14.	Commitments and Contingencies – Legal Matters

Asbestos cases

Our subsidiary, Met-Pro Technologies LLC (“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 June 30, 2017 for cases involving asbestos-related claims were $1.2 million, of which together with all legal fees other than corporate counsel expenses; $1.1 million have been paid by the Company’s insurers. The average cost per settled claim, excluding legal fees, was approximately $27,000.

Based upon the most recent information available to the Company regarding such claims, there were a total of 221 cases pending against the Company as of June 30, 2017 (with Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia having the largest number of cases), as compared with 229 cases that were pending as of December 31, 2016. During the six months ended June 30, 2017, 27 new cases were filed against the Company, and the Company was dismissed from 30 cases and settled five 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.

Valero

One of our subsidiaries, Fisher-Klosterman, Inc. (“FKI”), was a defendant 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, Valley Forge Insurance Company (“Valley Forge”), who had paid for the legal defense in this matter, initiated a new case in the Southern District of Ohio against the Company in October 2014 seeking, among other things, recoupment of past legal costs paid. Valley Forge claims that it did not have an obligation to defend FKI and is entitled to recoup all amounts paid to defend FKI. The Court rejected Valley Forge’s position on the duty to defend as contrary to Ohio law. The Court found that if Valley Forge could prove that FKI breached its duty to cooperate in defending the Valero Suit, Valley Forge may be relieved of its duty to defend to some extent. Valley Forge moved for reconsideration of the Court’s opinion in May 2016,which the court ruled against. The Court ruled in 2017 that Valley Forge could amend its complaint. The Company is vigorously disputing this claim, and is seeking to pursue counterclaims against the insurer.

Summary

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.