We are subject to various federal, state, local and foreign government requirements relating to the protection of the environment. We believe that, as a general matter, our policies, practices and procedures are properly designed to prevent unreasonable risk of environmental damage and personal injury and that our handling, manufacture, use and disposal of hazardous substances are in accordance with environmental and safety laws and regulations. However, mainly because of past operations and operations of predecessor companies, we, like other companies engaged in similar businesses, have incurred remedial response and voluntary cleanup costs for site contamination and are a party to lawsuits and claims associated with environmental and safety matters, including past production of products containing hazardous substances. Additional lawsuits, claims and costs involving environmental matters are likely to continue to arise in the future.

With respect to environmental matters involving site contamination, we continually conduct studies, individually or jointly with other potentially responsible parties, to determine the feasibility of various remedial techniques. It is our policy to record appropriate liabilities for environmental matters when remedial efforts or damage claim payments are probable and the costs can be reasonably estimated. Such liabilities are based on our best estimate of the undiscounted future costs required to complete the remedial work. The recorded liabilities are adjusted periodically as remediation efforts progress or as additional technical, regulatory or legal information becomes available. Given the uncertainties regarding the status of laws, regulations, enforcement policies, the impact of other potentially responsible parties, technology and information related to individual sites, we do not believe it is possible to develop an estimate of the range of reasonably possible environmental loss in excess of our recorded liabilities. We expect to fund expenditures for these matters from operating cash flow. The timing of cash expenditures depends on a number of factors, including the timing of remedial investigations and feasibility studies, the timing of litigation and settlements of remediation liability, personal injury and property damage claims, regulatory approval of cleanup projects, remedial techniques to be utilized and agreements with other parties.

The following table summarizes information concerning our recorded liabilities for environmental costs:

Although we do not currently possess sufficient information to reasonably estimate the amounts of 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, they could be material to our consolidated results of operations or operating cash flows in the periods recognized or paid. However, considering our past experience and existing reserves, we do not expect that these environmental matters will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position.

New Jersey Chrome Sites—The excavation and offsite disposal of approximately one million tons of chromium residue present at a predecessor Honeywell site located in Jersey City, New Jersey, known as Study Area 7 was completed in January 2010. We have also received approval of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey for the implementation of related groundwater and sediment remedial actions, and are seeking the appropriate permits from state and federal agencies. Provisions have been made in our financial statements for the estimated cost of these remedies.

The above-referenced site is the most significant of the 21 sites located in Hudson County, New Jersey that are the subject of an Administrative Consent Order (ACO) entered into with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) in 1993 (the “Honeywell ACO Sites”). Remedial investigations and activities consistent with the ACO have also been conducted and are underway at the other Honeywell ACO Sites. We have recorded reserves for the Honeywell ACO Sites where appropriate under the accounting policy described above.

We have entered into court-approved settlements of litigation filed in federal court against Honeywell and other landowners seeking the cleanup of chrome residue at groups of properties known as Study Areas 5, 6 South and 6 North of the Honeywell ACO Sites. The required remedial actions are consistent with our recorded reserves.

On May 3, 2005, NJDEP filed a lawsuit in New Jersey Superior Court against Honeywell and two other companies seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, unspecified damages, and the reimbursement of unspecified total costs relating to sites in New Jersey allegedly contaminated with chrome ore processing residue. The claims against Honeywell relate to the activities of a predecessor company which ceased its New Jersey manufacturing operations in the mid-1950's. In September 2011, the court approved a settlement of the claims. Under the settlement, Honeywell paid $5 million of NJDEP's past costs, and accepted sole responsibility to remediate 24 of the 53 “Publicly Funded Sites” (i.e., those sites for which none of the three companies had previously accepted remediation responsibility). Honeywell will also bear 50 percent of the costs at another 10 Publicly Funded Sites. We have recorded reserves for the Publicly Funded Sites where appropriate under the accounting policy described above.

