some fluctuation from period to period. Cash payments of settlement amounts are not made until all releases and other required documentation are received by us, and reimbursements of both settlement amounts and defense costs by insurers may be uneven due to insurer payment practices, transitions from one insurance layer to the next excess layer and the payment terms of certain reimbursement agreements. Our total pre-tax payments for settlement and defense costs, net of funds received from insurers, for the six-month periods ended June 30, 2019 and 2018 totaled $17.9 million and $34.9 million, respectively. Detailed below are the comparable amounts for the periods indicated.



	Three Months Ended						Six Months Ended						Year Ended
(in millions)	June 30,						June 30,						December 31,
	2019			2018			2019			2018			2018
Settlement / indemnity costs incurred ⁽¹⁾	$	8.6		$	33.8		$	30.0		$	42.0		$	63.0
Defense costs incurred ⁽¹⁾	5.2			7.3			10.3			13.9			25.8
Total costs incurred	$	13.8		$	41.1		$	40.3		$	55.9		$	88.8

Settlement / indemnity payments	$	6.8		$	29.6		$	15.6		$	34.1		$	61.5
Defense payments	6.2			6.7			10.2			11.8			26.5
Insurance receipts	(4.8		)	(4.3		)	(7.9		)	(11.0		)	(24.1		)
Pre-tax cash payments	$	8.2		$	32.0		$	17.9		$	34.9		$	63.9

⁽¹⁾Before insurance recoveries and tax effects.

Cumulatively through June 30, 2019, we have resolved (by settlement or dismissal) approximately 138,000 claims. The related settlement cost incurred by us and our insurance carriers is approximately $630 million, for an average settlement cost per resolved claim of approximately $4,600. The average settlement cost per claim resolved during the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016 was $11,300, $7,800, and $3,900, respectively. Because claims are sometimes dismissed in large groups, the average cost per resolved claim, as well as the number of open claims, can fluctuate significantly from period to period. In addition to large group dismissals, the nature of the disease and corresponding settlement amounts for each claim resolved will also drive changes from period to period in the average settlement cost per claim. Accordingly, the average cost per resolved claim is not considered in our periodic review of our estimated asbestos liability. For a discussion regarding the four most significant factors affecting the liability estimate, see “Effects on the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements”.

We have retained an independent actuarial firm to assist management in estimating our asbestos liability in the tort system. The actuarial consultants review information provided by us concerning claims filed, settled and dismissed, amounts paid in settlements and relevant claim information such as the nature of the asbestos-related disease asserted by the claimant, the jurisdiction where filed and the time lag from filing to disposition of the claim. The methodology used by the actuarial consultants to project future asbestos costs is based on our recent historical experience for claims filed, settled and dismissed during a base reference period. Our experience is then compared to estimates of the number of individuals likely to develop asbestos-related diseases determined based on widely used previously conducted epidemiological studies augmented with current data inputs. Those studies were undertaken in connection with national analyses of the population of workers believed to have been exposed to asbestos. Using that information, the actuarial consultants estimate the number of future claims that would be filed against us and estimates the aggregate settlement or indemnity costs that would be incurred to resolve both pending and future claims based upon the average settlement costs by disease during the reference period. This methodology has been accepted by numerous courts. After discussions with us, the actuarial consultants augment our liability estimate for the costs of defending asbestos claims in the tort system using a forecast from us which is based upon discussions with our defense counsel. Based on this information, the actuarial consultants compile an estimate of our asbestos liability for pending and future claims using a range of reference periods based on claim experience and covering claims expected to be filed through the indicated forecast period. The most significant factors affecting the liability estimate are (1) the number of new mesothelioma claims filed against us, (2) the average settlement costs for mesothelioma claims, (3) the percentage of mesothelioma claims dismissed against us and (4) the aggregate defense costs incurred by us. These factors are interdependent, and no one factor predominates in determining the liability estimate.

In our view, the forecast period used to provide the best estimate for asbestos claims and related liabilities and costs is a judgment based upon a number of trend factors, including the number and type of claims being filed each year; the jurisdictions where such claims are filed, and the effect of any legislation or judicial orders in such jurisdictions restricting the types of claims that can proceed to trial on the merits; and the likelihood of any comprehensive asbestos legislation at the federal level. In addition, the dynamics of asbestos litigation in the tort system have been significantly affected by the substantial number of companies that have filed for bankruptcy protection, thereby staying any asbestos claims against them until the conclusion of such proceedings, and the establishment of a number of post-bankruptcy trusts for asbestos claimants, which have been estimated to provide $36 billion for payments to current and future claimants. These trend factors have both positive and negative effects on the dynamics of asbestos litigation in the tort system and the related best estimate of our asbestos liability, and these effects do not move in a linear fashion but rather change over multi-year periods. Accordingly, management continues to monitor these trend factors over time and periodically assesses whether an alternative forecast period is appropriate.

