NOTE 15. Commitments and Contingencies

Capital and Operating Leases:

Rental expense under operating leases was $343 million in 2017, $318 million in 2016 and $316 million in 2015. It is 3M’s practice to secure renewal rights for leases, thereby giving 3M the right, but not the obligation, to maintain a presence in a leased facility. 3M has two primary capital leases. The first, which became effective in April 2003, involves a building in the United Kingdom (with a lease term of 22 years). During the second quarter of 2003, 3M recorded a capital lease asset and obligation of approximately 33.5 million British Pound (GBP), or approximately $27 million at December 31, 2017, exchange rates. For the second, 3M sold and leased-back certain recently constructed machinery and equipment in return for municipal bonds with the City of Nevada, Missouri. 3M recorded a capital lease asset and obligation of approximately $13 million in 2017, $12 million in 2016, and $15 million in earlier years, with a lease term of 15 years.

Minimum lease payments under capital and operating leases with non-cancelable terms in excess of one year as of December 31, 2017, were as follows:


			Operating
(Millions)	Capital Leases		Leases
2018	$	12	$	258
2019		10		212
2020		9		160
2021		6		106
2022		5		88
After 2022		34		274
Total	$	76	$	1,098
Less: Amounts representing interest		3
Present value of future minimum lease payments		73
Less: Current obligations under capital leases		13
Long-term obligations under capital leases	$	60

Unconditional Purchase Obligations:

Unconditional purchase obligations are defined as an agreement to purchase goods or services that is enforceable and legally binding (non-cancelable, or cancelable only in certain circumstances). The Company estimates its total unconditional purchase obligation commitment (for those contracts with terms in excess of one year) as of December 31, 2017, at $800 million. Payments by year are estimated as follows: 2018 ($271 million), 2019 ($211 million), 2020 ($150 million), 2021 ($99 million), 2022 ($56 million) and after 2022 ($13 million). Many of these commitments relate to take or pay contracts, in which 3M guarantees payment to ensure availability of products or services that are sold to customers. The Company expects to receive consideration (products or services) for these unconditional purchase obligations. The purchase obligation amounts do not represent the entire anticipated purchases in the future, but represent only those items for which the Company is contractually obligated. The majority of 3M’s products and services are purchased as needed, with no unconditional commitment. For this reason, these amounts will not provide an indication of the Company’s expected future cash outflows related to purchases.

Warranties/Guarantees:

3M’s accrued product warranty liabilities, recorded on the Consolidated Balance Sheet as part of current and long-term liabilities, are estimated at approximately $50 million at December 31, 2017, and $47 million at December 31, 2016. 3M does not consider this amount to be material. The fair value of 3M guarantees of loans with third parties and other guarantee arrangements are not material.

Related Party Activity:

3M does not have any material related party activity.

Legal Proceedings:

The Company and some of its subsidiaries are involved in numerous claims and lawsuits, principally in the United States, and regulatory proceedings worldwide. These include various products liability (involving products that the Company now or formerly manufactured and sold), intellectual property, and commercial claims and lawsuits, including those brought under the antitrust laws, and environmental proceedings. Unless otherwise stated, the Company is vigorously defending all such litigation.

Process for Disclosure and Recording of Liabilities and Insurance Receivables Related to Legal Proceedings

Many lawsuits and claims involve highly complex issues relating to causation, scientific evidence, and whether there are actual damages and are otherwise subject to substantial uncertainties. Assessments of lawsuits and claims can involve a series of complex judgments about future events and can rely heavily on estimates and assumptions. The Company complies with the requirements of ASC 450, Contingencies, and related guidance, and records liabilities for legal proceedings in those instances where it can reasonably estimate the amount of the loss and where liability is probable. Where the reasonable estimate of the probable loss is a range, the Company records the most likely estimate of the loss, or the low end of the range if there is no one best estimate. The Company either discloses the amount of a possible loss or range of loss in excess of established accruals if estimable, or states that such an estimate cannot be made. The Company discloses significant legal proceedings even where liability is not probable or the amount of the liability is not estimable, or both, if the Company believes there is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss may be incurred.

The Company estimates insurance receivables based on an analysis of its numerous policies, including their exclusions, pertinent case law interpreting comparable policies, its experience with similar claims, and assessment of the nature of the claim and remaining coverage, and records an amount it has concluded is likely to be recovered. For those insured matters where the Company has taken an accrual, the Company also records receivables for the amount of insurance that it expects to recover under the Company’s insurance program. For those insured matters where the Company has not taken an accrual because the liability is not probable or the amount of the liability is not estimable, or both, but where the Company has incurred an expense in defending itself, the Company records receivables for the amount of insurance that it expects to recover for the expense incurred.

Because litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties, and unfavorable rulings or developments could occur, there can be no certainty that the Company may not ultimately incur charges in excess of presently 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. Although the Company cannot estimate its exposure to all legal proceedings, it currently believes, except as described below, that such future charges, if any, would not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial position of the Company. Based on experience and developments, the Company reexamines its estimates of probable liabilities and associated expenses and receivables each period, and whether it is able to estimate a liability previously determined to be not estimable and/or not probable. Where appropriate, the Company makes additions to or adjustments of its estimated liabilities. As a result, the current estimates of the potential impact on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows for the legal proceedings and claims pending against the Company could change in the future.

The following sections first describe the significant legal proceedings in which the Company is involved, and then describe the liabilities and associated insurance receivables the Company has accrued relating to its significant legal proceedings.

Respirator Mask/Asbestos Litigation

As of December 31, 2017, the Company is a named defendant, with multiple co-defendants, in numerous lawsuits in various courts that purport to represent approximately 2,230 individual claimants, compared to approximately 2,660 individual claimants with actions pending at December 31, 2016.

The vast majority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the Company allege use of some of the Company’s mask and respirator products and seek damages from the Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the workplace. A minority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the Company generally allege personal injury from occupational exposure to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the Company, which are often unspecified, as well as products manufactured by other defendants, or occasionally at Company premises.

