Contingencies and Environmental Remediation	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2016
Contingencies and Environmental Remediation
Contingencies and Environmental Remediation	(14) Contingencies and Environmental Remediation Accrual and Disclosure Policy The Company is a defendant in numerous legal matters arising from its ordinary course of operations, including those involving product liability, environmental matters, and commercial disputes. The Company reviews its lawsuits and other legal proceedings on an ongoing basis and follows appropriate accounting guidance when making accrual and disclosure decisions. The Company establishes accruals for matters when the Company assesses that it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company does not establish accruals for such matters when the Company does not believe both that it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company’s assessment of whether a loss is probable is based on its assessment of the ultimate outcome of the matter following all appeals. Under the FASB issued ASC 450 “Contingencies”, an event is “reasonably possible” if “the chance of the future event or events occurring is more than remote but less than likely” and an event is “remote” if “the chance of the future event or events occurring is slight”. Thus, references to the upper end of the range of reasonably possible loss for cases in which the Company is able to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss mean the upper end of the range of loss for cases for which the Company believes the risk of loss is more than slight. There may continue to be exposure to loss in excess of any amount accrued. When it is possible to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss above the amount accrued for the matters disclosed, that estimate is aggregated and disclosed. The Company records legal costs associated with its legal contingencies as incurred, except for legal costs associated with product liability claims which are included in the actuarial estimates used in determining the product liability accrual. As of December 31, 2016, the Company estimates that the aggregate amount of reasonably possible loss in excess of the amount accrued for its legal contingencies is approximately $4.0 million pre‑tax. With respect to the estimate of reasonably possible loss, management has estimated the upper end of the range of reasonably possible loss based on (i) the amount of money damages claimed, where applicable, (ii) the allegations and factual development to date, (iii) available defenses based on the allegations, and/or (iv) other potentially liable parties. This estimate is based upon currently available information and is subject to significant judgment and a variety of assumptions, and known and unknown uncertainties. The matters underlying the estimate will change from time to time, and actual results may vary significantly from the current estimate. In the event of an unfavorable outcome in one or more of the matters described below, the ultimate liability may be in excess of amounts currently accrued, if any, and may be material to the Company’s operating results or cash flows for a particular quarterly or annual period. However, based on information currently known to it, management believes that the ultimate outcome of all matters, as they are resolved over time, is not likely to have a material adverse effect on the financial condition of the Company, though the outcome could be material to the Company’s operating results for any particular period depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period. Connector Class Actions In November and December 2014, Watts Water Technologies, Inc. and Watts Regulator Co. were named as defendants in three separate putative nationwide class action complaints (Meyers v. Watts Water Technologies, Inc., United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio; Ponzo v. Watts Regulator Co., United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts; Sharp v. Watts Regulator Co., United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts) seeking to recover damages and other relief based on the alleged failure of water heater connectors. On June 26, 2015, plaintiffs in the three actions filed a consolidated amended complaint, under the case captioned Ponzo v. Watts Regulator Co., in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (hereinafter “Ponzo”). Watts Water Technologies was voluntarily dismissed from the Ponzo case. The complaint seeks among other items, damages in an unspecified amount, replacement costs, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On August 7, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which motion is still pending. In February 2015, Watts Regulator Co. was named as a defendant in a putative nationwide class action complaint (Klug v. Watts Water Technologies, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the District of Nebraska) seeking to recover damages and other relief based on the alleged failure of the Company’s Floodsafe connectors (hereinafter “Klug”). On June 26, 2015, the Company filed a partial motion to dismiss the complaint. In response, on July 17, 2015, plaintiff filed an amended complaint which added additional named plaintiffs and sought to correct deficiencies in the original complaint, Klug v. Watts Regulator Co., United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. The complaint seeks among other items, damages in an unspecified amount, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On July 31, 2015, the Company filed a partial motion to dismiss the complaint which was granted in part and denied in part on December 29, 2015. The Company answered the amended complaint on February 2, 2016. No formal discovery has yet been conducted. The Company participated in mediation sessions of the Ponzo and Klug cases in December 2015 and January 2016. On February 16, 2016, the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle all claims. The proposed total settlement amount is $14 million, of which the Company is expected to pay approximately $4.1 million after insurance proceeds, of up to $9.9 million. The parties executed final written settlement agreements in April 2016. Motions for preliminary approval of the settlements were submitted on May 4, 2016 before the District of Nebraska Federal Court. On December 7, 2016, the Court issued an order preliminarily approving the settlements. The settlements are subject to final court approval after a fairness hearing set for April 12, 2017. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that the proposed settlements will be approved in their current form. If the settlements are not approved, the Company intends to continue to vigorously contest the allegations in these cases. During the fourth quarter of 2015, the Company recorded a liability of $14 million related to the Ponzo and Klug matters of which $7.8 million was included in current liabilities and $6.2 million in other noncurrent liabilities. In addition, a $9.5 million receivable was recorded in current assets related to insurance proceeds due, based on costs incurred as of December 31, 2015, and subject to completion of a separate final written settlement agreement if the class action settlement is approved. The Company recorded a pre-tax charge of $3.5 million in the fourth quarter of 2015 related to the settlement after adjusting the existing product liability accrual. Product Liability The Company is subject to a variety of potential liabilities in connection with product liability cases. The Company maintains a high self-insured retention limit within our product liability and general liability coverage, which the Company believes to be generally in accordance with industry practices. For product liability cases in the U.S., management establishes its product liability accrual, which includes legal costs associated with accrued claims, by utilizing third‑party actuarial valuations which incorporate historical trend factors and the Company’s specific claims experience derived from loss reports provided by third‑party administrators. The product liability accrual is established after considering any applicable insurance coverage. Changes in the nature of product liability claims or the actual settlement amounts could affect the adequacy of the estimates and require changes to the provisions. Because the liability is an estimate, the ultimate liability may be more or less than reported. Environmental Remediation The Company has been named as a potentially responsible party with respect to a limited number of identified contaminated sites. The levels of contamination vary significantly from site to site as do the related levels of remediation efforts. Environmental liabilities are recorded based on the most probable cost, if known, or on the estimated minimum cost of remediation. Accruals are not discounted to their present value, unless the amount and timing of expenditures are fixed and reliably determinable. The Company accrues estimated environmental liabilities based on assumptions, which are subject to a number of factors and uncertainties. Circumstances that can affect the reliability and precision of these estimates include identification of additional sites, environmental regulations, level of clean‑up required, technologies available, number and financial condition of other contributors to remediation and the time period over which remediation may occur. The Company recognizes changes in estimates as new remediation requirements are defined or as new information becomes available. Asbestos Litigation The Company is defending approximately 332 lawsuits in different jurisdictions, alleging injury or death as a result of exposure to asbestos. The complaints in these cases typically name a large number of defendants and do not identify any particular Company products as a source of asbestos exposure. To date, discovery has failed to yield evidence of substantial exposure to any Company products and no judgments have been entered against the Company. Other Litigation Other lawsuits and proceedings or claims, arising from the ordinary course of operations, are also pending or threatened against the Company.

