COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Financial Commitments

The Company provides indemnifications and other guarantees in the ordinary course of business, the terms of which range in duration and often are not explicitly defined. Specifically, the Company is occasionally required to provide letters of credit and bid and performance bonds to various customers, principally to act as security for retention levels related to casualty insurance policies and to guarantee the performance of subsidiaries that engage in export and domestic transactions. At September 30, 2016, the Company had outstanding performance and financial standby letters of credit, as well as outstanding bid and performance bonds, aggregating $23.7 million. If any such letters of credit or bonds are called, the Company would be obligated to reimburse the issuer of the letter of credit or bond. The Company believes the likelihood of any currently outstanding letter of credit or bond being called is remote.

In addition, prior to the June 3, 2016 acquisition date, JJE entered into certain transactions involving the sale of equipment to certain of its customers which included (i) guarantees to repurchase the equipment for a fixed price at a future date and (ii) guarantees to repurchase the equipment from the third-party lender in the event of default by the customer. As of September 30, 2016, the single year and maximum potential cash payments the Company could be required to make to repurchase equipment under these agreements were $1.5 million and $3.6 million, respectively. The Company’s risk under these repurchase arrangements would be partially mitigated by the value of the products repurchased as part of the transaction. In addition, the former owners of JJE have agreed to reimburse the Company for certain losses incurred resulting from the requirement to repurchase any such equipment. Any such reimbursement would be withheld from the C$8.0 million deferred payment to be made on the third anniversary of the acquisition date. In the preliminary purchase price allocation, described further in Note 2 – Acquisitions, the Company has included an immaterial accrual for potential losses related to the repurchase exposures associated with JJE’s historical practices. The Company’s repurchase accrual represents the expected losses that could result from obligations to repurchase products, after giving effect to proceeds anticipated to be received from the resale of those products to alternative customers, as well as to the reimbursement of any losses incurred. The Company has recorded its estimated net liability associated with losses from these guarantee and repurchase obligations on its Consolidated Balance Sheet based on historical experience and current facts and circumstances. Historical cash requirements and losses associated with these obligations have not been significant, but could increase if customer defaults exceed current expectations.

Product Warranties

The Company issues product performance warranties to customers with the sale of its products. The specific terms and conditions of these warranties vary depending upon the product sold and country in which the Company does business, with warranty periods generally ranging from one to five years. The Company estimates the costs that may be incurred under its basic limited warranty and records a liability in the amount of such costs at the time the sale of the related product is recognized. Factors that affect the Company’s warranty liability include (i) the number of units under warranty, (ii) historical and anticipated rates of warranty claims and (iii) costs per claim. The Company periodically assesses the adequacy of its recorded warranty liabilities and adjusts the amounts as necessary.

The following table summarizes the changes in the Company’s warranty liabilities:



(in millions)	2016			2015
Balance at January 1	$	7.4		$	7.7
Provisions to expense	4.0			4.5
Payments	(4.7		)	(4.6		)
Balance at September 30	$	6.7		$	7.6

Environmental Liabilities

Reserves of $0.6 million and $0.9 million related to the environmental remediation of the Pearland, Texas facility are included in liabilities of discontinued operations on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively. The facility was previously used by the Company’s discontinued Pauluhn business and manufactured marine, offshore and industrial lighting products. The Company sold the facility in May 2012 and while the Company has not finalized its plans, it is probable that the site will require remediation. The recorded reserves are based on an undiscounted estimate of the range of costs to remediate the site, depending upon the remediation approach and other factors. The Company’s estimate may change in the near-term as more information becomes available; however, the costs are not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, financial position or cash flow.

Legal Proceedings

The Company is subject to various claims, including pending and possible legal actions for product liability and other damages, and other matters arising in the ordinary course of the Company’s business. On a quarterly basis, the Company reviews uninsured material legal claims against the Company and accrues for the costs of such claims as appropriate in the exercise of management’s best judgment and experience. However, due to a lack of factual information available to the Company about a claim, or the procedural stage of a claim, it may not be possible for the Company to reasonably assess either the probability of a favorable or unfavorable outcome of the claim or to reasonably estimate the amount of loss should there be an unfavorable outcome. Therefore, for many claims, the Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss.

The Company believes, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that the outcome of such claims and actions will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations or financial condition. However, in the event of unexpected future developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of such matters, if unfavorable, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, financial condition or cash flow.

Hearing Loss Litigation

The Company has been sued for monetary damages by firefighters who claim that exposure to the Company’s sirens has impaired their hearing and that the sirens are therefore defective. There were 33 cases filed during the period of 1999 through 2004, involving a total of 2,443 plaintiffs, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. These cases involved more than 1,800 firefighter plaintiffs from locations outside of Chicago. In 2009, six additional cases were filed in Cook County, involving 299 Pennsylvania firefighter plaintiffs. During 2013, another case was filed in Cook County involving 74 Pennsylvania firefighter plaintiffs.