Each quarter, the actuarial consultants compile an update based upon our experience in claims filed, settled and dismissed as well as average settlement costs by disease category (mesothelioma, lung cancer, other cancer, and non-malignant conditions including asbestosis). In addition to this claims experience, we also consider additional quantitative and qualitative factors such as the nature of the aging of pending claims, significant appellate rulings and legislative developments, and their respective effects on expected future settlement values. As part of this process, we also take into account trends in the tort system such as those enumerated above. Management considers all these factors in conjunction with the liability estimate of the actuarial consultants and determines whether a change in the estimate is warranted.

Liability Estimate. Effective as of December 31, 2016, we extended our estimate of the asbestos liability, including the costs of settlement or indemnity payments and defense costs relating to currently pending claims and future claims projected to be filed against us through the generally accepted end point of such claims in 2059. Our previous estimate was for asbestos claims filed or projected to be filed through 2021. Our estimate of the asbestos liability for pending and future claims through 2059 is based on the projected future asbestos costs resulting from our experience using a range of reference periods for claims filed, settled and dismissed. Based on this estimate, we recorded an additional liability of $227 million as of December 31, 2016. This action was based on several factors which contribute to our ability to reasonably estimate this liability through 2059. First, the number of mesothelioma claims (which, although constituting approximately 10% of our total pending asbestos claims, have consistently accounted for approximately 90% of our aggregate settlement and defense costs) being filed against us and associated settlement costs have stabilized. Second, there have been generally favorable developments in the trend of case law, which has been a contributing factor in stabilizing the asbestos claims activity and related settlement costs. Third, there have been significant actions taken by certain state legislatures and courts that have reduced the number and types of claims that can proceed to trial, which has been a significant factor in stabilizing the asbestos claims activity. Fourth, recent court decisions in certain jurisdictions have provided additional clarity regarding the nature of claims that may proceed to trial in those jurisdictions and greater predictability regarding future claim activity. Fifth, we have coverage-in-place agreements with almost all of our excess insurers, which enables us to project a stable relationship between settlement and defense costs

Management has made its best estimate of the costs through 2059. Through June 30, 2019, our actual experience during the updated reference period for mesothelioma claims filed and dismissed generally approximated the assumptions in our liability estimate. In addition to this claims experience, we considered additional quantitative and qualitative factors such as the nature of the aging of pending claims, significant appellate rulings and legislative developments, and their respective effects on expected future settlement values. Based on this evaluation, we determined that no change in the estimate was warranted for the period ended June 30, 2019.

A liability of $696 million was recorded as of December 31, 2016 to cover the estimated cost of asbestos claims now pending or subsequently asserted through 2059, of which approximately 80% is attributable to settlement and defense costs for future claims projected to be filed through 2059. The liability is reduced when cash payments are made in respect of settled claims and defense costs. The liability was $491 million as of June 30, 2019. It is not possible to forecast when cash payments related to the asbestos liability will be fully expended; however, it is expected such cash payments will continue for a number of years past 2059, due to the significant proportion of future claims included in the estimated asbestos liability and the lag time between the date a claim is filed and when it is resolved. None of these estimated costs have been discounted to present value due to the inability to reliably forecast the timing of payments. The current portion of the total estimated liability at June 30, 2019 was $66 million and represents our best estimate of total asbestos costs expected to be paid during the twelve-month period. Such amount is based upon the actuarial model together with our prior year payment experience for both settlement and defense costs.

Insurance Coverage and Receivables. Prior to 2005, a significant portion of our settlement and defense costs were paid by our primary insurers. With the exhaustion of that primary coverage, we began negotiations with our excess insurers to reimburse us for a portion of our settlement and/or defense costs as incurred. To date, we have entered into agreements providing for such reimbursements, known as “coverage-in-place”, with eleven of our excess insurer groups. Under such coverage-in-place agreements, an insurer’s policies remain in force and the insurer undertakes to provide coverage for our present and future asbestos claims on specified terms and conditions that address, among other things, the share of asbestos claims costs to be paid by the insurer, payment terms, claims handling procedures and the expiration of the insurer’s obligations. Similarly, under a variant of coverage-in-place, we have entered into an agreement with a group of insurers confirming the aggregate amount of available coverage under the subject policies and setting forth a schedule for future reimbursement payments to us based on aggregate indemnity and defense payments made. In addition, with ten of our excess insurer groups, we entered into agreements settling all asbestos and other coverage obligations for an agreed sum, totaling $82.5 million in aggregate. Reimbursements from insurers for past and ongoing settlement and defense costs allocable to their policies have been made in accordance with these coverage-in-place and other agreements. All of these agreements include provisions for mutual releases, indemnification of the insurer and, for coverage-in-place, claims handling procedures. With the agreements referenced above, we have concluded settlements with all but one of our solvent excess insurers whose policies are expected to respond to the aggregate costs included in the liability estimate. That insurer, which issued a single applicable policy, has been paying the shares of defense and indemnity costs we have allocated to it, subject to a reservation of rights. There are no pending legal proceedings between us and any insurer contesting our asbestos claims under our insurance policies.