(14) Contingencies and Environmental Remediation

Accrual and Disclosure Policy

The Company is a defendant in numerous legal matters arising from its ordinary course of operations, including those involving product liability, environmental matters, and commercial disputes.

The Company reviews its lawsuits and other legal proceedings on an ongoing basis and follows appropriate accounting guidance when making accrual and disclosure decisions. The Company establishes accruals for matters when the Company assesses that it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company does not establish accruals for such matters when the Company does not believe both that it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company’s assessment of whether a loss is probable is based on its assessment of the ultimate outcome of the matter following all appeals.

Under the FASB issued ASC 450 “Contingencies”, an event is “reasonably possible” if “the chance of the future event or events occurring is more than remote but less than likely” and an event is “remote” if “the chance of the future event or events occurring is slight”. Thus, references to the upper end of the range of reasonably possible loss for cases in which the Company is able to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss mean the upper end of the range of loss for cases for which the Company believes the risk of loss is more than slight.

There may continue to be exposure to loss in excess of any amount accrued. When it is possible to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss above the amount accrued for the matters disclosed, that estimate is aggregated and disclosed. The Company records legal costs associated with its legal contingencies as incurred, except for legal costs associated with product liability claims which are included in the actuarial estimates used in determining the product liability accrual.

As of December 31, 2016, the Company estimates that the aggregate amount of reasonably possible loss in excess of the amount accrued for its legal contingencies is approximately $4.0 million pre‑tax. With respect to the estimate of reasonably possible loss, management has estimated the upper end of the range of reasonably possible loss based on (i) the amount of money damages claimed, where applicable, (ii) the allegations and factual development to date, (iii) available defenses based on the allegations, and/or (iv) other potentially liable parties. This estimate is based upon currently available information and is subject to significant judgment and a variety of assumptions, and known and unknown uncertainties. The matters underlying the estimate will change from time to time, and actual results may vary significantly from the current estimate. In the event of an unfavorable outcome in one or more of the matters described below, the ultimate liability may be in excess of amounts currently accrued, if any, and may be material to the Company’s operating results or cash flows for a particular quarterly or annual period. However, based on information currently known to it, management believes that the ultimate outcome of all matters, as they are resolved over time, is not likely to have a material adverse effect on the financial condition of the Company, though the outcome could be material to the Company’s operating results for any particular period depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.