Dundalk Marine Terminal, Baltimore, MD—Chrome residue from legacy chrome plant operations in Baltimore was deposited as fill at the Dundalk Marine Terminal (“DMT”), which is owned and operated by the Maryland Port Administration (“MPA”). Honeywell and the MPA have been sharing costs to investigate and mitigate related environmental issues, and have entered into a cost sharing agreement under which Honeywell will bear 77 percent of the costs of developing and implementing permanent remedies for the DMT facility. In January 2011, the MPA and Honeywell submitted to the Maryland Department of the Environment (“MDE”) a Corrective Measures Alternatives Analysis (“CMAA”) of certain potential remedies for DMT to assist MDE in selection of a final remedy, which has not yet occurred. Provision has been made in our financial statements for the CMAA consistent with the accounting policy described above. We have negotiated a Consent Decree with the MPA and MDE with respect to the investigation and remediation of the DMT facility. The Consent Decree is being challenged in federal court by BUILD, a Baltimore community group, together with a local church and two individuals (collectively “BUILD”). In October 2007, the Court dismissed with prejudice BUILD's state law claims and dismissed without prejudice BUILD's RCRA claims regarding neighborhoods near the DMT facility. In August 2008, the Court held a hearing on the Company's motion to dismiss BUILD's remaining claims on the grounds that MDE is diligently prosecuting the investigation and remediation of the DMT. We are awaiting the Court's decision. We do not believe that this matter will have a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial position or operating cash flows. Given the scope and complexity of this project, it is possible that the cost of remediation, when determinable, could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations in the periods recognized.

Onondaga Lake, Syracuse, NY—We are implementing a combined dredging/capping remedy of Onondaga Lake pursuant to a consent decree approved by the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York in January 2007. We have accrued for our estimated cost of remediating Onondaga Lake based on currently available information and analysis performed by our engineering consultants. Honeywell is also conducting remedial investigations and activities at other sites in Syracuse. We have recorded reserves for these investigations and activities where appropriate under the accounting policy described above.

Honeywell has entered into a cooperative agreement with potential natural resource trustees to assess alleged natural resource damages relating to this site. It is not possible to predict the outcome or duration of this assessment, or the amounts of, or responsibility for, any damages.

Like many other industrial companies, Honeywell is a defendant in personal injury actions related to asbestos. We did not mine or produce asbestos, nor did we make or sell insulation products or other construction materials that have been identified as the primary cause of asbestos related disease in the vast majority of claimants. Products containing asbestos previously manufactured by Honeywell or by previously owned subsidiaries primarily fall into two general categories: refractory products and friction products.

Refractory Products—Honeywell owned North American Refractories Company (NARCO) from 1979 to 1986. NARCO produced refractory products (high temperature bricks and cement) that were sold largely to the steel industry in the East and Midwest. Less than 2 percent of NARCO'S products contained asbestos.

When we sold the NARCO business in 1986, we agreed to indemnify NARCO with respect to personal injury claims for products that had been discontinued prior to the sale (as defined in the sale agreement). NARCO retained all liability for all other claims. On January 4, 2002, NARCO filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

As a result of the NARCO bankruptcy filing, all of the claims pending against NARCO are automatically stayed pending the reorganization of NARCO. In addition, the bankruptcy court enjoined both the filing and prosecution of NARCO-related asbestos claims against Honeywell. The stay has remained in effect continuously since January 4, 2002. In connection with NARCO's bankruptcy filing, we paid NARCO's parent company $40 million and agreed to provide NARCO with up to $20 million in financing. We also agreed to pay $20 million to NARCO's parent company upon the filing of a plan of reorganization for NARCO acceptable to Honeywell (which amount was paid in December 2005 following the filing of NARCO's Third Amended Plan of Reorganization), and to pay NARCO's parent company $40 million, and to forgive any outstanding NARCO indebtedness to Honeywell, upon the effective date of the plan of reorganization.

We believe that, as part of the NARCO plan of reorganization, a trust will be established for the benefit of all asbestos claimants, current and future, pursuant to Trust Distribution Procedures negotiated with the NARCO Asbestos Claimants Committee and the Court-appointed legal representative for future asbestos claimants. If the trust is put in place and approved by the Court as fair and equitable, Honeywell as well as NARCO will be entitled to 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 products to be made against the federally-supervised trust. Honeywell reached agreement with the representative for future NARCO claimants and the Asbestos Claimants Committee to cap its annual contributions to the trust with respect to future claims at a level that would not have a material impact on Honeywell's operating cash flows.

