COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2018
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	15. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The Company is subject to various claims and contingencies related to, among other things, workers’ compensation, labor and employment, general liability (including product liability), automobile claims, health care claims, environmental matters and lawsuits. The Company is also subject to various claims and contingencies related to income taxes, which are discussed in Note 12. The Company also has contractual obligations including lease commitments, which are discussed in Note 13. The Company records liabilities where a contingent loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated. If the reasonable estimate of a probable loss is a range, the Company records the most probable estimate of the loss or the minimum amount when no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount. The Company discloses a contingent liability even if the liability is not probable or the amount is not estimable, or both, if there is a reasonable possibility that a material loss may have been incurred. Insurance Globally, the Company has insurance policies with varying deductible levels for property and casualty losses. The Company is insured for losses in excess of these deductibles, subject to policy terms and conditions and has recorded both a liability and an offsetting receivable for amounts in excess of these deductibles. The Company is self-insured for health care claims for eligible participating employees, subject to certain deductibles and limitations. The Company determines its liabilities for claims on an actuarial basis. Litigation and Environmental Matters The Company and certain subsidiaries are party to various lawsuits, claims and environmental actions that have arisen in the ordinary course of business. These include from time to time antitrust, commercial, patent infringement, product liability and wage hour lawsuits, as well as possible obligations to investigate and mitigate the effects on the environment of the disposal or release of certain chemical substances at various sites, such as Superfund sites and other operating or closed facilities. The Company has established accruals for certain lawsuits, claims and environmental matters. The Company currently believes that there is not a reasonably possible risk of material loss in excess of the amounts accrued related to these legal matters. Because litigation is inherently uncertain, and unfavorable rulings or developments could occur, there can be no certainty that the Company may not ultimately incur charges in excess of recorded liabilities. A future adverse ruling, settlement or unfavorable development could result in future charges that could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations or cash flows in the period in which they are recorded. The Company currently believes that such future charges related to suits and legal claims, if any, would not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position. Environmental Matters The Company is currently participating in environmental assessments and remediation at approximately 40 locations, the majority of which are in the U.S., and environmental liabilities have been accrued reflecting management’s best estimate of future costs. Potential insurance reimbursements are not anticipated in the Company’s accruals for environmental liabilities. Matters Related to Deepwater Horizon Incident Response On April 22, 2010, the deep water drilling platform, the Deepwater Horizon, operated by a subsidiary of BP plc, sank in the Gulf of Mexico after a catastrophic explosion and fire that began on April 20, 2010. A massive oil spill resulted. Approximately one week following the incident, subsidiaries of BP plc, under the authorization of the responding federal agencies, formally requested Nalco Company, now an indirect subsidiary of Ecolab, to supply large quantities of COREXIT® 9500, a Nalco oil dispersant product listed on the U.S. EPA National Contingency Plan Product Schedule. Nalco Company responded immediately by providing available COREXIT and increasing production to supply the product to BP’s subsidiaries for use, as authorized and directed by agencies of the federal government throughout the incident. Prior to the incident, Nalco and its subsidiaries had not provided products or services or otherwise had any involvement with the Deepwater Horizon platform. On July 15, 2010, BP announced that it had capped the leaking well, and the application of dispersants by the responding parties ceased shortly thereafter. On May 1, 2010, the President appointed retired U.S. Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Thad Allen to serve as the National Incident Commander in charge of the coordination of the response to the incident at the national level. The EPA directed numerous tests of all the dispersants on the National Contingency Plan Product Schedule, including those provided by Nalco Company, “to ensure decisions about ongoing dispersant use in the Gulf of Mexico are grounded in the best available science.” Nalco Company cooperated with this testing process and continued to supply COREXIT, as requested by BP and government authorities. The use of dispersants by the responding parties was one tool used by the government and BP to avoid and reduce damage to the Gulf area from the spill. In connection with its provision of COREXIT, Nalco Company has been named in several lawsuits as described below. Cases arising out of the Deepwater Horizon accident were administratively transferred for pre-trial purposes to a judge in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana with other related cases under In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, Case No. 10-md-02179 (E.D. La.) (“MDL 2179”). Nalco Company was named, along with