Connector Class Actions

In November and December 2014, Watts Water Technologies, Inc. and Watts Regulator Co. were named as defendants in three separate putative nationwide class action complaints (Meyers v. Watts Water Technologies, Inc., United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio; Ponzo v. Watts Regulator Co., United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts; Sharp v. Watts Regulator Co., United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts) seeking to recover damages and other relief based on the alleged failure of water heater connectors. On June 26, 2015, plaintiffs in the three actions filed a consolidated amended complaint, under the case captioned Ponzo v. Watts Regulator Co., in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (hereinafter “Ponzo”). Watts Water Technologies was voluntarily dismissed from the Ponzo case. The complaint seeks among other items, damages in an unspecified amount, replacement costs, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On August 7, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which motion is still pending.

In February 2015, Watts Regulator Co. was named as a defendant in a putative nationwide class action complaint (Klug v. Watts Water Technologies, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the District of Nebraska) seeking to recover damages and other relief based on the alleged failure of the Company’s Floodsafe connectors (hereinafter “Klug”). On June 26, 2015, the Company filed a partial motion to dismiss the complaint. In response, on July 17, 2015, plaintiff filed an amended complaint which added additional named plaintiffs and sought to correct deficiencies in the original complaint, Klug v. Watts Regulator Co., United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. The complaint seeks among other items, damages in an unspecified amount, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On July 31, 2015, the Company filed a partial motion to dismiss the complaint which was granted in part and denied in part on December 29, 2015. The Company answered the amended complaint on February 2, 2016. No formal discovery has yet been conducted.

The Company participated in mediation sessions of the Ponzo and Klug cases in December 2015 and January 2016. On February 16, 2016, the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle all claims. The proposed total settlement amount is $14 million, of which the Company is expected to pay approximately $4.1 million after insurance proceeds, of up to $9.9 million. The parties executed final written settlement agreements in April 2016. Motions for preliminary approval of the settlements were submitted on May 4, 2016 before the District of Nebraska Federal Court. On December 7, 2016, the Court issued an order preliminarily approving the settlements. The settlements are subject to final court approval after a fairness hearing set for April 12, 2017. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that the proposed settlements will be approved in their current form. If the settlements are not approved, the Company intends to continue to vigorously contest the allegations in these cases.

During the fourth quarter of 2015, the Company recorded a liability of $14 million related to the Ponzo and Klug matters of which $7.8 million was included in current liabilities and $6.2 million in other noncurrent liabilities. In addition, a $9.5 million receivable was recorded in current assets related to insurance proceeds due, based on costs incurred as of December 31, 2015, and subject to completion of a separate final written settlement agreement if the class action settlement is approved. The Company recorded a pre-tax charge of $3.5 million in the fourth quarter of 2015 related to the settlement after adjusting the existing product liability accrual.

Product Liability

The Company is subject to a variety of potential liabilities in connection with product liability cases. The Company maintains a high self-insured retention limit within our product liability and general liability coverage, which the Company believes to be generally in accordance with industry practices. For product liability cases in the U.S., management establishes its product liability accrual, which includes legal costs associated with accrued claims, by utilizing third‑party actuarial valuations which incorporate historical trend factors and the Company’s specific claims experience derived from loss reports provided by third‑party administrators. The product liability accrual is established after considering any applicable insurance coverage. Changes in the nature of product liability claims or the actual settlement amounts could affect the adequacy of the estimates and require changes to the provisions. Because the liability is an estimate, the ultimate liability may be more or less than reported.

Environmental Remediation

The Company has been named as a potentially responsible party with respect to a limited number of identified contaminated sites. The levels of contamination vary significantly from site to site as do the related levels of remediation efforts. Environmental liabilities are recorded based on the most probable cost, if known, or on the estimated minimum cost of remediation. Accruals are not discounted to their present value, unless the amount and timing of expenditures are fixed and reliably determinable. The Company accrues estimated environmental liabilities based on assumptions, which are subject to a number of factors and uncertainties. Circumstances that can affect the reliability and precision of these estimates include identification of additional sites, environmental regulations, level of clean‑up required, technologies available, number and financial condition of other contributors to remediation and the time period over which remediation may occur. The Company recognizes changes in estimates as new remediation requirements are defined or as new information becomes available.

Asbestos Litigation

The Company is defending approximately 332 lawsuits in different jurisdictions, alleging injury or death as a result of exposure to asbestos. The complaints in these cases typically name a large number of defendants and do not identify any particular Company products as a source of asbestos exposure. To date, discovery has failed to yield evidence of substantial exposure to any Company products and no judgments have been entered against the Company.

Other Litigation

Other lawsuits and proceedings or claims, arising from the ordinary course of operations, are also pending or threatened against the Company.