In November 2007, the Bankruptcy Court entered an amended order confirming the NARCO Plan without modification and approving the 524(g) trust and channeling injunction in favor of NARCO and Honeywell. In December 2007, certain insurers filed an appeal of the Bankruptcy Court Order in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court Order in July 2008. In August 2008, insurers filed a notice of appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument took place on May 21, 2009 and the matter was submitted for decision. In connection with the settlement of an insurance coverage litigation matter, the insurer appellants withdrew their appeal regarding the NARCO Plan. On August 3, 2010 the Third Circuit Court of Appeals entered an order formally dismissing the NARCO appeal. Although the result in the affiliates' case will not have a direct substantive impact on the NARCO case, the NARCO Plan of Reorganization cannot become effective until resolution of an appeal of the Chapter 11 proceedings of NARCO affiliates. The Third Circuit reheard the affiliates' appeal en banc on October 13, 2010 and, on May 4, 2011, reversed the Bankruptcy Court's confirmation order and remanded for further proceedings. The affiliates' case has been returned to the Bankruptcy Court where the parties are working to resolve their disputes. The affiliates also filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. It is not possible to predict the timing or outcome of discussions between the parties, or the Bankruptcy Court or Supreme Court proceedings, in the affiliates' case. We expect that the stay enjoining litigation against NARCO and Honeywell will remain in effect until the effective date of the NARCO Plan of Reorganization.

Our consolidated financial statements reflect an estimated liability for settlement of pending and future NARCO-related asbestos claims of $1,124 million and $1,125 million as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively. The estimated liability for pending claims is based on terms and conditions, including evidentiary requirements, in definitive agreements with approximately 260,000 current claimants, and an estimate of the unsettled claims pending as of the time NARCO filed for bankruptcy protection. Substantially all settlement payments with respect to current claims have been made. Approximately $100 million of payments due pursuant to these settlements is due only upon establishment of the NARCO trust.

The estimated liability for future claims represents the estimated value of future asbestos related bodily injury claims expected to be asserted against NARCO through 2018 and the aforementioned obligations to NARCO's parent. In light of the uncertainties inherent in making long-term projections we do not believe that we have a reasonable basis for estimating asbestos claims beyond 2018. The estimate is based upon the disease criteria and payment values contained in the NARCO Trust Distribution Procedures negotiated with the NARCO Asbestos Claimants Committee and the NARCO future claimants' representative. Honeywell projected the probable number and value, including trust claim handling costs, of asbestos related future liabilities based upon experience of asbestos claims filing rates in the tort system and in certain operating asbestos trusts, and the claims experience in those forums. The valuation methodology also includes an analysis of the population likely to have been exposed to asbestos containing products, epidemiological studies to estimate the number of people likely to develop asbestos related diseases, NARCO claims filing history, the pending inventory of NARCO asbestos related claims and payment rates expected to be established by the NARCO trust. This methodology used to estimate the liability for future claims has been commonly accepted by numerous courts and resulted in a range of estimated liability for future claims of $743 to $961 million. We believe that no amount within this range is a better estimate than any other amount and accordingly, we have recorded the minimum amount in the range.

As of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, our consolidated financial statements reflect an insurance receivable corresponding to the liability for settlement of pending and future NARCO-related asbestos claims of $685 and $718 million, respectively. This coverage reimburses Honeywell for portions of the costs incurred to settle NARCO related claims and court judgments as well as 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. At September 30, 2011, a significant portion of this coverage is with insurance companies with whom we have agreements to pay full policy limits based on corresponding Honeywell claims costs. We conduct analyses to determine the amount of insurance that we estimate is probable of recovery in relation to payment of current and estimated future 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 with our insurers, our knowledge of any pertinent solvency issues surrounding insurers and various judicial determinations relevant to our insurance programs.

In the second quarter of 2006, Travelers Casualty and Insurance Company (“Travelers”) filed a declaratory judgment action in the Supreme Court of New York, County of New York against Honeywell and other insurance carriers that provide coverage for NARCO asbestos claims, seeking a declaration regarding coverage obligations for NARCO-related asbestos claims under high excess insurance coverage issued by Travelers and the other insurance carriers. The other insurance carriers asserted cross claims against Honeywell seeking declarations regarding their coverage obligations for NARCO-related asbestos claims under high excess insurance coverage issued by them. Since then, the Company has entered into settlement agreements resolving all asbestos coverage issues with certain of these insurance carriers. Approximately $65 million of remaining unsettled coverage is included in our NARCO-related insurance receivable at September 30, 2011. Honeywell believes it is entitled to the coverage at issue and expects to prevail in this matter. In the third quarter of 2007, Honeywell prevailed on a critical choice of law issue concerning the appropriate method of allocating NARCO-related asbestos liabilities to triggered policies. The plaintiffs appealed and the trial court's ruling was upheld by the intermediate appellate court in the second quarter of 2009. Plaintiffs' further appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court in New York, was denied in October 2009. A related New Jersey action brought by Honeywell has been dismissed, but all coverage claims against plaintiffs have been preserved in the New York action. Based upon (i) our understanding of relevant facts and applicable law, (ii) the terms of insurance policies at issue, (iii) our experience on matters of this nature, and (iv) the advice of counsel, we believe that the amount due from the remaining insurance carriers is probable of recovery. While Honeywell expects to prevail in this matter, an adverse outcome could have a material impact on our results of operations in the period recognized but would not be material to our consolidated financial position or operating cash flows.