The Company’s current volume of new and pending matters is substantially lower than it experienced at the peak of filings in 2003. The Company expects that filing of claims by unimpaired claimants in the future will continue to be at much lower levels than in the past. Accordingly, the number of claims alleging more serious injuries, including mesothelioma and other malignancies, will represent a greater percentage of total claims than in the past. The Company has prevailed in all twelve cases taken to trial, including ten of the eleven cases tried to verdict (such trials occurred in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2015, and the cases tried in 2016 and 2017–described below), and an appellate reversal in 2005 of the 2001 jury verdict adverse to the Company. The remaining case, tried in 2009, was dismissed by the court at the close of plaintiff’s evidence, based on the court’s legal finding that the plaintiff had not presented sufficient evidence to support a jury verdict. In August 2016, 3M received a unanimous verdict in its favor from a jury in state court in Kentucky, in 3M’s first respirator trial involving coal mine dust. The estate of the plaintiff alleged that the 3M 8710 respirator is defective and caused his death because it did not protect him from harmful coal mine dust. The jury rejected plaintiff’s claim and returned a verdict finding no liability against 3M. The verdict is final as the plaintiff did not file an appeal. In September 2017, 3M received a unanimous verdict in its favor from a jury in state court in Kentucky in 3M’s second respirator trial involving coal mine dust. The jury ultimately determined that the plaintiff’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations. In November 2017, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. The plaintiff did not file an appeal, thereby ending the litigation.

The Company has demonstrated in these past trial proceedings that its respiratory protection products are effective as claimed when used in the intended manner and in the intended circumstances. Consequently the Company believes that claimants are unable to establish that their medical conditions, even if significant, are attributable to the Company’s respiratory protection products. Nonetheless the Company’s litigation experience indicates that claims of persons with malignant conditions are costlier to resolve than the claims of unimpaired persons, and it therefore believes the average cost of resolving pending and future claims on a per-claim basis will continue to be higher than it experienced in prior periods when the vast majority of claims were asserted by medically unimpaired claimants.

As previously reported, the State of West Virginia, through its Attorney General, filed a complaint in 2003 against the Company and two other manufacturers of respiratory protection products in the Circuit Court of Lincoln County, West Virginia, and amended its complaint in 2005. The amended complaint seeks substantial, but unspecified, compensatory damages primarily for reimbursement of the costs allegedly incurred by the State for worker’s compensation and healthcare benefits provided to all workers with occupational pneumoconiosis and unspecified punitive damages. The case was inactive from the fourth quarter of 2007 until late 2013, other than a case management conference in March 2011. In November 2013, the State filed a motion to bifurcate the lawsuit into separate liability and damages proceedings. At the hearing on the motion, the court declined to bifurcate the lawsuit. No liability has been recorded for this matter because the Company believes that liability is not probable and estimable at this time. In addition, the Company is not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss given the lack of any meaningful discovery responses by the State of West Virginia, the otherwise minimal activity in this case and the fact that the complaint asserts claims against two other manufacturers where a defendant’s share of liability may turn on the law of joint and several liability and by the amount of fault, if any, a jury might allocate to each defendant if the case is ultimately tried.

Respirator Mask/Asbestos Liabilities and Insurance Receivables

The Company regularly conducts a comprehensive legal review of its respirator mask/asbestos liabilities. The Company reviews recent and historical claims data, including without limitation, (i) the number of pending claims filed against the Company, (ii) the nature and mix of those claims (i.e., the proportion of claims asserting usage of the Company’s mask or respirator products and alleging exposure to each of asbestos, silica, coal or other occupational dusts, and claims pleading use of asbestos-containing products allegedly manufactured by the Company), (iii) the costs to defend and resolve pending claims, and (iv) trends in filing rates and in costs to defend and resolve claims, (collectively, the “Claims Data”). As part of its comprehensive legal review, the Company regularly provides the Claims Data to a third party with expertise in determining the impact of Claims Data on future filing trends and costs. The third party assists the Company in estimating the costs to defend and resolve pending and future claims. The Company uses these estimates to develop its best estimate of probable liability.

Developments may occur that could affect the Company’s estimate of its liabilities. These developments include, but are not limited to, significant changes in (i) the key assumptions underlying the Company’s accrual, including, the number of future claims, the nature and mix of those claims, the average cost of defending and resolving claims, and in maintaining trial readiness (ii) trial and appellate outcomes, (iii) the law and procedure applicable to these claims, and (iv) the financial viability of other co-defendants and insurers.

As a result of the Company’s review of its respirator mask/asbestos liabilities and as a result of the cost of resolving claims of persons who claim more serious injuries, including mesothelioma and other malignancies, the Company increased its accruals in 2017 for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities by $71 million. In 2017, the Company made payments for legal fees and settlements of $58 million related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation. As of December 31, 2017 and 2016, the Company had an accrual for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities (excluding Aearo accruals) of $608 million and $595 million, respectively. This accrual represents the Company’s best estimate of probable loss and reflects an estimation period for future claims that may be filed against the Company approaching the year 2050. The Company cannot estimate the amount or upper end of the range of amounts by which the liability may exceed the accrual the Company has established because of the (i) inherent difficulty in projecting the number of claims that have not yet been asserted or the time period in which future claims may be asserted, (ii) the complaints nearly always assert claims against multiple defendants where the damages alleged are typically not attributed to individual defendants so that a defendant’s share of liability may turn on the law of joint and several liability, which can vary by state, (iii) the multiple factors described above that the Company considers in estimating its liabilities, and (iv) the several possible developments described above that may occur that could affect the Company’s estimate of liabilities.

As of December 31, 2017, the Company’s receivable for insurance recoveries related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation was $4 million. The Company is seeking coverage under the policies of certain insolvent and other insurers. Once those claims for coverage are resolved, the Company will have collected substantially all of its remaining insurance coverage for respirator mask/asbestos claims.

