Contingencies and Environmental Remediation	9 Months Ended
Oct. 01, 2017
Contingencies and Environmental Remediation
Contingencies and Environmental Remediation	12. Contingencies and Environmental Remediation 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. Other than the items described below, significant commitments and contingencies at October 1, 2017 are consistent with those discussed in Note 14 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016. As of October 1, 2017, the Company estimates that the aggregate amount of reasonably possible loss in excess of the amount accrued for its legal contingencies is approximately $4.5 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, 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. Chemetco, Inc. Superfund Site, Hartford, Illinois In August 2017, Watts Regulator Co. received a “Notice of Environmental Liability” from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”) for the Chemetco, Inc. Superfund Site in Hartford, Illinois (the Site). The letter from the Chemetco Site Group (“Group”) alleges that Watts Regulator Co. is a potentially responsible party because it arranged for the disposal or treatment of hazardous substances that were contained in materials sent to the Site and that resulted in the release or threat of release of hazardous substances at the Site. As of August 2017, 162 companies were members of the Group; the final number of members is subject to change and unknown at this time. The letter offered Watts Regulator Co. the opportunity to join the Group and participate in the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (“RI/FS”) at the Site. Watts Regulator Co. joined the Group in September 2017. Based on information currently known to it, management believes that Watts Regulator Co.’s share of the costs of the RI/FS is not likely to have a material adverse effect on the financial condition of the Company, or have a material adverse effect to the Company’s operating results for any particular period. The Company is unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss for the above matter in which damages have not been specified because: (i) the RI/FS has not been completed to determine what remediation plan will be implemented and the costs of such plan; (ii) the total number of potentially responsible parties who may or may not agree to fund or perform any remediation has not yet been determined; (iii) the share contribution for potentially responsible parties to any remediation has not been determined; and (iv) the number of years required to complete the RI/FS and implement a remediation plan acceptable to USEPA is uncertain. 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 sought 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 was mooted by the class settlements. 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 was 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. After a fairness hearing held on April 12, 2017, the Court entered Final Orders and Judgments approving the settlements on April 13, 2017. No appeals were filed and the settlements became final on May 15, 2017. 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. The liability was reduced by $8.7 million during the first nine months of 2017 for $0.8 million in notice and claims administrator payments, counsel fees of $4.3 million and initial contributions to the class action fund of $3.6 million. The remaining liability of $5.3 million will be paid over three years. A $9.5 million receivable was recorded in current assets related to insurance proceeds due as of December 31, 2015 and was subsequently increased in the first quarter of 2017 to $9.9 million based on costs incurred as of April 3, 2017. The Company received the $9.9 million insurance proceeds in the second quarter of 2017.

12. Contingencies and Environmental Remediation

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.

Other than the items described below, significant commitments and contingencies at October 1, 2017 are consistent with those discussed in Note 14 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016.

As of October 1, 2017, the Company estimates that the aggregate amount of reasonably possible loss in excess of the amount accrued for its legal contingencies is approximately $4.5 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, 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.

Chemetco, Inc. Superfund Site, Hartford, Illinois

In August 2017, Watts Regulator Co. received a “Notice of Environmental Liability” from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”) for the Chemetco, Inc. Superfund Site in Hartford, Illinois (the Site). The letter from the Chemetco Site Group (“Group”) alleges that Watts Regulator Co. is a potentially responsible party because it arranged for the disposal or treatment of hazardous substances that were contained in materials sent to the Site and that resulted in the release or threat of release of hazardous substances at the Site. As of August 2017, 162 companies were members of the Group; the final number of members is subject to change and unknown at this time. The letter offered Watts Regulator Co. the opportunity to join the Group and participate in the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (“RI/FS”) at the Site. Watts Regulator Co. joined the Group in September 2017. Based on information currently known to it, management believes that Watts Regulator Co.’s share of the costs of the RI/FS is not likely to have a material adverse effect on the financial condition of the Company, or have a material adverse effect to the Company’s operating results for any particular period. The Company is unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss for the above matter in which damages have not been specified because: (i) the RI/FS has not been completed to determine what remediation plan will be implemented and the costs of such plan; (ii) the total number of potentially responsible parties who may or may not agree to fund or perform any remediation has not yet been determined; (iii) the share contribution for potentially responsible parties to any remediation has not been determined; and (iv) the number of years required to complete the RI/FS and implement a remediation plan acceptable to USEPA is uncertain.

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 sought 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 was mooted by the class settlements.

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 was 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. After a fairness hearing held on April 12, 2017, the Court entered Final Orders and Judgments approving the settlements on April 13, 2017. No appeals were filed and the settlements became final on May 15, 2017.

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. The liability was reduced by $8.7 million during the first nine months of 2017 for $0.8 million in notice and claims administrator payments, counsel fees of $4.3 million and initial contributions to the class action fund of $3.6 million. The remaining liability of $5.3 million will be paid over three years. A $9.5 million receivable was recorded in current assets related to insurance proceeds due as of December 31, 2015 and was subsequently increased in the first quarter of 2017 to $9.9 million based on costs incurred as of April 3, 2017. The Company received the $9.9 million insurance proceeds in the second quarter of 2017.