Projecting future events is subject to many uncertainties that could cause the NARCO related asbestos liabilities or assets to be higher or lower than those projected and recorded. There is no assurance that the plan of reorganization will become final, that insurance recoveries will be timely or whether there will be any NARCO related asbestos claims beyond 2018. Given the inherent uncertainty in predicting future events, we review our estimates periodically, and update them based on our experience and other relevant factors. Similarly, we will reevaluate our projections concerning our probable insurance recoveries in light of any changes to the projected liability or other developments that may impact insurance recoveries.

Friction Products—Honeywell's Bendix friction materials (Bendix) business manufactured automotive brake parts that contained chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated form. Existing and potential 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:

	Nine Months Ended		Year Ended
		September 30,	December 31,
Claims Activity		2011	2010	2009

Claims Unresolved at the beginning of period		22,480	19,940	51,951
Claims Filed during the period ^(a)		2,719	4,302	2,697
Claims Resolved during the period^(b)		(2,399)	(1,762)	(34,708)

Claims Unresolved at the end of period		22,800	22,480	19,940

(a) The number of claims filed in 2010 includes approximately 1,541 non-malignant claims (with an accrued liability of approximately $575 thousand in the aggregate), a majority of which had previously been dismissed in Mississippi and re-filed in Arkansas.
(b) The number of claims resolved in 2010 includes approximately 1,300 claims previously classified as inactive (95% non-malignant and accrued liability of approximately $2.0 million) which were activated during 2010. The claims portfolio was reduced in 2009 due to settlements, dismissals and the elimination of significantly aged (i.e., pending for more than six years), inactive (including claims for which the required medical and exposure showings have not been made) and duplicate claims.

	Honeywell has experienced average resolution values per claim excluding legal costs as follows:

			Year Ended December 31,
			2010		2009		2008		2007		2006

			(in whole dollars)
Malignant claims		$	54,000	$	50,000	$	65,000	$	33,000	$	33,000
Nonmalignant claims		$	1,300	$	200	$	1,500	$	500	$	250

It is not possible to predict whether resolution values for Bendix related asbestos claims will increase, decrease or stabilize in the future.

Our consolidated financial statements reflect an estimated liability for resolution of pending and future Bendix related asbestos claims of $613 and $594 million at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively. Our liability for the estimated cost of future Bendix related asbestos claims is based on historic claims filing experience, disease classifications, expected resolution values, and historic dismissal rates. We have valued Bendix pending and future claims using average resolution values for the previous five years. Changes in the tort system, which began in 2006, refocused asbestos litigation on mesothelioma cases, making the five year period 2006 through 2010 representative for forecasting purposes. We update the expected resolution values used to estimate the cost of pending and future Bendix claims during the fourth quarter each year.

The estimated liability for future claims represents the estimated value of future asbestos related bodily injury claims expected to be asserted against Bendix over the next five years. In light of the uncertainties inherent in making long-term projections, as well as certain factors unique to friction product asbestos claims, we do not believe that we have a reasonable basis for estimating asbestos claims beyond the next five years. The estimate is based upon Bendix historical experience in the tort system for the five years ended December 31, 2010 with respect to claims filing and resolution values. The methodology used to estimate the liability for future claims has been commonly accepted by numerous courts. It is similar to that used to estimate the future NARCO related asbestos claims liability.

As of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, our consolidated financial statements reflect an insurance receivable corresponding to the liability for settlement of pending and future Bendix related asbestos claims of $160 and $157 million, respectively. This coverage 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, our interpretation of judicial determinations relevant to our insurance programs, and our consideration of the impacts of any settlements reached with our insurers. Insurance receivables are also recorded when structured insurance settlements provide for future fixed payment streams that are not contingent upon future claims or other events. Such amounts are recorded at the net present value of the fixed payment stream.

On a cumulative historical basis, Honeywell has recorded insurance receivables equal to approximately 40 percent of the value of the underlying asbestos claims recorded. However, because there are gaps in our coverage due to insurance company insolvencies, certain uninsured periods, and insurance settlements, this rate is expected to decline for any future Bendix related asbestos liabilities that may be recorded. Future recoverability rates may also be impacted by numerous other factors, such as future insurance settlements, insolvencies and judicial determinations relevant to our coverage program, which are difficult to predict. Assuming continued defense and indemnity spending at current levels, we estimate that the cumulative recoverability rate could decline over the next five years to approximately 35 percent.