The trial of the first 27 of these plaintiffs’ claims occurred in 2008, whereby a Cook County jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the Company.

An additional 40 Chicago firefighter plaintiffs were selected for trial in 2009. Plaintiffs’ counsel later moved to reduce the number of plaintiffs from 40 to nine. The trial for these nine plaintiffs concluded with a verdict against the Company and for the plaintiffs in varying amounts totaling $0.4 million. The Company appealed this verdict. On September 13, 2012, the Illinois Appellate Court rejected this appeal. The Company thereafter filed a petition for rehearing with the Illinois Appellate Court, which was denied on February 7, 2013. The Company sought further review by filing a petition for leave to appeal with the Illinois Supreme Court on March 14, 2013. On May 29, 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court issued a summary order declining to accept review of this case. On July 1, 2013, the Company satisfied the judgments entered for these plaintiffs, which has resulted in final dismissal of these cases.

A third consolidated trial involving eight Chicago firefighter plaintiffs occurred during November 2011. The jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the Company at the conclusion of this trial.

Following this trial, on March 12, 2012 the trial court entered an order certifying a class of the remaining Chicago Fire Department firefighter plaintiffs for trial on the sole issue of whether the Company’s sirens were defective and unreasonably dangerous. The Company petitioned the Illinois Appellate Court for interlocutory appeal of this ruling. On May 17, 2012, the Illinois Appellate Court accepted the Company’s petition. On June 8, 2012, plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeal, agreeing with the Company that the trial court had erred in certifying a class action trial in this matter. Pursuant to plaintiffs’ motion, the Illinois Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s certification order.

Thereafter, the trial court scheduled a fourth consolidated trial involving three firefighter plaintiffs, which began in December 2012. Prior to the start of this trial, the claims of two of the three firefighter plaintiffs were dismissed. On December 17, 2012, the jury entered a complete defense verdict for the Company.

Following this defense verdict, plaintiffs again moved to certify a class of Chicago Fire Department plaintiffs for trial on the sole issue of whether the Company’s sirens were defective and unreasonably dangerous. Over the Company’s objection, the trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification on March 11, 2013 and scheduled a class action trial to begin on June 10, 2013. The Company filed a petition for review with the Illinois Appellate Court on March 29, 2013 seeking reversal of the class certification order.

On June 25, 2014, a unanimous three-judge panel of the First District Illinois Appellate Court issued its opinion reversing the class certification order of the trial court. Specifically, the Appellate Court determined that the trial court’s ruling failed to satisfy the class-action requirements that the common issues of the firefighters’ claims predominate over the individual issues and that there is an adequate representative for the class. During a status hearing on October 8, 2014, plaintiffs represented to the Court that they would again seek to certify a class of firefighters on the issue of whether the Company’s sirens were defective and unreasonably dangerous. On January 12, 2015, plaintiffs filed motions to amend their complaints to add class action allegations with respect to Chicago firefighter plaintiffs as well as the approximately 1,800 firefighter plaintiffs from locations outside of Chicago. On March 11, 2015, the trial court granted plaintiff’s motions to amend their complaints. Plaintiffs have indicated that they will now file motions to certify classes in these cases. On April 24, 2015, the cases were transferred to Cook County chancery court, which will decide all class certification issues. The Company intends to continue its objections to any attempt at certification. The Company also has filed motions to dismiss cases involving firefighters located outside of Cook County based on improper venue. Plaintiffs have requested discovery from the Company related to these venue motions. The Court has scheduled oral argument on these venue motions for December 5, 2016.

The Company has also been sued on this issue outside of the Cook County, Illinois venue. Many of these cases have involved lawsuits filed by a single attorney in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. During 2007 and through 2009, this attorney filed a total of 71 lawsuits involving 71 plaintiffs in this jurisdiction. Three of these cases were dismissed pursuant to pretrial motions filed by the Company. Another case was voluntarily dismissed. Prior to trial in four cases, the Company paid nominal sums to obtain dismissals.

Three trials occurred in Philadelphia involving these cases filed in 2007 through 2009. The first trial involving one of these plaintiffs occurred in 2010, when the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. In particular, the jury found that the Company’s siren was not defectively designed, but that the Company negligently constructed the siren. The jury awarded damages in the amount of $0.1 million, which was subsequently reduced to $0.08 million. The Company appealed this verdict. Another trial, involving nine Philadelphia firefighter plaintiffs, also occurred in 2010 when the jury returned a defense verdict for the Company as to all claims and all plaintiffs involved in that trial. The third trial, also involving nine Philadelphia firefighter plaintiffs, was completed during 2010 when the jury returned a defense verdict for the Company as to all claims and all plaintiffs involved in that trial.

