XML 36 R20.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.20.4
Commitments And Contingencies
 12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments And Contingencies Note 12 - Commitments and Contingencies
Asbestos Liability
Information Regarding Claims and Costs in the Tort System
As of December 31, 2020, we were a defendant in cases filed in numerous state and federal courts alleging injury or death as a result of exposure to asbestos. Activity related to asbestos claims during the periods indicated was as follows:
For the year ended December 31,202020192018
Beginning claims29,056 29,089 32,234 
New claims2,620 2,848 2,434 
Settlements(885)(983)(1,011)
Dismissals(1,653)(1,898)(4,568)
Ending claims29,138 29,056 29,089 

Of the 29,138 pending claims as of December 31, 2020, approximately 18,000 claims were pending in New York of which approximately 16,000 are non-malignancy claims that were filed over 15 years ago and have been inactive under New York court orders.
We have tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts by the jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court. We further have pursued appeals of certain adverse jury verdicts that have resulted in reversals in favor of the defense. We have also tried several other cases resulting in plaintiff verdicts which we paid or settled after unsuccessful appeals, the most recent of which are described below.
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 in 2018. 
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.  
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 in 2018. 
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 in 2018. 
Such judgment amounts were not included in our incurred costs until all available appeals were exhausted and the final payment amount was determined.
The gross settlement and defense costs incurred (before insurance recoveries and tax effects) by us for the years ended December 31, 2020, 2019 and 2018 totaled $50.9 million, $66.2 million and $88.8 million, respectively. Results for 2020 were impacted by court closures and significantly reduced trial related activity in jurisdictions throughout the United States due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Assuming a successful and comprehensive implementation of a COVID-19 vaccine program, we expect activity in the tort system to begin returning to a more normal pace in the second half of 2021. 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 years ended December 31, 2020, 2019 and 2018 totaled $31.1 million, $41.5 million and $63.9 million, respectively. Detailed below are the comparable amounts for the periods indicated.
(in millions)
For the year ended December 31,202020192018
Settlement / indemnity costs incurred (a)
$35.3 $45.5 $63.0 
Defense costs incurred (a)
15.6 20.7 25.8 
Total costs incurred$50.9 $66.2 $88.8 
Settlement / indemnity payments$24.7 $38.9 $61.5 
Defense payments16.7 21.4 26.5 
Insurance receipts(10.3)(18.8)(24.1)
Pre-tax cash payments, net$31.1 $41.5 $63.9 
(a)Before insurance recoveries and tax effects.
Other Contingencies
Environmental Matters

For environmental matters, we record a liability for estimated remediation costs when it is probable that we will be responsible for such costs and they can be reasonably estimated. Generally, third party specialists assist in the estimation of remediation costs. The environmental remediation liability as of December 31, 2020 is substantially related to the former manufacturing site in Goodyear, Arizona (the “Goodyear Site”) discussed below.
Goodyear Site
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, in 2019, 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 $39.8 million and $46.9 million as of December 31, 2020 and 2019, respectively 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 December 31, 2020 and 2019 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.

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 December 31, 2020 and 2019, we recorded a receivable of $7.8 million and $9.7 million, respectively 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.
Other Environmental Matters
Marion, IL Site
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 (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 agreements-in-principle with the U.S. Government and the other participating PRPs related to the first-phase areas of concern. Negotiations between GD-OTS and the U.S. Government 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.
Roseland, NJ Site
The Roseland Site was operated by Resistoflex Corporation (“Resistoflex”), which became an indirect subsidiary of the Company in 1985 when the Company acquired Resistoflex’s parent company, UniDynamics Corporation. Resistoflex manufactured specialty lined pipe and fittings at the site from the 1950s until it was closed in the mid-1980s. The Company undertook an extensive soil remediation effort at the Roseland Site following its closure and had been monitoring the Site’s condition in the years that followed. In response to changes in remediation standards, the Company in 2014 began to conduct further site characterization and delineation studies at the Site. The Company is in the late stages of its remediation activities at the Site, which includes a comprehensive delineation of contaminants of concern in soil, groundwater, surface water, sediment, and indoor air testing, all in accordance with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”) guidelines and directives.

Other Proceedings
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 December 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.