We do not currently possess sufficient information to reasonably estimate the amounts of environmental liabilities to be recorded upon future completion of studies, litigation or settlements, and neither the timing nor the amount of the ultimate costs associated with environmental matters can be determined although they could be material to our consolidated results of operations and operating cash flows in the periods recognized or paid. However, considering our past experience, existing reserves, and the indemnification and reimbursement agreement with a Resideo subsidiary (as explained below), we do not expect that environmental matters will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position.

Reimbursements associated with the indemnification and reimbursement agreement with a Resideo subsidiary were $69 million in the six months ended June 30, 2019 and offset operating cash outflows incurred by the Company. As the Company records the accruals for environmental matters deemed probable and reasonably estimable related to the sites covered by the indemnification and reimbursement agreement, a corresponding receivable from Resideo for 90 percent of such accrual is also recorded. This receivable amount recorded in the six months ended June 30, 2019 was $32 million. As of June 30, 2019, Other Current Assets and Other Assets includes $140 million and $438 million representing the short-term and long-term portion of the receivable amount due from Resideo under the indemnification and reimbursement agreement.

NARCO Products – Honeywell’s predecessor, Allied Corporation owned NARCO from 1979 to 1986. When the NARCO business was sold, Honeywell’s predecessor entered into a cross-indemnity agreement with NARCO which included an obligation to indemnify the purchaser for asbestos claims. Such claims arise primarily from alleged occupational exposure to asbestos-containing refractory brick and mortar for high-temperature applications. NARCO ceased manufacturing these products in 1980, and the first asbestos claims were filed in the tort system against NARCO in 1983. Claims filings and related costs increased dramatically in the late 1990s through 2001, which led to NARCO filing for bankruptcy in January 2002. Once NARCO filed for bankruptcy, all then current and future NARCO asbestos claims were stayed against both NARCO and Honeywell pending the reorganization of NARCO.

Following the bankruptcy filing, in December 2002 Honeywell recorded a total NARCO asbestos liability of $3.2 billion, which was comprised of three components: (i) the estimated liability to settle pre-bankruptcy petition NARCO claims and certain post-petition settlements ($2.2 billion, referred to as “Pre-bankruptcy NARCO Liability”), (ii) the estimated liability related to then unasserted NARCO claims for the period 2004 through 2018 ($950 million, referred to as “NARCO Trust Liability”), and (iii) other NARCO bankruptcy-related obligations totaling $73 million.

When the NARCO Trust Liability of $950 million was established in 2002, the methodology for estimating the potential liability was based primarily on: (a) epidemiological projections of the future incidence of disease for the period 2004 through 2018, a fifteen-year period; (b) historical claims rates in the tort system for the five-year period prior to the bankruptcy filing date; and (c) anticipated NARCO Trust payment values set forth in the then current draft of the NARCO Trust Distribution Procedures. The methodology required estimating, by disease, three critical inputs: (i) likely number of claims to be asserted against the NARCO Trust in the future, (ii) percentage of those claims likely to receive payment, and (iii) payment values. The Company utilized outside asbestos liability valuation specialists to support its preparation of the NARCO Trust Liability estimate, which was based on a commonly accepted methodology used by numerous bankruptcy courts addressing 524(g) trusts.

In 2002, when we first established our initial liability, NARCO asbestos claims resolution shifted from the tort system to an anticipated NARCO Trust framework, where claims would be processed in accordance with established NARCO Trust Distribution Procedures, including strict medical and exposure criteria for a plaintiff to receive compensation. We believed at the time that the NARCO Trust’s claims filing and resolution experience after the NARCO Trust became operational would be significantly different from pre-bankruptcy tort system experience in light of these more rigorous claims processing requirements in the NARCO Trust Distribution Procedures and Honeywell’s active oversight of claims processing and approval. Given these anticipated differences, we believed that a 15-year time period was the appropriate horizon for establishing a probable and reasonably estimable liability for then unasserted NARCO claims as it represented our best estimate of the time period it would take for the NARCO Trust to be approved by the Bankruptcy Court, become fully operational and generate sufficiently reliable claims data (i.e., a data set which is statistically representative) to enable us to update our NARCO Trust Liability.