Following defense verdicts in the last two Philadelphia trials, the Company negotiated settlements with respect to all remaining filed cases in Philadelphia at that time, as well as other firefighter claimants represented by the attorney who filed the Philadelphia cases. On January 4, 2011, the Company entered into a Global Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) with the law firm of the attorney representing the Philadelphia claimants, on behalf of 1,125 claimants the firm represented (the “Claimants”) and who had asserted product claims against the Company (the “Claims”). Three hundred eight of the Claimants had lawsuits pending against the Company in Cook County, Illinois.

The Settlement Agreement, as amended, provided that the Company pay a total amount of $3.8 million (the “Settlement Payment”) to settle the Claims (including the costs, fees and other expenses of the law firm in connection with its representation of the Claimants), subject to certain terms, conditions and procedures set forth in the Settlement Agreement. In order for the Company to be required to make the Settlement Payment: (i) each Claimant who agreed to settle his or her claims had to sign a release acceptable to the Company (a “Release”), (ii) each Claimant who agreed to the settlement and who was a plaintiff in a lawsuit, had to dismiss his or her lawsuit with prejudice, (iii) by April 29, 2011, at least 93% of the Claimants identified in the Settlement Agreement must have agreed to settle their claims and provide a signed Release to the Company and (iv) the law firm had to withdraw from representing any Claimants who did not agree to the settlement, including those who filed lawsuits. If the conditions to the settlement were met, but less than 100% of the Claimants agreed to settle their Claims and sign a Release, the Settlement Payment would be reduced by the percentage of Claimants who did not agree to the settlement.

On April 22, 2011, the Company confirmed that the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement had been met and made a payment of $3.6 million to conclude the settlement. The amount was based upon the Company’s receipt of 1,069 signed releases provided by Claimants, which was 95.02% of all Claimants identified in the Settlement Agreement.

The Company generally denies the allegations made in the claims and lawsuits by the Claimants and denies that its products caused any injuries to the Claimants. Nonetheless, the Company entered into the Settlement Agreement for the purpose of minimizing its expenses, including legal fees, and avoiding the inconvenience, uncertainty and distraction of the claims and lawsuits.

During April through October 2012, 20 new cases were filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. These cases were filed on behalf of 20 Philadelphia firefighters and involve various defendants in addition to the Company. Five of these cases were subsequently dismissed. The first trial involving these 2012 Philadelphia cases occurred during December 2014 and involved three firefighter plaintiffs. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Company. Following this trial, all of the parties agreed to settle cases involving seven firefighter plaintiffs set for trial during January 2015 for nominal amounts per plaintiff. In January 2015, plaintiffs’ attorneys filed two new complaints in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on behalf of approximately 70 additional firefighter plaintiffs. The vast majority of the firefighters identified in these complaints are located outside of Pennsylvania. One of the complaints in these cases, which involves 11 firefighter plaintiffs from the District of Columbia, was removed to federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all claims in this case on May 31, 2016. With respect to claims of other out-of-state firefighters involved in these two cases, the Company moved to dismiss these claims as improperly filed in Pennsylvania. The Court granted this motion and dismissed these claims on November 5, 2015. During August through December 2015, another nine new cases were filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. These cases involve a total of 193 firefighters, most of whom are located outside of Pennsylvania. The Company again moved to dismiss all claims filed by out-of-state firefighters in these cases as improperly filed in Pennsylvania. On May 24, 2016, the Court granted this motion and dismissed these claims. Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal regarding this decision. On May 13, 2016, four new cases were filed in Philadelphia state court, involving a total of 55 Philadelphia firefighters who live in Pennsylvania. During August 2016, the Company settled a case involving four Philadelphia firefighters that had been set for trial in Philadelphia state court during September 2016.

During April through July 2013, additional cases were filed in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. These cases involve 247 plaintiff firefighters from Pittsburgh and various defendants, including the Company. After the Company filed pretrial motions, the Court dismissed claims of 55 Pittsburgh firefighter plaintiffs. The first trials of these Pittsburgh firefighters were scheduled to occur in May, September and November 2016. Each trial will involve eight firefighters. On April 14, 2016, the Court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment regarding strict liability claims asserted by all plaintiff firefighters involved in the initial trial scheduled for May 2016. The Company also has moved to dismiss remaining negligence claims asserted by these firefighters. It is anticipated that the Court will rule on this motion sometime during 2016. The next trial involving six Pittsburgh firefighters has been scheduled to start on November 7, 2016. During March 2014, an action also was brought in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, Pennsylvania on behalf of 61 firefighters. This case likewise involves various defendants in addition to the Company. After the Company filed pretrial motions, 33 Erie County firefighter plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims.

