14. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES

Product Liability Claims

The Company is subject to product warranty claims that arise in the ordinary course of its business. For certain manufactured products, the Company maintains a product warranty accrual which is adjusted on a monthly basis as a percentage of cost of sales. The product warranty accrual is periodically adjusted based on the identification or resolution of known individual product warranty claims. The following table sets forth the Company’s product warranty accrual:



		Warranty Liability
Balance at December 31, 2014	$	11,500
Additions to warranty liability		1,454
Warranty liability utilized		(3,577)
Acquisitions		53
Balance at September 30, 2015	$	9,430

Included within the above table are concrete tie warranty reserves of approximately $8,289 and $10,331 as of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively.

Increases in the current year warranty liability relate to reviews of current year activity and an evaluation of the Company’s estimate of its expected warranty obligation and the current year reductions primarily relate to concrete tie warranty claims satisfied through the replacement of concrete ties during the nine-month period ended September 30, 2015.

Union Pacific Railroad Matter

On July 12, 2011, Union Pacific Railroad (“UPRR”) notified (“UPRR Notice”) the Company and its subsidiary, CXT Incorporated (“CXT”), of a warranty claim under CXT’s 2005 supply contract relating to the sale of pre-stressed concrete railroad ties to UPRR. UPRR asserted that a significant percentage of concrete ties manufactured in 2006 through 2011 at CXT’s Grand Island, NE facility failed to meet contract specifications, had workmanship defects, and were cracking and failing prematurely. Of the 3.0 million ties manufactured between 1998 and 2011 from the Grand Island, NE facility, approximately 1.6 million ties were sold during the period UPRR had claimed nonconformance. The 2005 supply contract called for each concrete tie which failed to conform to the specifications or had a material defect in workmanship to be replaced with 1.5 new concrete ties, provided, that UPRR within five years of the sale of a concrete tie, notified CXT of such failure to conform or such defect in workmanship. The UPRR Notice did not specify how many ties manufactured during this period were defective nor the exact nature of the alleged workmanship defect.

Following the UPRR Notice, the Company worked with material scientists and pre-stressed concrete experts to test a representative sample of Grand Island, NE concrete ties and assess warranty claims for certain concrete ties made in its Grand Island, NE facility between 1998 and 2011. The Company discontinued manufacturing operations in Grand Island, NE in early 2011.

In late 2012, the Company and CXT agreed to an amendment of the warranty and certain related terms of the 2005 supply contract. Subsequently, in November 2013, the Company received notice from UPRR asserting a material breach of the 2005 supply contract. The Company disputed the notice and the parties have been unable to reach agreement on disputed UPRR claims that the Company contends do not meet the criteria for replacement per the amended 2005 supply agreement.

On January 23, 2015, UPRR filed a Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial in the District Court for Douglas County, NE against the Company and its subsidiary, CXT, asserting among other matters that the Company breached its express warranty, breached an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, anticipatorily repudiated its warranty obligations, and that UPRR’s exclusive and limited remedy provisions in the supply agreement have failed of their essential purpose which entitles UPRR to recover all incidental and consequential damages. The Complaint seeks to cancel all duties of UPRR under the contract, to adjudge the Company as having no remaining rights under the contracts, and to recover damages in an amount to be determined at trial for the value of unfulfilled warranty replacement ties and ties likely to become warranty eligible, for costs of cover for replacement ties, and for various incidental and consequential damages. The amended 2005 supply agreement provides that UPRR’s exclusive remedy is to receive a replacement tie that meets the contract specifications for each tie that failed to meet the contract specifications or otherwise contained a material defect provided that the Company receives written notice of such failure or defect within 15 years after that tie was produced. The amended 2005 supply agreement continues to provide that the Company’s warranty does not apply to ties that (a) have been repaired or altered without the Company’s written consent in such a way as to affect the stability or reliability thereof, (b) have been subject to misuse, negligence, or accident, or (c) have been improperly maintained or used contrary to the specifications for which such ties were produced. The amended 2005 supply agreement also continues to provide that the Company’s warranty is in lieu of all other express or implied warranties and that neither party shall be subject to or liable for any incidental or consequential damages to the other party. The dispute is largely based on (1) claims submitted which the Company believes are for ties inaccurately rated that are not the responsibility of the Company and claims that do not meet the criteria of a warranty replacement and (2) UPRR’s assertion, which the Company vigorously disputes, that UPRR in future years will be entitled to warranty replacement ties for virtually all of the Grand Island ties. Many thousands of Grand Island ties have been performing in track for over ten years. In addition, a significant amount of Grand Island ties were rated by both parties in the excellent category of the rating system. The Company filed an Answer and Counterclaim on June 29, 2015 and anticipates seeking to amend its response to include additional counterclaims based on subsequent conduct by UPRR. The Company believes UPRR’s claims are without merit and intends to continue to vigorously defend itself.

In November and December of 2014, the Company received additional notices from the UPRR asserting that ties manufactured in 2000 were defective and again asserting material breaches of the amended 2005 supply agreement relating to warranty tie replacements as well as certain new ties provided to the UPRR being out of specification. In June 2015, UPRR delivered an additional notice alleging defects in ties produced in the Company’s Tucson and Spokane locations and other claimed material breaches which the Company contends are unfounded.

On June 17, 2015, UPRR issued formal notice of the termination of the concrete tie supply agreement as well as the termination of the lease agreement at the Tucson, AZ production facility. As a result of the formal notice of termination, during the second quarter of 2015, the Company incurred a $409 impairment charge related to leasehold improvements and other fixed assets at our Tucson, AZ concrete tie facility. The charge was included within costs of goods sold.

The Company continues to engage in discussions in an effort to resolve this matter. However, we cannot predict that such discussions will be successful. In addition, the Company cannot predict the results of the litigation with UPRR, or whether any settlement or judgment amounts will be within the range of our recognized accruals for loss contingencies. Future potential costs pertaining to UPRR’s claims and the outcome of UPRR litigation could result in a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition, and cash flows.

Environmental and Legal Proceedings

The Company is subject to national, state, foreign, provincial, and/or local laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment. The Company’s efforts to comply with environmental regulations may have an adverse effect on its future earnings. In the opinion of management, compliance with the present environmental protection laws will not have a material adverse effect on the financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, competitive position, or capital expenditures of the Company.

As of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, the Company maintained environmental and litigation reserves approximating $6,690 and $3,344, respectively. The following table sets forth the Company’s environmental obligation:


		Environmental liability

Balance at December 31, 2014	$	3,344
Additions to environmental obligations		46
Environmental obligations utilized		(160)
Acquisitions		3,460
Balance at September 30, 2015	$	6,690

The Company is also subject to other legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of its business. The resolution, in any reporting period, of one or more of these matters could have a material effect on the Company’s results of operations for that period.