other unaffiliated defendants, in six putative class action complaints related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and 21 complaints filed by individuals. Those complaints were consolidated in MDL 2179. The complaints generally allege, among other things, strict liability and negligence relating to the use of our Corexit dispersant in connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Pursuant to orders issued by the Court in MDL 2179, the claims were consolidated in several master complaints, including one naming Nalco Company and others who responded to the Gulf Oil Spill (known as the “B3 Master Complaint”). On May 18, 2012, Nalco filed a motion for summary judgment against the claims in the “B3” Master Complaint, on the grounds that: (i) Plaintiffs’ claims are preempted by the comprehensive oil spill response scheme set forth in the Clean Water Act and National Contingency Plan; and (ii) Nalco is entitled to derivative immunity from suit. On November 28, 2012, the Court granted Nalco’s motion and dismissed with prejudice the claims in the “B3” Master Complaint asserted against Nalco. The Court held that such claims were preempted by the Clean Water Act and National Contingency Plan. Because claims in the “B3” Master Complaint remained pending against other defendants, the Court’s decision was not a “final judgment” for purposes of appeal. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a), plaintiffs will have 30 days after entry of final judgment to appeal the Court’s decision. In December 2012 and January 2013, the MDL 2179 court issued final orders approving two settlements between BP and Plaintiffs’ Class Counsel: (1) a proposed Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement; and (2) a proposed Economic and Property Damages Class Action Settlement. Pursuant to the proposed settlements, class members agree to release claims against BP and other released parties, including Nalco Company and its related entities. Nalco Company, the incident defendants and the other responder defendants have been named as first party defendants by Transocean Deepwater Drilling, Inc. and its affiliates (the “Transocean Entities”) (In re the Complaint and Petition of Triton Asset Leasing GmbH, et al, MDL No. 2179, Civil Action 10-2771). In April and May 2011, the Transocean Entities, Cameron International Corporation, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., M-I L.L.C., Weatherford U.S., L.P. and Weatherford International, Inc. (collectively, the “Cross Claimants”) filed cross claims in MDL 2179 against Nalco Company and other unaffiliated cross defendants. The Cross Claimants generally allege, among other things, that if they are found liable for damages resulting from the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill and/or spill response, they are entitled to indemnity or contribution from the cross defendants. In April and June 2011, in support of its defense of the claims against it, Nalco Company filed counterclaims against the Cross Claimants. In its counterclaims, Nalco Company generally alleges that if it is found liable for damages resulting from the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill and/or spill response, it is entitled to contribution or indemnity from the Cross Claimants. In May 2016, Nalco was named in nine additional complaints filed by individuals alleging, among other things, business and economic loss resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (“B1” claims). In April 2017, Nalco was named in two additional complaints filed by individuals seeking, among other things, business and economic loss resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits generally sought awards of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. These actions were consolidated in the MDL and the Company expects they will be dismissed pursuant to the Court’s November 28, 2012 order granting Nalco’s motion for summary judgment. On February 22, 2017, the Court dismissed the “B3” Master Complaint and ordered that Plaintiffs who had previously filed a claim that fell within the scope of the “B3” Master Complaint and who had “opted out” of and not released their claims under the Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement either: (1) complete a sworn statement indicating, among other things, that they opted out of the Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement (to be completed by Plaintiffs who previously filed an individual complaint); or (2) file an individual lawsuit attaching the sworn statement as an exhibit, by a deadline date set by the Court. On July 10, 2018, the Court entered an order dismissing the “B1” claims against Nalco. In light of the Court’s orders dismissing various “B3” and “B1” claims in their entirety, for most plaintiffs the Court’s November 28, 2012 grant of summary judgment for Nalco is now final and the deadline to appeal has passed. On October 23, 2018, a plaintiff filed a new “B3” complaint against Nalco and other unaffiliated defendants generally alleging, among other things, negligence and gross negligence related to the use of Corexit dispersant in connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The complaint was consolidated in the MDL. There currently remain nine cases pending against Nalco, all of which are expected to ultimately be dismissed pursuant to the Court’s November 28, 2012 order granting Nalco’s motion for summary judgment. The Company believes the claims asserted against Nalco Company are without merit and intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously. The Company also believes that it has rights to contribution and/or indemnification (including legal expenses) from third parties. However, the Company cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits, the involvement it might have in these matters in the future, or the potential for future litigation.

15. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Company is subject to various claims and contingencies related to, among other things, workers’ compensation, labor and employment, general liability (including product liability), automobile claims, health care claims, environmental matters and lawsuits. The Company is also subject to various claims and contingencies related to income taxes, which are discussed in Note 12. The Company also has contractual obligations including lease commitments, which are discussed in Note 13.

The Company records liabilities where a contingent loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated. If the reasonable estimate of a probable loss is a range, the Company records the most probable estimate of the loss or the minimum amount when no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount. The Company discloses a contingent liability even if the liability is not probable or the amount is not estimable, or both, if there is a reasonable possibility that a material loss may have been incurred.

Insurance

Globally, the Company has insurance policies with varying deductible levels for property and casualty losses. The Company is insured for losses in excess of these deductibles, subject to policy terms and conditions and has recorded both a liability and an offsetting receivable for amounts in excess of these deductibles. The Company is self-insured for health care claims for eligible participating employees, subject to certain deductibles and limitations. The Company determines its liabilities for claims on an actuarial basis.

Litigation and Environmental Matters

The Company and certain subsidiaries are party to various lawsuits, claims and environmental actions that have arisen in the ordinary course of business. These include from time to time antitrust, commercial, patent infringement, product liability and wage hour lawsuits, as well as possible obligations to investigate and mitigate the effects on the environment of the disposal or release of certain chemical substances at various sites, such as Superfund sites and other operating or closed facilities. The Company has established accruals for certain lawsuits, claims and environmental matters. The Company currently believes that there is not a reasonably possible risk of material loss in excess of the amounts accrued related to these legal matters. Because litigation is inherently uncertain, and unfavorable rulings or developments could occur, there can be no certainty that the Company may not ultimately incur charges in excess of recorded liabilities. A future adverse ruling, settlement or unfavorable development could result in future charges that could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations or cash flows in the period in which they are recorded. The Company currently believes that such future charges related to suits and legal claims, if any, would not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position.

Environmental Matters

The Company is currently participating in environmental assessments and remediation at approximately 40 locations, the majority of which are in the U.S., and environmental liabilities have been accrued reflecting management’s best estimate of future costs. Potential insurance reimbursements are not anticipated in the Company’s accruals for environmental liabilities.

Matters Related to Deepwater Horizon Incident Response

On April 22, 2010, the deep water drilling platform, the Deepwater Horizon, operated by a subsidiary of BP plc, sank in the Gulf of Mexico after a catastrophic explosion and fire that began on April 20, 2010. A massive oil spill resulted. Approximately one week following the incident, subsidiaries of BP plc, under the authorization of the responding federal agencies, formally requested Nalco Company, now an indirect subsidiary of Ecolab, to supply large quantities of COREXIT® 9500, a Nalco oil dispersant product listed on the U.S. EPA National Contingency Plan Product Schedule. Nalco Company responded immediately by providing available COREXIT and increasing production to supply the product to BP’s subsidiaries for use, as authorized and directed by agencies of the federal government throughout the incident. Prior to the incident, Nalco and its subsidiaries had not provided products or services or otherwise had any involvement with the Deepwater Horizon platform. On July 15, 2010, BP announced that it had capped the leaking well, and the application of dispersants by the responding parties ceased shortly thereafter.

On May 1, 2010, the President appointed retired U.S. Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Thad Allen to serve as the National Incident Commander in charge of the coordination of the response to the incident at the national level. The EPA directed numerous tests of all the dispersants on the National Contingency Plan Product Schedule, including those provided by Nalco Company, “to ensure decisions about ongoing dispersant use in the Gulf of Mexico are grounded in the best available science.” Nalco Company cooperated with this testing process and continued to supply COREXIT, as requested by BP and government authorities. The use of dispersants by the responding parties was one tool used by the government and BP to avoid and reduce damage to the Gulf area from the spill.

In connection with its provision of COREXIT, Nalco Company has been named in several lawsuits as described below.