Respirator Mask/Asbestos Litigation — Aearo Technologies

On April 1, 2008, a subsidiary of the Company purchased the stock of Aearo Holding Corp., the parent of Aearo Technologies (“Aearo”). Aearo manufactured and sold various products, including personal protection equipment, such as eye, ear, head, face, fall and certain respiratory protection products.

As of December 31, 2017, Aearo and/or other companies that previously owned and operated Aearo’s respirator business (American Optical Corporation, Warner-Lambert LLC, AO Corp. and Cabot Corporation (“Cabot”)) are named defendants, with multiple co-defendants, including the Company, in numerous lawsuits in various courts in which plaintiffs allege use of mask and respirator products and seek damages from Aearo and other defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica-related, or other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the workplace.

As a result of the review of Aearo’s respirator mask/asbestos liabilities, the Company increased Aearo’s accruals in 2017 for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities by $13 million. As of December 31, 2017, the Company, through its Aearo subsidiary, had accruals of $30 million for product liabilities and defense costs related to current and future Aearo-related asbestos and silica-related claims. This accrual represents the Company’s best estimate of Aearo’s probable loss and reflects an estimation period for future claims that may be filed against the Aearo approaching the year 2050. Responsibility for legal costs, as well as for settlements and judgments, is currently shared in an informal arrangement among Aearo, Cabot, American Optical Corporation and a subsidiary of Warner Lambert and their respective insurers (the “Payor Group”). Liability is allocated among the parties based on the number of years each company sold respiratory products under the “AO Safety” brand and/or owned the AO Safety Division of American Optical Corporation and the alleged years of exposure of the individual plaintiff. Aearo’s share of the contingent liability is further limited by an agreement entered into between Aearo and Cabot on July 11, 1995. This agreement provides that, so long as Aearo pays to Cabot a quarterly fee of $100,000, Cabot will retain responsibility and liability for, and indemnify Aearo against, any product liability claims involving exposure to asbestos, silica, or silica products for respirators sold prior to July 11, 1995. Because of the difficulty in determining how long a particular respirator remains in the stream of commerce after being sold, Aearo and Cabot have applied the agreement to claims arising out of the alleged use of respirators involving exposure to asbestos, silica or silica products prior to January 1, 1997. With these arrangements in place, Aearo’s potential liability is limited to exposures alleged to have arisen from the use of respirators involving exposure to asbestos, silica, or silica products on or after January 1, 1997. To date, Aearo has elected to pay the quarterly fee. Aearo could potentially be exposed to additional claims for some part of the pre-July 11, 1995 period covered by its agreement with Cabot if Aearo elects to discontinue its participation in this arrangement, or if Cabot is no longer able to meet its obligations in these matters.

In March 2012, Cabot CSC Corporation and Cabot Corporation filed a lawsuit against Aearo in the Superior Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts seeking declaratory relief as to the scope of Cabot’s indemnity obligations under the July 11, 1995 agreement, including whether Cabot has retained liability for coal workers’ pneumoconiosis claims, and seeking damages for breach of contract. In 2014, the court granted Aearo’s motion for summary judgment on two claims, but declined to rule on two issues: the specific liability for certain known coal mine dust lawsuits; and Cabot’s claim for allocation of liability between injuries allegedly caused by exposure to coal mine dust and injuries allegedly caused by exposure to silica dust. Following additional discovery, the parties filed new motions for summary judgment. In February 2016, the court ruled in favor of Aearo on these two remaining issues, and ordered that Cabot, and not Aearo, is solely responsible for all liability for the coal mine dust lawsuits under the 1995 agreement. In May 2017, the Massachusetts Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court order in favor of Aearo.

Developments may occur that could affect the estimate of Aearo’s liabilities. These developments include, but are not limited to: (i) significant changes in the number of future claims, (ii) significant changes in the average cost of resolving claims, (iii) significant changes in the legal costs of defending these claims, (iv) significant changes in the mix and nature of claims received, (v) trial and appellate outcomes, (vi) significant changes in the law and procedure applicable to these claims, (vii) significant changes in the liability allocation among the co-defendants, (viii) the financial viability of members of the Payor Group including exhaustion of available insurance coverage limits, and/or (ix) a determination that the interpretation of the contractual obligations on which Aearo has estimated its share of liability is inaccurate. The Company cannot determine the impact of these potential developments on its current estimate of Aearo’s share of liability for these existing and future claims. If any of the developments described above were to occur, the actual amount of these liabilities for existing and future claims could be significantly larger than the amount accrued.

Because of the inherent difficulty in projecting the number of claims that have not yet been asserted, the complexity of allocating responsibility for future claims among the Payor Group, and the several possible developments that may occur that could affect the estimate of Aearo’s liabilities, the Company cannot estimate the amount or range of amounts by which Aearo’s liability may exceed the accrual the Company has established.

Environmental Matters and Litigation

The Company’s operations are subject to environmental laws and regulations including those pertaining to air emissions, wastewater discharges, toxic substances, and the handling and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes enforceable by national, state, and local authorities around the world, and private parties in the United States and abroad. These laws and regulations provide, under certain circumstances, a basis for the remediation of contamination, for restoration of or compensation for damages to natural resources, and for personal injury and property damage claims. The Company has incurred, and will continue to incur, costs and capital expenditures in complying with these laws and regulations, defending personal injury and property damage claims, and modifying its business operations in light of its environmental responsibilities. In its effort to satisfy its environmental responsibilities and comply with environmental laws and regulations, the Company has established, and periodically updates, policies relating to environmental standards of performance for its operations worldwide.

Under certain environmental laws, including the United States Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 and similar state laws, the Company may be jointly and severally liable, typically with other companies, for the costs of remediation of environmental contamination at current or former facilities and at off-site locations. The Company has identified numerous locations, most of which are in the United States, at which it may have some liability. Please refer to the section entitled “Environmental Liabilities and Insurance Receivables” that follows for information on the amount of the accrual.