The NARCO Trust Distribution Procedures were finalized in 2006, and the Company updated its NARCO Trust Liability to reflect the final terms and payment values. The original 15-year period (from 2004 through 2018) for unasserted claims did not change as asbestos claims filings continued to be stayed against both Honeywell and NARCO. The 2006 update resulted in a range of the estimated liability for unasserted claims of $743 million to $961 million, and we believed that no amount within this range was a better estimate than any other amount. In accordance with ASC 450 – Contingencies (“ASC 450”), we recorded the low end of the range of $743 million which resulted in a reduction of $207 million in our NARCO Trust Liability.

NARCO emerged from bankruptcy on April 30, 2013, at which time a federally authorized 524(g) trust was established for the evaluation and resolution of all existing and future NARCO asbestos claims. Both Honeywell and NARCO are protected by a permanent channeling injunction barring all present and future individual actions in state or federal courts and requiring all asbestos related claims based on exposure to NARCO asbestos-containing products to be made against the NARCO Trust.

The NARCO Trust Agreement and the NARCO Trust Distribution Procedures are the principal documents setting forth the structure of the NARCO Trust. These documents establish Honeywell’s evergreen funding obligations. Honeywell is obligated to fund NARCO asbestos claims submitted to the NARCO Trust which qualify for payment under the Trust Distribution Procedures (Annual Contribution Claims), subject to an annual cap of $145 million. However, the initial $100 million of claims processed through the NARCO Trust (the Initial Claims Amount) will not count against the annual cap and any unused portion of the Initial Claims Amount will roll over to subsequent years until fully utilized. These documents also establish the material operating rules for the NARCO Trust, including Honeywell audit rights and the criteria claimants must meet to have a valid claim paid. These claims payment criteria include providing the NARCO Trust with adequate medical evidence of the claimant’s asbestos-related condition and credible evidence of exposure to a specific NARCO asbestos-containing product. Further, the NARCO Trust is eligible to receive cash dividends from Harbison-Walker International Inc (“HWI”), the reorganized and renamed entity that emerged, fully operational, from the NARCO bankruptcy. The NARCO Trust is required to use any funding received from HWI to pay Annual Contribution Claims until those funds are exhausted. It is only at this point that Honeywell’s funding obligation to the Trust is triggered. Thus, there is an unrelated primary source for funding that affects Honeywell’s funding of the NARCO Trust Liability.

Once operational, the NARCO Trust began to receive, process and pay claims that had been previously stayed pending the Trust becoming operational. As the NARCO Trust began to pay claims in 2014, we began to assert our on-going audit rights to review and monitor the claims processor’s adherence to the established requirements of the NARCO Trust Distribution Procedures. While doing so, we identified several issues with the way the Trust was implementing the NARCO Trust Distribution Procedures. In 2015, Honeywell filed suit against the NARCO Trust in Bankruptcy Court alleging breach of certain provisions of the NARCO Trust Agreement and NARCO Trust Distribution Procedures. The parties agreed to dismiss the proceeding without prejudice pursuant to an 18-month Standstill Agreement, which expired in October 2017. Notwithstanding its expiration, claims processing continues, and Honeywell continues to negotiate and attempt to resolve remaining disputed issues (that is, instances where Honeywell believes the NARCO Trust is not processing claims in accordance with established NARCO Trust Distribution Procedures). Honeywell reserves its right to seek judicial intervention should negotiations fail.

As of June 30, 2019, our total NARCO asbestos liability of $902 million reflects Pre-bankruptcy NARCO liability of $159 million and NARCO Trust Liability of $743 million. Through June 30, 2019, Pre-bankruptcy NARCO Liability has been reduced by approximately $2 billion since first established in 2002, largely related to settlement payments. The remaining Pre-bankruptcy NARCO Liability principally represents estimated amounts owed pursuant to settlement agreements reached during the pendency of the NARCO bankruptcy proceedings that provide for the right to submit claims to the NARCO Trust subject to qualification under the terms of the settlement agreements and Trust Distribution Procedures. The other NARCO bankruptcy-related obligations were paid in 2013 and no further liability is recorded.

