12.

Commitments and Contingencies

Rent

We lease certain facilities on a year-to-year basis. We also have future annual minimum rental commitments under noncancellable operating leases as follows:


(Table only in thousands) December 31,	Commitment
2015	$	3,568
2016		2,895
2017		2,055
2018		1,658
2019		696
2020 and thereafter		3,386

	$	14,258

Total rent expense under all operating leases for 2014, 2013 and 2012 was $2.9 million, $2.5 million and $1.8 million, respectively.

Legal Proceedings

Our subsidiary, Met-Pro, beginning in 2002 began to be named in asbestos-related lawsuits filed against a large number of industrial companies including, in particular, those in the pump and fluid handling industries. In management’s opinion, the complaints typically have been vague, general and speculative, alleging that Met-Pro, along with the numerous other defendants, sold unidentified asbestos-containing products and engaged in other related actions which caused injuries (including death) and loss to the plaintiffs. Counsel has advised that more recent cases typically allege more serious claims of mesothelioma. The Company’s insurers have hired attorneys who, together with the Company, are vigorously defending these cases. Many cases have been dismissed after the plaintiff fails to produce evidence of exposure to Met-Pro’s products. In those cases where evidence has been produced, the Company’s experience has been that the exposure levels are low and the Company’s position has been that its products were not a cause of death, injury or loss. The Company has been dismissed from or settled a large number of these cases. Cumulative settlement payments from 2002 through December 31, 2014 for cases involving asbestos-related claims were $0.8 million which together with all legal fees other than corporate counsel expenses, have been paid by the Company’s insurers. The average cost per settled claim, excluding legal fees, was approximately $25,000.

Based upon the most recent information available to the Company regarding such claims, there were a total of 195 cases pending against the Company as of December 31, 2014 (with Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia having the largest number of cases), as compared with 173 cases that were pending as of January 1, 2014. During 2014, 51 new cases were filed against the Company, and the Company was dismissed from 29 cases and settled zero cases. Most of the pending cases have not advanced beyond the early stages of discovery, although a number of cases are on schedules leading to, or are scheduled for trial. The Company believes that its insurance coverage is adequate for the cases currently pending against the Company and for the foreseeable future, assuming a continuation of the current volume, nature of cases and settlement amounts. However, the Company has no control over the number and nature of cases that are filed against it, nor as to the financial health of its insurers or their position as to coverage. The Company also presently believes that none of the pending cases will have a material adverse impact upon the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition.

On October 12, 2012 the Company received a letter from the Sheet Metal Workers’ Local Union No. 80 (“the Union”) alleging that the Company had completely withdrawn from the Union’s Pension Trust Fund. The Company settled this claim with the Union and recorded $3.5 million of legal reserve expense in 2013.

One of our subsidiaries, FKI, was a defendant party in a products liability lawsuit filed in Harris County, Texas on August 23, 2010 by three Valero refining companies. The plaintiffs claimed that FKI (and its co-Defendants) used an allegedly defective refractory material included in cyclones it supplied to Valero that caused damages to refineries they own and operate. Plaintiffs claimed to have suffered property damages, including catalyst loss, regenerator repair costs, replacement part costs, damage to other property and business interruption loss. During 2014, the Company reached a settlement with the plaintiffs for $0.5 million and, accordingly, recorded a corresponding charge to operations. In addition, the Company reached an agreement with a supplier to recover $0.2 million related to this matter. The recovery was also recorded during 2014. The Company’s insurer, who had paid for the legal defense in this matter, initiated a new case in the Southern District of Ohio against the Company seeking, among other things, recoupment of past legal costs paid. The Company is vigorously disputing this claim and believes the insurer had the duty to defend the Company.

On October 3, 2014, Viron International (“Viron”) filed a complaint against us and our subsidiary, the Kirk and Blum Manufacturing Company (“Kirk & Blum”), in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (the “Court”) seeking damages against us and Kirk & Blum for alleged breach of contract. After a trial on January 12, 2015, on February 27, 2015, the Court issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that provide that we and Kirk & Blum breached our contract with Viron and that Viron is entitled to damages in the amount of approximately $0.6 million plus attorneys’ fees. Additionally, the Court concluded that we and Kirk & Blum are not entitled to an offset for the invoiced amounts of $0.2 million not paid by Viron under the contract. The company is vigorously defending this claim and believes it has complied with the provisions of the contract.

The Company is also a party to routine contract and employment-related litigation matters and routine audits of state and local tax returns arising in the ordinary course of its business.

The final outcome and impact of open matters, and related claims and investigations that may be brought in the future, are subject to many variables, and cannot be predicted. In accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies, and related guidance, we record reserves for estimated losses relating to claims and lawsuits when available information indicates that a loss is probable and the amount of the loss, or range of loss, can be reasonably estimated. The Company expenses legal costs as they are incurred.

We are not aware of pending claims or assessments, other than as described above, which may have a material adverse impact on our liquidity, financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.