Environmental Matters

As previously reported, the Company has been voluntarily cooperating with ongoing reviews by local, state, federal (primarily the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)), and international agencies of possible environmental and health effects of various perfluorinated compounds, including perfluorooctanyl compounds such as perfluorooctanoate (“PFOA”), perfluorooctane sulfonate (“PFOS”), or similar compounds (“PFCs”). As a result of its phase-out decision in May 2000, the Company no longer manufactures perfluorooctanyl compounds. The company ceased manufacturing and using the vast majority of these compounds within approximately two years of the phase-out announcement, and ceased all manufacturing and the last significant use of this chemistry by the end of 2008. Through its ongoing life cycle management and its raw material composition identification processes associated with the Company’s policies covering the use of all persistent and bio-accumulative materials, the Company continues to control or eliminate the presence of certain PFCs in purchased materials or as byproducts in some of 3M’s fluorochemical manufacturing processes, products, and waste streams.

Regulatory activities concerning PFOA and/or PFOS continue in the United States, Europe and elsewhere, and before certain international bodies. These activities include gathering of exposure and use information, risk assessment, and consideration of regulatory approaches. As the database of studies of both PFOA and PFOS has expanded, the EPA has developed human health effects documents summarizing the available data from these studies. In February 2014, the EPA initiated external peer review of its draft human health effects documents for PFOA and PFOS. The peer review panel met in August 2014. In May 2016, the EPA announced lifetime health advisory levels for PFOA and PFOS at 70 parts per trillion (ppt) (superseding the provisional levels established by the EPA in 2009 of 400 ppt for PFOA and 200 ppt for PFOS). Where PFOA and PFOS are found together, EPA recommends that the concentrations be added together, and the lifetime health advisory for PFOA and PFOS combined is also 70 ppt. Lifetime health advisories, while not enforceable, serve as guidance and are benchmarks for determining if concentrations of chemicals in tap water from public utilities are safe for public consumption. In an effort to collect exposure information under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the EPA published on May 2, 2012 a list of unregulated substances, including six PFCs, required to be monitored during the period 2013-2015 by public water system suppliers to determine the extent of their occurrence. Through January 2017, the EPA reported results for 4,920 public water supplies nationwide. Based on the 2016 lifetime health advisory, 13 public water supplies exceed the level for PFOA and 46 exceed the level for PFOS (unchanged from the July 2016 EPA summary). A technical advisory issued by EPA in September 2016 on laboratory analysis of drinking water samples stated that 65 public water supplies had exceeded the combined level for PFOA and PFOS. These results are based on one or more samples collected during the period 2012-2015 and do not necessarily reflect current conditions of these public water supplies. EPA reporting does not identify the sources of the PFOA and PFOS in the public water supplies.

The Company is continuing to make progress in its work, under the supervision of state regulators, to address its historic disposal of PFC-containing waste associated with manufacturing operations at the Decatur, Alabama, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, and Cordova, Illinois plants. As previously reported, the Company entered into a voluntary remedial action agreement with the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) to address the presence of PFCs in the soil at the Company’s manufacturing facility in Decatur, Alabama. Pursuant to a permit issued by ADEM, for approximately twenty years, the Company incorporated its wastewater treatment plant sludge containing PFCs in fields at its Decatur facility. After a review of the available options to address the presence of PFCs in the soil, ADEM agreed that the preferred remediation option is to use a multilayer cap over the former sludge incorporation areas on the manufacturing site with subsequent groundwater migration controls and treatment. Implementation of that plan continues and is expected to be completed in 2018.

The Company continues to work with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) pursuant to the terms of the previously disclosed May 2007 Settlement Agreement and Consent Order to address the presence of certain PFCs in the soil and groundwater at former disposal sites in Washington County, Minnesota (Oakdale and Woodbury) and at the Company’s manufacturing facility at Cottage Grove, Minnesota. Under this agreement, the Company’s principal obligations include (i) evaluating releases of certain PFCs from these sites and proposing response actions; (ii) providing treatment or alternative drinking water upon identifying any level exceeding a Health Based Value (“HBV”) or Health Risk Limit (“HRL”) (i.e., the amount of a chemical in drinking water determined by the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) to be safe for human consumption over a lifetime) for certain PFCs for which a HBV and/or HRL exists as a result of contamination from these sites; (iii) remediating identified sources of other PFCs at these sites that are not controlled by actions to remediate PFOA and PFOS; and (iv) sharing information with the MPCA about certain perfluorinated compounds. During 2008, the MPCA issued formal decisions adopting remedial options for the former disposal sites in Washington County, Minnesota (Oakdale and Woodbury). In August 2009, the MPCA issued a formal decision adopting remedial options for the Company’s Cottage Grove manufacturing facility. During the spring and summer of 2010, 3M began implementing the agreed upon remedial options at the Cottage Grove and Woodbury sites. 3M commenced the remedial option at the Oakdale site in late 2010. At each location the remedial options were recommended by the Company and approved by the MPCA. Remediation work has been completed at the Oakdale and Woodbury sites, and they are in an operational maintenance mode. Remediation will continue at the Cottage Grove site during 2018.

In August 2014, the Illinois EPA approved a request by the Company to establish a groundwater management zone at its manufacturing facility in Cordova, Illinois, which includes ongoing pumping of impacted site groundwater, groundwater monitoring and routine reporting of results.

In May 2017, the MDH issued new HBVs for PFOS and PFOA. The new HBVs are 35 ppt for PFOA and 27 ppt for PFOS. In connection with its announcement, the MDH stated that “Drinking water with PFOA and PFOS, even at the levels above the updated values, does not represent an immediate health risk. These values are designed to reduce long-term health risks across the population and are based on multiple safety factors to protect the most vulnerable citizens, which makes them overprotective for most of the residents in our state.” In December 2017, the MDH issued a new HBV for perfluorobutane sulfonate (PFBS) of 2 ppb.