Cases arising out of the Deepwater Horizon accident were administratively transferred for pre-trial purposes to a judge in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana with other related cases under In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, Case No. 10-md-02179 (E.D. La.) (“MDL 2179”). Nalco Company was named, along with other unaffiliated defendants, in six putative class action complaints related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and 21 complaints filed by individuals. Those complaints were consolidated in MDL 2179. The complaints generally allege, among other things, strict liability and negligence relating to the use of our Corexit dispersant in connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

Pursuant to orders issued by the Court in MDL 2179, the claims were consolidated in several master complaints, including one naming Nalco Company and others who responded to the Gulf Oil Spill (known as the “B3 Master Complaint”). On May 18, 2012, Nalco filed a motion for summary judgment against the claims in the “B3” Master Complaint, on the grounds that: (i) Plaintiffs’ claims are preempted by the comprehensive oil spill response scheme set forth in the Clean Water Act and National Contingency Plan; and (ii) Nalco is entitled to derivative immunity from suit. On November 28, 2012, the Court granted Nalco’s motion and dismissed with prejudice the claims in the “B3” Master Complaint asserted against Nalco. The Court held that such claims were preempted by the Clean Water Act and National Contingency Plan. Because claims in the “B3” Master Complaint remained pending against other defendants, the Court’s decision was not a “final judgment” for purposes of appeal. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a), plaintiffs will have 30 days after entry of final judgment to appeal the Court’s decision.

In December 2012 and January 2013, the MDL 2179 court issued final orders approving two settlements between BP and Plaintiffs’ Class Counsel: (1) a proposed Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement; and (2) a proposed Economic and Property Damages Class Action Settlement. Pursuant to the proposed settlements, class members agree to release claims against BP and other released parties, including Nalco Company and its related entities.

Nalco Company, the incident defendants and the other responder defendants have been named as first party defendants by Transocean Deepwater Drilling, Inc. and its affiliates (the “Transocean Entities”) (In re the Complaint and Petition of Triton Asset Leasing GmbH, et al, MDL No. 2179, Civil Action 10-2771). In April and May 2011, the Transocean Entities, Cameron International Corporation, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., M-I L.L.C., Weatherford U.S., L.P. and Weatherford International, Inc. (collectively, the “Cross Claimants”) filed cross claims in MDL 2179 against Nalco Company and other unaffiliated cross defendants. The Cross Claimants generally allege, among other things, that if they are found liable for damages resulting from the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill and/or spill response, they are entitled to indemnity or contribution from the cross defendants.

In April and June 2011, in support of its defense of the claims against it, Nalco Company filed counterclaims against the Cross Claimants. In its counterclaims, Nalco Company generally alleges that if it is found liable for damages resulting from the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill and/or spill response, it is entitled to contribution or indemnity from the Cross Claimants.

In May 2016, Nalco was named in nine additional complaints filed by individuals alleging, among other things, business and economic loss resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (“B1” claims). In April 2017, Nalco was named in two additional complaints filed by individuals seeking, among other things, business and economic loss resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits generally sought awards of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. These actions were consolidated in the MDL and the Company expects they will be dismissed pursuant to the Court’s November 28, 2012 order granting Nalco’s motion for summary judgment.

On February 22, 2017, the Court dismissed the “B3” Master Complaint and ordered that Plaintiffs who had previously filed a claim that fell within the scope of the “B3” Master Complaint and who had “opted out” of and not released their claims under the Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement either: (1) complete a sworn statement indicating, among other things, that they opted out of the Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement (to be completed by Plaintiffs who previously filed an individual complaint); or (2) file an individual lawsuit attaching the sworn statement as an exhibit, by a deadline date set by the Court.

On July 10, 2018, the Court entered an order dismissing the “B1” claims against Nalco. In light of the Court’s orders dismissing various “B3” and “B1” claims in their entirety, for most plaintiffs the Court’s November 28, 2012 grant of summary judgment for Nalco is now final and the deadline to appeal has passed. On October 23, 2018, a plaintiff filed a new “B3” complaint against Nalco and other unaffiliated defendants generally alleging, among other things, negligence and gross negligence related to the use of Corexit dispersant in connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The complaint was consolidated in the MDL. There currently remain nine cases pending against Nalco, all of which are expected to ultimately be dismissed pursuant to the Court’s November 28, 2012 order granting Nalco’s motion for summary judgment.

The Company believes the claims asserted against Nalco Company are without merit and intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously. The Company also believes that it has rights to contribution and/or indemnification (including legal expenses) from third parties. However, the Company cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits, the involvement it might have in these matters in the future, or the potential for future litigation.