On September 17, 2014, 20 lawsuits, involving a total of 193 Buffalo Fire Department firefighters, were filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Erie County. Several product manufacturers, including the Company, have been named as defendants in these cases. All of the cases filed in Erie County, New York have been removed to federal court in the Western District of New York. During February 2015, a lawsuit involving one New York City firefighter plaintiff was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. The plaintiff named the Company as well as several other parties as defendants. That case has been transferred to federal court in the Northern District of New York. Plaintiffs agreed to voluntarily dismiss this case during May 2016. The Company also is aware that a lawsuit involving eight New York City firefighters was filed in New York County, New York, on April 24, 2015. The Company has not yet been served in that case. During November 2015 through January 2016, 28 new cases involving a total of 227 firefighters were filed in various counties in the New York City area. A total of 428 firefighters are currently involved in cases filed in the state of New York.

During November 2015, the Company was served with a complaint filed in Union County, New Jersey state court, involving 34 New Jersey firefighters. This case has been transferred to federal court in the District of New Jersey. During the period from January through May 2016, eight additional cases were filed in various New Jersey state courts. Most of the firefighters in these cases reside in New Jersey and work or worked at New Jersey fire departments. A total of 104 firefighters are currently involved in cases filed in New Jersey.

From 2007 through 2009, firefighters also brought hearing loss claims against the Company in New Jersey, Missouri, Maryland and Kings County, New York. All of those cases, however, were dismissed prior to trial, including four cases in the Supreme Court of Kings County, New York that were dismissed upon the Company’s motion in 2008. On appeal, the New York appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of these cases. Plaintiffs’ attorneys have threatened to file additional lawsuits. The Company intends to vigorously defend all of these lawsuits, if filed.

The Company’s ongoing negotiations with its insurer, CNA, over insurance coverage on these claims have resulted in reimbursements of a portion of the Company’s defense costs. These reimbursements are recorded as a reduction of corporate operating expenses. For the nine months ended September 30, 2016 and 2015, the Company recorded $0.2 million and $0.2 million of reimbursements from CNA related to legal costs, respectively.

Latvian Commercial Dispute

On June 12, 2014, a Latvian trial court issued a summary ruling against the Company’s former Bronto subsidiary in a lawsuit relating to a commercial dispute. The dispute involves a transaction for the 2008 sale of three Bronto units that were purchased by a financing company for lease to a Latvian fire department. The lessor and the Latvian fire department sought to rescind the contract after delivery, despite the fact that an independent third party, selected by the lessor, had certified that the vehicles satisfied the terms of the contract. The adverse judgment required Bronto to refund the purchase price and pay interest and attorneys’ fees. The trial court denied the lessor’s claim against Bronto for alleged damages relating to lost lease income.

Believing that the claims against Bronto were invalid and that Bronto fully satisfied the terms of the subject contract, on July 10, 2014, the Company filed an appeal with the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Latvia seeking a reversal of the trial court’s ruling.

At December 31, 2015, the Company had not accrued any liability within its consolidated financial statements for this lawsuit. In evaluating whether a charge to record a reserve was previously necessary, the Company analyzed all of the available information, including the legal reasoning applied by the judge of the trial court in reaching its decision. Based on the Company’s analysis, and consultations with external counsel, the Company assessed the likelihood of a successful appeal to be more likely than not and therefore did not believe that a probable loss had been incurred.

In connection with the sale of Bronto to Morita Holdings Corporation (“Morita”), discussed further in Note 15 – Discontinued Operations, the Company and Morita agreed that the Company would remain in control of negotiations and proceedings relating to the appeal and fund the legal costs associated therewith. The Company also agreed to compensate Morita for 50% of any liability resulting from a final and non-appealable decision of a court of competent jurisdiction, net of any actual income tax benefit to Bronto as a result of the judgment, and less 50% of legal fees incurred by the Company, relating to the defense of this matter, subsequent to the January 29, 2016 closing date of the sale.

In April 2016, the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Latvia heard the Company’s appeal and upheld the trial court’s ruling against Bronto. As the Company’s appeal of the trial judgment was unsuccessful, a charge of $1.5 million was recorded as a component of Gain from discontinued operations and disposal, net of tax in the nine months ended September 30, 2016, to reflect the Company’s share of the liability. The Company has decided not to further appeal the Supreme Court’s ruling and expects to pay the aforementioned compensation to Morita during the fourth quarter of 2016.