The Company cannot predict what additional regulatory actions arising from the foregoing proceedings and activities, if any, may be taken regarding such compounds or the consequences of any such actions.

Alabama Environmental Litigation

As previously reported, a former employee filed a purported class action lawsuit in 2002 in the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama (the “St. John case”), seeking unstated damages and alleging that the plaintiffs suffered fear, increased risk, subclinical injuries, and property damage from exposure to certain perfluorochemicals at or near the Company’s Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility. The court in 2005 granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the named plaintiff’s personal injury-related claims on the basis that such claims are barred by the exclusivity provisions of the state’s Workers Compensation Act. The plaintiffs’ counsel filed an amended complaint in November 2006, limiting the case to property damage claims on behalf of a purported class of residents and property owners in the vicinity of the Decatur plant. In June 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding additional defendants, including BFI Waste Management Systems of Alabama, LLC; BFI Waste Management of North America, LLC; the City of Decatur, Alabama; Morgan County, Alabama; Municipal Utilities Board of Decatur; and Morgan County, Alabama, d/b/a Decatur Utilities.

In 2005, the judge -- in a second purported class action lawsuit filed by three residents of Morgan County, Alabama, seeking unstated compensatory and punitive damages involving alleged damage to their property from emissions of certain perfluorochemical compounds from the Company’s Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility that formerly manufactured those compounds (the “Chandler case”) -- granted the Company’s motion to abate the case, effectively putting the case on hold pending the resolution of class certification issues in the St. John case. Despite the stay, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking damages for alleged personal injuries and property damage on behalf of the named plaintiffs and the members of a purported class. No further action in the case is expected unless and until the stay is lifted.

In February 2009, a resident of Franklin County, Alabama, filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Franklin County (the “Stover case”) seeking compensatory damages and injunctive relief based on the application by the Decatur utility’s wastewater treatment plant of wastewater treatment sludge to farmland and grasslands in the state that allegedly contain PFOA, PFOS and other perfluorochemicals. The named plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons within the State of Alabama who have had PFOA, PFOS, and other perfluorochemicals released or deposited on their property. In March 2010, the Alabama Supreme Court ordered the case transferred from Franklin County to Morgan County. In May 2010, consistent with its handling of the other matters, the Morgan County Circuit Court abated this case, putting it on hold pending the resolution of the class certification issues in the St. John case.

In October 2015, West Morgan-East Lawrence Water & Sewer Authority (Water Authority) filed an individual complaint against 3M Company, Dyneon, L.L.C, and Daikin America, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The complaint also includes representative plaintiffs who brought the complaint on behalf of themselves, and a class of all owners and possessors of property who use water provided by the Water Authority and five local water works to which the Water Authority supplies water (collectively, the “Water Utilities”). The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief based on allegations that the defendants’ chemicals, including PFOA and PFOS from their manufacturing processes in Decatur, have contaminated the water in the Tennessee River at the water intake, and that the chemicals cannot be removed by the water treatment processes utilized by the Water Authority. In September 2016, the court granted 3M’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ trespass claims with prejudice, negligence claims for personal injuries, and private nuisance claims, and denied the motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ negligence claims for property damage, public nuisance, abatement of nuisance, battery and wantonness.

In June 2016, the Tennessee Riverkeeper, Inc. (Riverkeeper), a non-profit corporation, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama against 3M; BFI Waste Systems of Alabama; the City of Decatur, Alabama; and the Municipal Utilities Board of Decatur, Morgan County, Alabama. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in connection with the disposal of certain PFCs through their ownership and operation of their respective sites. The complaint further alleges such practices may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health and/or the environment and that Riverkeeper has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm caused by defendants’ failure to abate the endangerment unless the court grants the requested relief, including declaratory and injunctive relief.

In August 2016, a group of over 200 plaintiffs filed a class action against West Morgan-East Lawrence Water and Sewer Authority (Water Authority), 3M, Dyneon, Daikin, BFI, and the City of Decatur in state court in Lawrence County, Alabama. Plaintiffs are residents of Lawrence, Morgan and other counties who are or have been customers of the Water Authority. They contend defendants have released PFCs that contaminate the Tennessee River and, in turn, their drinking water, causing damage to their health and properties. In January 2017, the court in the St. John case, discussed above, stayed this litigation pending resolution of the St. John case.

In September 2016, the Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Gadsden, Alabama filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Etowah County Alabama against 3M and various carpet manufacturers. The complaint alleges that PFCs from the defendants’ facilities contaminated the Coosa River as its raw water source for drinking water and seeks unstated damages for the installation and operation of a filtration system, expenses to monitor PFC levels, and lost profits and sales.

In January 2017, several hundred plaintiffs sued 3M, its subsidiary Dyneon, and Daikin America in Lawrence and Morgan Counties, Alabama. The plaintiffs are owners of property, residents, and holders of property interests who receive their water from the West Morgan-East Lawrence Water and Sewer Authority (Water Authority). They assert common law claims for negligence, nuisance, trespass, wantonness, and battery, and they seek injunctive relief and punitive damages. The plaintiffs contend that the defendants own and operate manufacturing and disposal facilities in Decatur that have released and continue to release PFOA, PFOS and related chemicals into the groundwater and surface water of their sites, resulting in discharge into the Tennessee River. The plaintiffs also contend that the defendants have discharged into Bakers Creek and the Decatur Utilities Dry Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant, which, in turn, discharges wastewater containing these chemicals into the Tennessee River. The plaintiffs contend that, as a result the alleged discharges, the water supplied by the Water Authority to the plaintiffs was, and is, contaminated with PFOA, PFOS, and related chemicals at a level dangerous to humans.