In conjunction with developing the aggregate liability estimate referenced above, we also developed an estimate of probable insurance recoveries for our asbestos liabilities. In developing this estimate, we considered our coverage-in-place and other settlement agreements described above, as well as a number of additional factors. These additional factors include the financial viability of the insurance companies, the method by which losses will be allocated to the various insurance policies and the years covered by those policies, how settlement and defense costs will be covered by the insurance policies and interpretation of the effect on coverage of various policy terms and limits and their interrelationships. In addition, the timing and amount of reimbursements will vary because our insurance coverage for asbestos claims involves multiple insurers, with different policy terms and certain gaps in coverage. In addition to consulting with legal counsel on these insurance matters, we retained insurance consultants to assist management in the estimation of probable insurance recoveries based upon the aggregate liability estimate described above and assuming the continued viability of all solvent insurance carriers. Based upon the analysis of policy terms and other factors noted above by our legal counsel, and incorporating risk mitigation judgments by us where policy terms or other factors were not certain, our insurance consultants compiled a model indicating how our historical insurance policies would respond to varying levels of asbestos settlement and defense costs and the allocation of such costs between such insurers and us. Using the estimated liability as of December 31, 2016 (for claims filed or expected to be filed through 2059), the insurance consultant’s model forecasted that approximately 21% of the liability would be reimbursed by our insurers. While there are overall limits on the aggregate amount of insurance available to us with respect to asbestos claims, those overall limits were not reached by the total estimated liability currently recorded by us, and such overall limits did not

influence us in our determination of the asset amount to record. The proportion of the asbestos liability that is allocated to certain insurance coverage years, however, exceeds the limits of available insurance in those years. We allocate to ourselves the amount of the asbestos liability (for claims filed or expected to be filed through 2059) that is in excess of available insurance coverage allocated to such years. An asset of $143 million was recorded as of December 31, 2016 representing the probable insurance reimbursement for such claims expected through 2059. The asset is reduced as reimbursements and other payments from insurers are received. The asset was $83 million as of June 30, 2019.

We review the aforementioned estimated reimbursement rate with our insurance consultants on a periodic basis in order to confirm overall consistency with our established reserves. The reviews encompass consideration of the performance of the insurers under coverage-in-place agreements and the effect of any additional lump-sum payments under other insurer agreements. Actual insurance reimbursements vary from period to period, and will decline over time, for the reasons cited above.

Uncertainties. Estimation of our ultimate exposure for asbestos-related claims is subject to significant uncertainties, as there are multiple variables that can affect the timing, severity and quantity of claims and the manner of their resolution. We caution that our estimated liability is based on assumptions with respect to future claims, settlement and defense costs based on past experience that may not prove reliable as predictors; the assumptions are interdependent and no single factor predominates in determining the liability estimate. A significant upward or downward trend in the number of claims filed, depending on the nature of the alleged injury, the jurisdiction where filed and the quality of the product identification, or a significant upward or downward trend in the costs of defending claims, could change the estimated liability, as would substantial adverse verdicts at trial that withstand appeal. A legislative solution, structured settlement transaction, or significant change in relevant case law could also change the estimated liability.

The same factors that affect developing estimates of probable settlement and defense costs for asbestos-related liabilities also affect estimates of the probable insurance reimbursements, as do a number of additional factors. These additional factors include the financial viability of the insurance companies, the method by which losses will be allocated to the various insurance policies and the years covered by those policies, how settlement and defense costs will be covered by the insurance policies and interpretation of the effect on coverage of various policy terms and limits and their interrelationships. In addition, due to the uncertainties inherent in litigation matters, no assurances can be given regarding the outcome of any litigation, if necessary, to enforce our rights under our insurance policies or settlement agreements.

Many uncertainties exist surrounding asbestos litigation, and we will continue to evaluate our estimated asbestos-related liability and corresponding estimated insurance reimbursement as well as the underlying assumptions and process used to derive these amounts. These uncertainties may result in our incurring future charges or increases to income to adjust the carrying value of recorded liabilities and assets, particularly if the number of claims and settlement and defense costs change significantly, or if there are significant developments in the trend of case law or court procedures, or if legislation or another alternative solution is implemented. Although the resolution of these claims will likely take many years, the effect on the results of operations, financial position and cash flow in any given period from a revision to these estimates could be material.

