Contingencies and Environmental Remediation	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2017
Contingencies and Environmental Remediation
Contingencies and Environmental Remediation	(15) 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, 2017, the Company estimates that the aggregate amount of reasonably possible loss in excess of the amount accrued for its legal contingencies is approximately $6.1 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. 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 four 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. 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 claims 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. 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 on 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. Asbestos Litigation The Company is defending approximately 355 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.

(15) 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, 2017, the Company estimates that the aggregate amount of reasonably possible loss in excess of the amount accrued for its legal contingencies is approximately $6.1 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.

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 four 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.

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 claims 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.

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 on 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.

Asbestos Litigation

The Company is defending approximately 355 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.