In May 2017, the Water Works and Sewer Board of the Town of Centre, Alabama filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cherokee County Alabama against 3M, DuPont, and various carpet and textile manufacturers. The complaint alleges that PFCs from the defendants’ facilities contaminated the town’s raw water source for drinking water and seeks unstated damages for the installation and operation of a filtration system, expenses to monitor PFC levels, lost profits and sales, and injunctive relief.

In November 2017, a purported class action was filed against 3M, its subsidiary Dyneon, Daikin America, and the West Morgan-East Lawrence Water and Sewer Authority (Water Authority) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The plaintiffs are residents of Lawrence and Morgan County, Alabama who receive their water from the Water Authority. They assert various common law claims, including negligence, nuisance, wantonness, and fraudulent concealment, and they seek injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, compensatory and punitive damages for their alleged personal injuries. The plaintiffs contend that the defendants own and operate manufacturing and disposal facilities in Decatur that have released and continue to release PFOA, PFOS and related chemicals into the groundwater and surface water of their sites, resulting in discharge into the Tennessee River. The plaintiffs also contend that the defendants have discharged into the Decatur Utilities Dry Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant, which, in turn, discharges wastewater containing these chemicals into the Tennessee River. The plaintiffs contend that, as a result the alleged discharges, the water supplied by the Water Authority to the plaintiffs was, and is, contaminated with PFOA, PFOS, and related chemicals at a level dangerous to humans.

Minnesota Environmental Litigation

In December 2010, the State of Minnesota, by its Attorney General Lori Swanson, acting in its capacity as trustee of the natural resources of the State of Minnesota, filed a lawsuit in Hennepin County District Court against 3M to recover damages (including unspecified assessment costs and reasonable attorney’s fees) for alleged injury to, destruction of, and loss of use of certain of the State’s natural resources under the Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act (MERLA) and the Minnesota Water Pollution Control Act (MWPCA), as well as statutory nuisance and common law claims of trespass, nuisance, and negligence with respect to the presence of PFCs in the groundwater, surface water, fish or other aquatic life, and sediments (the “NRD Lawsuit”). The State also seeks declarations under MERLA that 3M is responsible for all damages the State may suffer in the future for injuries to natural resources from releases of PFCs into the environment, and under MWPCA that 3M is responsible for compensation for future loss or destruction of fish, aquatic life, and other damages. In September 2017, the State’s damages expert submitted a report that contends the State incurred $5 billion in damages. In November 2017, the State of Minnesota filed a motion for leave to amend its complaint to seek punitive damages from 3M, and 3M filed a motion for summary judgment contending, among other things, that the State’s claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. A hearing on those motions was held in December 2017. In December 2017, the court urged the parties to attempt to resolve the litigation before trial, and in January 2018, the court appointed a mediator to facilitate that process. If the parties are not able to resolve the matter, the trial is scheduled to begin in February 2018. An adverse ruling or judgment, settlement, or unfavorable development in the NRD Lawsuit 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 and on the consolidated financial position of the Company. No liability has been recorded because the Company believes any such liability is not probable and estimable.

In November 2011, the Metropolitan Council filed a motion to intervene and a complaint in the NRD Lawsuit seeking compensatory damages and other legal, declaratory and equitable relief, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, for costs and fees that the Metropolitan Council alleges it will be required to assess at some time in the future if the MPCA imposes restrictions on Metropolitan Council’s PFOS discharges to the Mississippi River, including the installation and maintenance of a water treatment system. The Metropolitan Council’s intervention motion was based on several theories, including common law negligence, and statutory claims under MERLA for response costs, and under the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (MERA) for declaratory and equitable relief against 3M for PFOS and other PFC pollution of the waters and sediments of the Mississippi River. 3M did not object to the motion to intervene. In January 2012, 3M answered the Metropolitan Council’s complaint and filed a counterclaim alleging that the Metropolitan Council discharges PFCs to the Mississippi River and discharges PFC-containing sludge and bio solids from one or more of its wastewater treatment plants onto agricultural lands and local area landfills. Accordingly, 3M’s complaint against the Metropolitan Council asked that if the court finds that the State is entitled to any of the damages it sought, 3M be awarded contribution and apportionment from the Metropolitan Council, including attorneys’ fees, under MERLA, and contribution from and liability for the Metropolitan Council’s proportional share of damages awarded to the State under the MWPCA, as well as under statutory nuisance and common law theories of trespass, nuisance, and negligence. 3M also sought declaratory relief under MERA. In May 2017, the Metropolitan Council paid 3M approximately $1 million and agreed to dismiss its claims against 3M. As part of the settlement agreement, 3M agreed to dismiss its claims against the Metropolitan Council.

In April 2012, 3M filed a motion to disqualify the State of Minnesota’s counsel, Covington & Burling, LLP (Covington). In October 2012, the court granted 3M’s motion to disqualify Covington as counsel to the State, and the State and Covington appealed the court’s disqualification to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. In July 2013, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s disqualification order. In October 2013, the Minnesota Supreme Court granted both the State’s and Covington’s petition for review of the decision of the Minnesota Court of Appeals. In April 2014, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. The district court took evidence on the disqualification issues at a hearing in October 2015. In February 2016, the district court ruled that Covington violated the professional ethics rule against representing a client (here the State of Minnesota) in the same or substantially related matter where that person’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of a former client (3M). The district court, however, denied 3M’s motion to disqualify Covington because it further found that 3M impliedly waived by delaying to assert the conflict. Other activity in the case, which had been stayed pending the outcome of the disqualification issue, has resumed. Trial of the NRD Lawsuit is scheduled to begin in February 2018. In a separate but related action, the Company filed suit in the Ramsey County District Court against Covington for breach of its fiduciary duties to the Company and for breach of contract arising out of Covington’s representation of the State of Minnesota in the NRD Lawsuit. In September 2016, the court granted 3M’s motion for leave to amend the complaint to plead punitive damages. In February 2017, Covington settled this lawsuit with a payment by Covington or its insurer to 3M that is not material to 3M’s results of operations or financial condition.

