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 Supreme Court, which defendants opposed. By order dated June 21, 2017, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied plaintiffs’ petition for leave to appeal. The case was set for a new trial in April 2018. We settled the matter. The settlement was reflected in the second quarter 2018 indemnity amount.

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 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 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 three months ended March 31, 2020 and 2019 totaled $12.6 million and $26.5 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 three months ended March 31, 2020 and 2019 totaled $11.7 million and $9.7 million, respectively. Detailed below are the comparable amounts for the periods indicated.

Cumulatively through March 31, 2020, we have resolved (by settlement or dismissal) approximately 139,000 claims. The related settlement cost incurred by us and our insurance carriers is approximately $650 million, for an average settlement cost per resolved claim of approximately $4,700. The average settlement cost per claim resolved during the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017 was $15,800, $11,300, and $7,800, 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 consider 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. In June 2016, the New York State Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Dummitt v. Crane Co., affirming a 2012 verdict for $4.9 million against us. In that opinion, the court ruled that in certain circumstances we are legally responsible for asbestos-containing materials made and sold by third parties that others attached post-sale to our equipment. This decision provided clarity regarding the nature of claims that may proceed to trial in New York and greater predictability regarding future claim activity. We also reflected the impact of the Dummitt decision on our expected settlement values. Accordingly, on December 31, 2016 we updated and extended our asbestos liability estimate through 2059, the generally accepted end point.

Following our experience in the tort system post the Dummitt decision, we entered into several, increasingly similar, group settlements with various plaintiff firms, the most recent of which was in the fourth quarter of 2019. We expect this new trend of these types of group settlements to continue, and accordingly, effective as of December 31, 2019, we updated our estimate of the asbestos liability, including revised 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 same expected end point of 2059. 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 $255 million as of December 31, 2019.

An aggregate liability of $712 million is recorded as of December 31, 2019 to cover the estimated cost of asbestos claims now pending or subsequently asserted through 2059, of which approximately 85% 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 $696 million as of March 31, 2020. 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 December 31, 2019 and March 31, 2020 is $65 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.

We have made our best estimate of the costs through 2059. Through March 31, 2020, 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 March 31, 2020.

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 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 two of our solvent excess insurers with policies expected to respond to the aggregate costs included in the liability estimate. The first such insurer, which issued a single applicable policy, has been paying for many years the shares of defense and indemnity costs we have allocated to it, subject to a reservation of rights. The second insurer issued a single applicable policy in a layer of coverage that we do not anticipate reaching until many years from now, and, prior to the policy being reached, we anticipate opening a dialogue with that insurer about the execution of a suitable agreement. 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 updated liability estimate referenced above, we also developed an updated 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 several 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. 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, 2019 (for claims filed or expected to be filed through 2059), the insurance consultant’s model forecasted that approximately 14% 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, certain limits were not reached by the total estimated liability currently recorded by us, and such overall limits did not influence our determination of the asset amount to record. 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 $98 million was recorded as of December 31, 2019 representing the probable insurance reimbursement for claims expected through 2059. The asset is reduced as reimbursements and other payments from insurers are received. The asset was $94 million as of March 31, 2020.

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 (“ROD”) 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. Following the 2014 ROD amendment, we continued our remediation activities and explored an alternative strategy to accelerate remediation of the site. During the fourth quarter of 2019, we received conceptual agreement from the EPA on our alternative remediation strategy which is expected to further reduce the contaminant plume. Accordingly, we recorded a pre-tax charge of $18.9 million, net of reimbursements, to extend our forecast period through 2027 and reflect our revised workplan. The total estimated gross liability was $44.2 million as of March 31, 2020, and as described below, a portion is reimbursable by the U.S. Government. The current portion of the total estimated liability was $10.9 million as of March 31, 2020 and represents our best estimate, in consultation with our technical advisors, of total remediation costs expected to be paid during the twelve-month period. It is not possible at this point to reasonably estimate the amount of any obligation in excess of our current accruals through the 2027 forecast period because of the aforementioned uncertainties, in particular, the continued significant changes in the Goodyear Site conditions and additional expectations of remediation activities experienced in recent years.

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, multi-party 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 executed the mediation agreement on August 6, 2015. The first phase of the mediation, involving certain former munitions or ordnance storage areas, began in November 2017, but did not result in a multi-party settlement agreement. Subsequently, we entered into discussions directly with GD-OTS and reached an agreement-in-principle with GD-OTS to contribute toward GD-OTS’s past RI-FS costs associated with the first-phase areas for a non-material amount. We have also agreed to pay a modest percentage of future RI-FS costs and the United States’ claimed past response costs relative to the first-phase areas, a sum that we expect in the aggregate to be immaterial. We understand that GD-OTS has also reached an agreement-in-principle with the U.S. Government and certain other PRPs related to the first-phase areas of concern, and that GD-OTS is negotiating with other PRPs. Negotiations are underway with respect to resolution of the remaining areas of the site, including those portions of the Crab Orchard Site where our predecessor conducted manufacturing and research activities. We at present cannot predict whether these further negotiations will result in an agreement, or when any determination of the ultimate allocable shares of the various PRPs, including the U.S. Government, is likely to be completed. It is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the total amount of any obligation for remediation of the Crab Orchard Site as a whole 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 defense and indemnity 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 March 31, 2020, 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.