The Goodyear Site was operated by Unidynamics/Phoenix, Inc. (“UPI”), which became an indirect subsidiary in 1985 when we acquired UPI’s parent company, Unidynamics Corporation. UPI manufactured explosive and pyrotechnic compounds, including components for critical military programs, for the U.S. government at the Goodyear Site from 1962 to 1993, under contracts with the Department of Defense and other government agencies and certain of their prime contractors. In 1990, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued administrative orders requiring UPI to design and carry out certain remedial actions, which UPI has done. Groundwater extraction and treatment systems have been in operation at the Goodyear Site since 1994. On July 26, 2006, we entered into a consent decree with the EPA with respect to the Goodyear Site providing for, among other things, a work plan for further investigation and remediation activities (inclusive of a supplemental remediation investigation and feasibility study). During the third quarter of 2014, the EPA issued a Record of Decision amendment permitting, among other things, additional source area remediation resulting in us recording a charge of $49.0 million, extending the accrued costs through 2022. The total estimated gross liability was $28.5 million as of June 30, 2019, and as

On July 31, 2006, we entered into a consent decree with the U.S. Department of Justice on behalf of the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy pursuant to which, among other things, the U.S. Government reimburses us for 21% of qualifying costs of investigation and remediation activities at the Goodyear Site. As of June 30, 2019, we have recorded a receivable of $6.0 million for the expected reimbursements from the U.S. Government in respect of the aggregate liability as at that date. The receivable is reduced as reimbursements and other payments from the U.S. Government are received.

We have been identified as a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) with respect to environmental contamination at the Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Superfund Site (the “Crab Orchard Site”). The Crab Orchard Site is located near Marion, Illinois, and consists of approximately 55,000 acres. Beginning in 1941, the United States used the Crab Orchard Site for the production of ordnance and other related products for use in World War II. In 1947, about half of the Crab Orchard Site was leased to a variety of industrial tenants whose activities (which continue to this day) included manufacturing ordnance and explosives. A predecessor of us formerly leased portions of the Crab Orchard Site and conducted manufacturing operations at the Crab Orchard Site from 1952 until 1964. General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems, Inc. (“GD-OTS”) is in the process of conducting a remedial investigation and feasibility study for a portion of the Crab Orchard Site (referred to as the “AUS-OU”), which includes an area where we maintained operations, pursuant to an Administrative Order on Consent. A remedial investigation report was approved in February 2015, and work on the feasibility study is underway. It is unclear when the final feasibility study will be completed, or when a final Record of Decision may be issued.

GD-OTS has asked us to participate in a voluntary mediation exercise with respect to response costs it has incurred or will incur with respect to the AUS-OU. We and other PRPs executed a non-binding mediation agreement on March 16, 2015, and the U.S. government, following the resolution of an inter-agency dispute, executed the mediation agreement on August 6, 2015. The first phase of the mediation, involving former munitions or ordnance storage areas, began in November 2017 We understand that GD-OTS has reached an agreement-in-principle with the U.S. Government related to the first-phase sites, and that GD-OTS is negotiating with other PRPs. Discussions between us and GD-OTS, with a view toward resolving our equitable share of response costs associated with the first phase areas of concern, are in progress. We at present cannot predict whether the mediation proceeding, or the further discussions with GD-OTS, will result in an agreement, or when any determination of the allocable share of the various PRPs, including the U.S. Government, is likely to be completed. Although a loss is probable, it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the amount of any obligation for remediation of the Crab Orchard Site because the allocation among PRPs, selection of remediation alternatives, and concurrence of regulatory authorities have not yet advanced to the stage where a reasonable estimate can be made. We notified our insurers of this potential liability and have obtained coverage, subject to reservations of rights, under certain of our insurance policies.

We regularly review the status of lawsuits, claims and proceedings that have been or may be asserted against us relating to the conduct of our business, including those pertaining to product liability, patent infringement, commercial, employment, employee benefits, environmental and stockholder matters. We record a provision for a liability for such matters when it is considered probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. These provisions, if any, are reviewed quarterly and adjusted as additional information becomes available. If either or both of the criteria are not met, we assess whether there is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss, or additional losses, may have been incurred. If there is a reasonable possibility that a loss or additional loss may have been incurred for such matters, we disclose the estimate of the amount of loss or range of loss, disclose that the amount is immaterial, or disclose that an estimate of loss cannot be made, as applicable. We believe that as of June 30, 2019, there was no reasonable possibility that a material loss, or any additional material losses, may have been incurred for such matters, and that adequate provision has been made in our financial statements for the potential impact of all such matters.