In July 2016, the City of Lake Elmo filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota against 3M alleging that the City suffered damages from drinking water supplies contaminated with PFCs, including costs to construct alternative sources of drinking water. Trial is scheduled to begin in September 2019.

Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) Litigation

3M manufactured and marketed Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) for use in firefighting at airports and military bases from approximately 1963 to 2000. As of December 31, 2017, twelve purported class actions have been filed against 3M and other defendants in various state and federal courts in Pennsylvania, Colorado, and New York alleging that certain PFCs used in AFFF contaminated the soil and groundwater where AFFF was used at current or former airports and air force military bases located in Colorado, Pennsylvania, and New York. An individual complaint also has been filed in federal court Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs in these cases generally allege that contaminated groundwater has caused various injuries, including loss of use and enjoyment of their properties, diminished property values, investigation costs, and remediation costs. Some cases seek funds for medical monitoring. Several companies have been sued along with 3M, including Ansul Co. (acquired by Tyco, Inc.), Angus Fire, Buckeye Fire Protection Co., Chemguard, National Foam, Inc., United Technologies Corp.

In November 2016, the Town of Barnstable, MA filed an individual action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking unstated compensatory and punitive damages and other relief against 3M and other suppliers of AFFF for alleged contamination of the aquifer supplying drinking water to the Hyannis water system. The town seeks to recover costs associated with the investigation, treatment, remediation, and monitoring of drinking water supplies allegedly contaminated with certain PFCs used in AFFF. In January 2017, the County of Barnstable, MA, filed an individual action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking unstated compensatory and punitive damages and other relief (including indemnification and contribution in connection with claims asserted against the County by the Town of Barnstable) against 3M and other suppliers of AFFF for alleged contamination of the aquifer supplying drinking water to the Hyannis water system.

In February 2017, husband and wife plaintiffs sued 3M and other defendants in federal court in Pennsylvania, alleging personal injury, loss of consortium and companionship, and associated damages.

In March 2017, plaintiff residents of Suffolk County, Long Island filed a class action complaint in state court in Suffolk County New York, naming the County and 3M and other alleged manufacturers of AFFF products. The action was removed to the Eastern District of New York.

In August 2017, three class action complaints were filed in state court in New York against 3M and other defendants including the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Plaintiffs allege PFC contamination of the local water supply linked to AFFF at Stewart Air National Guard Base and Stewart International Airport. The Port Authority is the leaseholder of the airport. All three cases have classes for diminution of property and medical monitoring. In September 2017, co-defendant Tyco removed all three cases to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In October 2017, a class action complaint was filed in Suffolk County, New York against 3M and others regarding PFCs allegedly released at the Suffolk County Firematics Training Facility. In November 2017, co-defendant National Foam removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

In December 2017, a complaint was filed by a group of 26 plaintiffs in Suffolk County, New York against 3M and others regarding PFCs allegedly released at Gabreski Airport.

In December 2017, a complaint was filed by the Suffolk County Water District in December 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against 3M and others regarding PFCs allegedly released at Gabreski Airport and Suffolk County Firematics Training Facility.

Other Environmental Litigation

In September 2017, three complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York against 3M, Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. (“Saint-Gobain”), Honeywell International Inc. (“Honeywell”) and E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Company. Plaintiffs allege that 3M manufactured and sold PFOA that was used for manufacturing purposes at Saint-Gobain’s and Honeywell’s facilities located in the Village of Hoosick Falls and the Town of Hoosick. Plaintiffs claim that the drinking water around Hoosick Falls became contaminated with unsafe levels of PFOA due to the activities of the defendants, and allege that they suffered bodily injury due to the ingestion and inhalation of PFOA. Plaintiffs seek unstated compensatory, consequential, and punitive damages, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs.

On December 1, 2017, eight plaintiffs filed a 12-count class action against 3M, Wolverine World Wide and Waste Management, Inc., alleging negligence, trespass, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, battery, products liability, public and private nuisance, fraudulent concealment, and unjust enrichment. Each count was filed against each defendant. The action arises from Wolverine’s allegedly improper disposal of materials and wastes related to their shoe manufacturing operations. Plaintiffs allege Wolverine used 3M Scotchgard in its manufacturing process and that chemicals from 3M’s product have contaminated the environment after being disposed of near drinking water sources.

For environmental litigation matters described in this section for which a liability, if any, has been recorded, the Company believes the amount recorded, as well as the possible loss or range of loss in excess of the established accrual is not material to the Company’s consolidated results of operations or financial condition. For those matters for which a liability has not been recorded, the Company believes any such liability is not probable and estimable and the Company is not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss at this time.

Environmental Liabilities and Insurance Receivables

As of December 31, 2017, the Company had recorded liabilities of $28 million for estimated “environmental remediation” costs based upon an evaluation of currently available facts with respect to each individual site and also recorded related insurance receivables of $8 million. The Company records liabilities for remediation costs on an undiscounted basis when they are probable and reasonably estimable, generally no later than the completion of feasibility studies or the Company’s commitment to a plan of action. Liabilities for estimated costs of environmental remediation, depending on the site, are based primarily upon internal or third-party environmental studies, and estimates as to the number, participation level and financial viability of any other potentially responsible parties, the extent of the contamination and the nature of required remedial actions. The Company adjusts recorded liabilities as further information develops or circumstances change. The Company expects that it will pay the amounts recorded over the periods of remediation for the applicable sites, currently ranging up to 20 years.

As of December 31, 2017, the Company had recorded liabilities of $25 million for “other environmental liabilities” based upon an evaluation of currently available facts to implement the Settlement Agreement and Consent Order with the MPCA, the remedial action agreement with ADEM, and to address trace amounts of perfluorinated compounds in drinking water sources in the City of Oakdale, Minnesota, as well as presence in the soil and groundwater at the Company’s manufacturing facilities in Decatur, Alabama, and Cottage Grove, Minnesota, and at two former disposal sites in Washington County, Minnesota (Oakdale and Woodbury). The Company expects that most of the spending will occur over the next four years. During the first quarter of 2017, the Company collected from its insurer the outstanding receivable of $15 million related to “other environmental liabilities.”