Honeywell believes it has sufficient insurance coverage and reserves to cover all pending Bendix related asbestos claims and Bendix related asbestos claims estimated to be filed within the next five years. Although it is impossible to predict the outcome of either pending or future Bendix related asbestos claims, we do not believe that such claims would have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position in light of our insurance coverage and our prior experience in resolving such claims. If the rate and types of claims filed, the average resolution value of such claims and the period of time over which claim settlements are paid (collectively, the “Variable Claims Factors”) do not substantially change, Honeywell would not expect future Bendix related asbestos claims to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or operating cash flows in any fiscal year. No assurances can be given, however, that the Variable Claims Factors will not change.

Refractory and Friction Products — The following tables summarize information concerning NARCO and Bendix asbestos related balances:

Asbestos Related Liabilities
		Bendix		NARCO		Total

December 31, 2010	$	594	$	1,125	$	1,719
Accrual for update to estimated liability		137		2		139
Asbestos related liability payments		(118)		(3)		(121)

September 30, 2011	$	613	$	1,124	$	1,737

Insurance Recoveries for Asbestos Related Liabilities
		Bendix		NARCO		Total

December 31, 2010	$	157	$	718	$	875
Probable insurance recoveries related to
estimated liability		18		0		18
Insurance receivable settlement		6		0		6
Insurance receipts for asbestos related liabilities		(21)		(33)		(54)

September 30, 2011	$	160	$	685	$	845

NARCO and Bendix asbestos related balances are included in the following balance sheet accounts:

		September 30,		December 31,
		2011		2010

Other current assets	$	97	$	50
Insurance recoveries for asbestos related liabilities		748		825

	$	845	$	875

Accrued liabilities	$	163	$	162
Asbestos related liabilities		1,574		1,557

	$	1,737	$	1,719

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 analysis of each matter with the assistance of outside legal counsel and, if applicable, other experts. Included in these other matters are the following:

Allen, et al. v. Honeywell Retirement Earnings Plan—Pursuant to a settlement approved by the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona in February 2008, 18 of 21 claims alleged by plaintiffs in this class action lawsuit were dismissed with prejudice in exchange for approximately $35 million (paid from the Company's pension plan) and the maximum aggregate liability for the remaining three claims (alleging that Honeywell impermissibly reduced the pension benefits of certain employees of a predecessor entity when the plan was amended in 1983 and failed to calculate benefits in accordance with the terms of the plan) was capped at $500 million. In October 2009, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Honeywell Retirement Earnings Plan with respect to the claim regarding the calculation of benefits. In May 2011, the parties engaged in mediation and reached an agreement in principle to settle the three remaining claims for $23.8 million (also to be paid from the Company's pension plan). Settlement documents have been submitted to the court for classwide approval and we anticipate a fairness hearing on the settlement in the fourth quarter of 2011 or the first quarter of 2012. Upon court approval of the settlement, all claims in this matter will be fully resolved.

Quick Lube—On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut alleging that twelve filter manufacturers, including Honeywell, engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids and allocate U.S. customers for aftermarket automotive filters. This suit is a purported class action on behalf of direct purchasers of filters from the defendants. Parallel purported class actions, including on behalf of indirect purchasers of filters, have been filed by other plaintiffs in a variety of jurisdictions in the United States and Canada. The U.S cases have been consolidated into a single multi-district litigation in the Northern District of Illinois. In April 2011, the multi-district litigation was stayed pending an investigation by the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania relating to plaintiff's principal witness for possible violations of federal law. In June 2011, plaintiff's principal witness pled guilty to a felony count of having made false statements to federal investigators. We believe the claims against Honeywell are without merit and we will vigorously defend against the claims raised in these actions. As previously reported, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice notified Honeywell in January 2010 that it had officially closed its investigation into possible collusion in the replacement auto filters industry.

Solvay v. Honeywell— On September 29, 2011, a jury in the District of Delaware returned a unanimous verdict in favor of Honeywell in this patent infringement suit, finding plaintiff Solvay's asserted patent claim invalid on three grounds and awarding no damages. Solvay had claimed that Honeywell's manufacture and sale of HFC-245fa infringed its patent and sought damages of $61 million. Honeywell expects Solvay to make a motion requesting the District Court to overturn the jury's verdict and, in the event that motion is denied, appeal the judgment to the Federal Circuit. Honeywell will continue its vigorous defense and expects to prevail on Solvay's motion and any appeal.

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. 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.