Honeywell continues to evaluate the appropriateness of the $743 million NARCO Trust Liability. Despite becoming effective in 2013, the NARCO Trust has experienced delays in becoming fully operational. Violations of the Trust Distribution Procedures and the resulting disputes and challenges, a standstill pending dispute resolution, and limited claims payments, have all contributed to the lack of sufficient normalized data based on actual claims processing experience in the Trust since it became operational. As a result, we have not been able to further update the NARCO Trust Liability. The $743 million NARCO Trust Liability continues to be appropriate because of the unresolved pending claims in the Trust, some portion of which will result in payouts in the future, and because new claims continue to be filed with the NARCO Trust. When sufficiently reliable claims data exists, we will update our estimate of the NARCO Trust Liability and it is possible that a material change may need to be recognized.

Our insurance receivable of $299 million as of June 30, 2019, corresponding to the estimated liability for asserted and unasserted NARCO asbestos claims, reflects coverage which reimburses Honeywell for portions of NARCO-related indemnity and defense costs and is provided by a large number of insurance policies written by dozens of insurance companies in both the domestic insurance market and the London excess market. We conduct analyses to estimate the probable amount of insurance that is recoverable for asbestos claims. While the substantial majority of our insurance carriers are solvent, some of our individual carriers are insolvent, which has been considered in our analysis of probable recoveries. We made judgments concerning insurance coverage that we believe are reasonable and consistent with our historical dealings and our knowledge of any pertinent solvency issues surrounding insurers.

Bendix Products—Bendix manufactured automotive brake linings that contained chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated form. Claimants consist largely of individuals who allege exposure to asbestos from brakes from either performing or being in the vicinity of individuals who performed brake replacements. The following tables present information regarding Bendix-related asbestos claims activity:

Our consolidated financial statements reflect an estimated liability for resolution of asserted (claims filed as of the financial statement date) and unasserted Bendix-related asbestos claims and excludes the Company’s legal fees to defend such asbestos claims which will continue to be expensed by the Company as they are incurred. We have valued Bendix asserted and unasserted claims using average resolution values for the previous five years. We update the resolution values used to estimate the cost of Bendix asserted and unasserted claims during the fourth quarter each year.

Honeywell reflects the inclusion of all years of epidemiological disease projection through 2059 when estimating the liability for unasserted Bendix-related asbestos claims. Such liability for unasserted Bendix-related asbestos claims is based on historic and anticipated claims filing experience and dismissal rates, disease classifications, and resolution values in the tort system for the previous five years.

Our insurance receivable corresponding to the liability for settlement of asserted and unasserted Bendix asbestos claims reflects coverage which is provided by a large number of insurance policies written by dozens of insurance companies in both the domestic insurance market and the London excess market. Based on our ongoing analysis of the probable insurance recovery, insurance receivables are recorded in the financial statements simultaneous with the recording of the estimated liability for the underlying asbestos claims. This determination is based on our analysis of the underlying insurance policies, our historical experience with our insurers, our ongoing review of the solvency of our insurers, judicial determinations relevant to our insurance programs, and our consideration of the impacts of any settlements reached with our insurers.

Reimbursements associated with the indemnification and reimbursement agreement with a Garrett subsidiary (the "Agreement") were $77 million for the six months ended June 30, 2019 and offset operating cash outflows incurred by the Company. As the Company records the accruals for matters covered by the indemnification and reimbursement agreement, a corresponding receivable from Garrett for 90 percent of such accrual is also recorded. This receivable amount was $12 million in the six months ended June 30, 2019. As of June 30, 2019, Other Current Assets and Other Assets includes $170 million and $989 million representing the short-term and long-term portion of the receivable amount due from Garrett under the indemnification and reimbursement agreement.

In our ongoing communications with Garrett with respect to the Agreement and Garrett’s associated material weakness disclosure in its Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018, Garrett has taken the position that (i) Honeywell has not satisfied all of its obligations under the Agreement, and (ii) the Agreement is unenforceable either in whole or in part. We strongly believe that Garrett’s allegations have no merit, nor are they material to Honeywell. We believe we have fully complied with our obligations under the Agreement and that the Agreement is enforceable in its entirety. We intend to continue to have ongoing discussions with Garrett to try to resolve this matter.