It is difficult to estimate the cost of environmental compliance and remediation given the uncertainties regarding the interpretation and enforcement of applicable environmental laws and regulations, the extent of environmental contamination and the existence of alternative cleanup methods. Developments may occur that could affect the Company’s current assessment, including, but not limited to: (i) changes in the information available regarding the environmental impact of the Company’s operations and products; (ii) changes in environmental regulations, changes in permissible levels of specific compounds in drinking water sources, or changes in enforcement theories and policies, including efforts to recover natural resource damages; (iii) new and evolving analytical and remediation techniques; (iv) success in allocating liability to other potentially responsible parties; and (v) the financial viability of other potentially responsible parties and third-party indemnitors. For sites included in both “environmental remediation liabilities” and “other environmental liabilities,” at which remediation activity is largely complete and remaining activity relates primarily to operation and maintenance of the remedy, including required post-remediation monitoring, the Company believes the exposure to loss in excess of the amount accrued would not be material to the Company’s consolidated results of operations or financial condition. However, for locations at which remediation activity is largely ongoing, the Company cannot estimate a possible loss or range of loss in excess of the associated established accruals for the reasons described above.

Other Matters

Department of Labor Investigation

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) notified 3M in April 2015 that it had commenced an investigation of 3M’s pension plan pursuant to the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA). The DOL has stated its investigation relates to certain private equity investments, plan expenses, securities lending, and distributions of plan benefits. In response to certain DOL requests, 3M produced documents and made employees available for interviews. In December 2016, the DOL issued certain subpoenas to 3M and 3M Investment Management Corp. relating to this investigation. 3M has produced additional responsive documents and is cooperating with the DOL in its investigation. 3M anticipates that the DOL will conclude its investigation in the first half of 2018.

Product Liability Litigation

One customer obtained an order in the French courts against 3M Purification SAS (a French subsidiary) in October 2011 appointing an expert to determine the amount of commercial loss and property damage allegedly caused by allegedly defective 3M filters used in the customer’s manufacturing process. An Austrian subsidiary of this same customer also filed a claim against 3M Austria GmbH (an Austrian subsidiary) and 3M Purification SAS in the Austrian courts in September 2012 seeking damages for the same issue. The Company reached an agreement in principle to settle those two cases and finalized the settlement during the second quarter of 2017. The amounts agreed to in each of these settlements were not material to the Company’s consolidated results of operations or financial condition.

As of December 31, 2017, the Company is a named defendant in lawsuits involving approximately 4,270 plaintiffs (compared to approximately 1,260 plaintiffs at December 31, 2016), most of which are pending in federal or state court in Minnesota, in which the plaintiffs claim they underwent various joint arthroplasty, cardiovascular, and other surgeries and later developed surgical site infections due to the use of the Bair Hugger™ patient warming system. The complaints seek damages and other relief based on theories of strict liability, negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, failure to warn, design and manufacturing defect, fraudulent and/or negligent misrepresentation/concealment, unjust enrichment, and violations of various state consumer fraud, deceptive or unlawful trade practices and/or false advertising acts. One case, from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee is a putative nationwide class action. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) granted the plaintiffs’ motion to transfer and consolidate all cases pending in federal courts to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to be managed in a multi-district proceeding during the pre-trial phase of the litigation. The federal court has set a trial-ready date in May 2018 in one of the two federal court bellwether cases. At a joint hearing before the U.S. District Court and the Minnesota State court, on the parties’ motion to exclude each other’s experts, and 3M’s motion for summary judgment with respect to general causation, the federal court did not exclude the plaintiffs’ experts and denied 3M’s motion for summary judgment on general causation. In January 2018, the state court, in hearing the same arguments, excluded plaintiffs’ experts and granted 3M’s motion for summary judgment on general causation, dismissing all 61 cases pending before the state court in Minnesota.

In June 2016, the Company was served with a putative class action filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for all Canadian residents who underwent various joint arthroplasty, cardiovascular, and other surgeries and later developed surgical site infections due to the use of the Bair Hugger™ patient warming system. The representative plaintiff seeks relief (including punitive damages) under Canadian law based on theories similar to those asserted in the MDL. The Bair Hugger™ product line was acquired by 3M as part of the 2010 acquisition of Arizant, Inc., a leading manufacturer of patient warming solutions designed to prevent hypothermia and maintain normal body temperature in surgical settings. No liability has been recorded for this matter because the Company believes that any such liability is not probable and estimable at this time.

In September 2011, 3M Oral Care launched Lava Ultimate CAD/CAM dental restorative material. The product was originally indicated for inlay, onlay, veneer, and crown applications. In June 2015, 3M Oral Care voluntarily removed crown applications from the product’s instructions for use, following reports from dentists of patients’ crowns debonding, requiring additional treatment. The product remains on the market for other applications. 3M communicated with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, as well as regulators outside the United States. 3M also informed customers and distributors of its action, offered to accept return of unused materials and provide refunds. As of December 31, 2017, there is one lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota that names 29 plaintiffs and seeks certification of a class of dentists in the United States and its territories, and alternatively seeks subclasses in 13 states. The complaint alleges 3M marketed and sold defective Lava Ultimate material used for dental crowns to dentists and, under various theories, seek monetary damages (replacement costs and business reputation loss), punitive damages, disgorgement of profits, injunction from marketing and selling Lava Ultimate for use in dental crowns, statutory penalties, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

For product liability litigation matters described in this section for which a liability has been recorded, the Company believes the amount recorded is not material to the Company’s consolidated results of operations or financial condition. In addition, the Company is not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss in excess of the established accruals at this time.