On September 13, 2018, following completion of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Division of Corporation Finance’s review of our prior accounting for liabilities for unasserted Bendix-related asbestos claims, the SEC Division of Enforcement advised that it has opened an investigation related to this matter. Honeywell intends to provide requested information and otherwise fully cooperate with the SEC staff. On October 31, 2018, David Kanefsky, a Honeywell shareholder, filed a putative class action complaint alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 related to the prior accounting for Bendix asbestos claims. On May 15, 2019, Wayne County Employees’ Retirement System, another Honeywell shareholder, filed a putative class action asserting the same claims relating to substantially the same alleged conduct in the same jurisdiction. We believe neither complaint has any merit.

We are subject to a number of other lawsuits, investigations and disputes (some of which involve substantial amounts claimed) arising out of the conduct of our business, including matters relating to commercial transactions, government contracts, product liability, prior acquisitions and divestitures, employee benefit plans, intellectual property, and environmental, health and safety matters. We recognize a liability for any contingency that is probable of occurrence and reasonably estimable. We continually assess the likelihood of adverse judgments of outcomes in these matters, as well as potential ranges of possible losses (taking into consideration any insurance recoveries), based on a careful

Honeywell v. United Auto Workers (UAW) et. al—In September 2011, the UAW and certain Honeywell retirees (Plaintiffs) filed a suit in the Eastern District of Michigan (the District Court) alleging that a series of Master Collective Bargaining Agreements (MCBAs) between Honeywell and the UAW provided the retirees with rights to lifetime, vested healthcare benefits that could never be changed or reduced. Plaintiffs alleged that Honeywell had violated those vested rights by implementing express limitations (CAPS) on the amount Honeywell contributed toward healthcare coverage for the retirees. Honeywell subsequently answered the UAW’s complaint and asserted counterclaims, including for breach of implied warranty.

In the opinion, the District Court held that the MCBAs do not promise retirees vested, lifetime benefits that survive expiration of the MCBAs. Based on this ruling, Honeywell terminated the retirees healthcare coverage benefits altogether as of July 31, 2018. In response, the UAW filed a motion to enjoin Honeywell from completely terminating coverage as of July 31, 2018, arguing that the CAPS themselves are vested and that Honeywell must continue to provide retiree medical benefits at the capped level. On July 28, 2018, the District Court denied the UAW’s motion and entered a final judgment consistent with its March 2018 ruling. The UAW has appealed this decision to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Honeywell believes the District Court’s ruling will be upheld.

In the March 2018 opinion, the District Court also held that Honeywell is obligated under the MCBAs to pay the “full premium” for retiree healthcare rather than the capped amount. Based on this ruling, Honeywell would be required to pay monetary damages to retirees for any past years in which Honeywell paid less than the “full premium” of their healthcare coverage. Such damages would be limited, depending on the retiree group, to a two to three-year period ending when the 2016 MCBA expired, and Honeywell would have no ongoing obligation to continue funding healthcare coverage for subsequent periods. Honeywell has appealed the District Court’s ruling on this “full premium” damages issue, and believes that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals will reverse the District Court on that issue. In the event the Sixth Circuit were to sustain the District Court’s ruling on this issue, Honeywell would be liable for damages of at least $12 million.

Petrobras and Unaoil—We are cooperating with certain investigations by the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”), the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) and Brazilian authorities relating to our use of third parties who previously worked for our UOP business in Brazil in relation to Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. (“Petrobras”). The investigations are focused on compliance with the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and similar Brazilian laws, and involve, among other things, document production and interviews with former and current management and employees. The DOJ and the SEC are also examining a matter involving a foreign subsidiary’s prior engagement of Unaoil S.A.M. in Algeria. We are cooperating with the authorities in each of the above matters. While we cannot predict the outcome of these matters, based on the facts currently known to us, we do not anticipate that these matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

Given the uncertainty inherent in litigation and investigations (including the specific matters referenced above), we do not believe it is possible to develop estimates of reasonably possible loss in excess of current accruals for these matters (other than as specifically set forth above). Considering our past experience and existing accruals, we do not expect the outcome of these matters, either individually or in the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position. Because most contingencies are resolved over long periods of time, potential liabilities are subject to change due to new developments, changes in settlement strategy or the impact of evidentiary requirements, which could cause us to pay damage awards or settlements (or become subject to equitable remedies) that could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or operating cash flows in the periods recognized or paid.