Commitments and Contingencies

Environmental Matters

The Company accrues for potential environmental liabilities when it is probable a liability has been incurred and the amount of the liability is reasonably estimable. As of December 31, 2018, reserves for environmental liabilities for continuing operations totaled $32 million, of which $13 million was recorded within other current liabilities and $19 million was recorded within other noncurrent liabilities in the consolidated statements of financial position. Reserves for environmental liabilities for continuing operations totaled $37 million at September 30, 2018, of which $10 million was recorded within other current liabilities and $27 million was recorded within other noncurrent liabilities in the consolidated statements of financial position. Such potential liabilities accrued by the Company do not take into consideration possible recoveries of future insurance proceeds. They do, however, take into account the likely share other parties will bear at remediation sites. It is difficult to estimate the Company’s ultimate level of liability at many remediation sites due to the large number of other parties that may be involved, the complexity of determining the relative liability among those parties, the uncertainty as to the nature and scope of the investigations and remediation to be conducted, the uncertainty in the application of law and risk assessment, the various choices and costs associated with diverse technologies that may be used in corrective actions at the sites, and the often quite lengthy periods over which eventual remediation may occur. Nevertheless, the Company does not currently believe that any claims, penalties or costs in connection with known environmental matters will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. In addition, the Company has identified asset retirement obligations for environmental matters that are expected to be addressed at the retirement, disposal, removal or abandonment of existing owned facilities. At December 31, 2018 and September 30, 2018, the Company recorded conditional asset retirement obligations for continuing operations of $29 million.

Asbestos Matters

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries, along with numerous other third parties, are named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos containing materials. These cases have typically involved product liability claims based primarily on allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial products that either contained asbestos or were used with asbestos containing components.

As of December 31, 2018, the Company's estimated asbestos related net liability recorded on a discounted basis within the Company's consolidated statements of financial position was $194 million. The net liability within the consolidated statements of financial position was comprised of a liability for pending and future claims and related defense costs of $546 million, of which $55 million was recorded in other current liabilities and $491 million was recorded in other noncurrent liabilities. The Company also maintained separate cash, investments and receivables related to insurance recoveries within the consolidated statements of financial position of $352 million, of which $33 million was recorded in other current assets, and $319 million was recorded in other noncurrent assets. Assets included $20 million of cash and $243 million of investments, which have all been designated as restricted. In connection with the recognition of liabilities for asbestos-related matters, the Company records asbestos-related insurance recoveries that are probable; the amount of such recoveries recorded at December 31, 2018 was $89 million. As of September 30, 2018, the Company's estimated asbestos related net liability recorded on a discounted basis within the Company's consolidated statements of financial position was $173 million. The net liability within the consolidated statements of financial position was comprised of a liability for pending and future claims and related defense costs of $550 million, of which $55 million was recorded in other current liabilities and $495 million was recorded in other noncurrent liabilities. The Company also maintained separate cash, investments and receivables related to insurance recoveries within the consolidated statements of financial position of $377 million, of which $33 million was recorded in other current assets, and $344 million was recorded in other noncurrent assets. Assets included $6 million of cash and $281 million of investments, which have all been designated as restricted. In connection with the recognition of liabilities for asbestos-related matters, the Company records asbestos-related insurance recoveries that are probable; the amount of such recoveries recorded at September 30, 2018 was $90 million.

The Company's estimate of the liability and corresponding insurance recovery for pending and future claims and defense costs is based on the Company's historical claim experience, and estimates of the number and resolution cost of potential future claims that may be filed and is discounted to present value from 2068 (which is the Company's reasonable best estimate of the actuarially determined time period through which asbestos-related claims will be filed against Company affiliates). Asbestos related defense costs are included in the asbestos liability. The Company's legal strategy for resolving claims also impacts these estimates. The Company considers various trends and developments in evaluating the period of time (the look-back period) over which historical claim and settlement experience is used to estimate and value claims reasonably projected to be made through 2068. At least annually, the Company assesses the sufficiency of its estimated liability for pending and future claims and defense costs by evaluating actual experience regarding claims filed, settled and dismissed, and amounts paid in settlements. In addition to claims and settlement experience, the Company considers additional quantitative and qualitative factors such as changes in legislation, the legal environment, and the Company's defense strategy. The Company also evaluates the recoverability of its insurance receivable on an annual basis. The Company evaluates all of these factors and determines whether a change in the estimate of its liability for pending and future claims and defense costs or insurance receivable is warranted.

The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on the Company's strategies for resolving its asbestos claims, currently available information, and a number of estimates and assumptions. Key variables and assumptions include the number and type of new claims that are filed each year, the average cost of resolution of claims, the identity of defendants, the resolution of coverage issues with insurance carriers, amount of insurance, and the solvency risk with respect to the Company's insurance carriers. Many of these factors are closely linked, such that a change in one variable or assumption will impact one or more of the others, and no single variable or assumption predominately influences the determination of the Company's asbestos-related liabilities and insurance-related assets. Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables are subject to greater uncertainty in the later portion of the projection period. Other factors that may affect the Company's liability and cash payments for asbestos-related matters include uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms of state or federal tort legislation and the applicability of insurance policies among subsidiaries. As a result, actual liabilities or insurance recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than those recorded if assumptions used in the Company's calculations vary significantly from actual results.

Insurable Liabilities

The Company records liabilities for its workers' compensation, product, general, property and auto liabilities. The determination of these liabilities and related expenses is dependent on claims experience. For most of these liabilities, claims incurred but not yet reported are estimated by utilizing actuarial valuations based upon historical claims experience. At December 31, 2018 and September 30, 2018, the insurable liabilities totaled $415 million and $417 million, respectively, of which $94 million and $95 million was recorded within other current liabilities, $22 million and $22 million was recorded within accrued compensation and benefits, and $299 million and $300 million was recorded within other noncurrent liabilities in the consolidated statements of financial position, respectively. The Company records receivables from third party insurers when recovery has been determined to be probable. The amount of such receivables recorded at December 31, 2018 and September 30, 2018 were $26 million, of which $6 million was recorded within other current assets and $20 million was recorded within other noncurrent assets. The Company maintains captive insurance companies to manage its insurable liabilities.

Aqueous Film-Forming Foam ("AFFF") Litigation

Two of our subsidiaries, Chemguard, Inc. ("Chemguard") and Tyco Fire Products L.P. ("Tyco Fire Products"), have been named, along with other defendant manufacturers, in a number of class action and other lawsuits relating to the use of fire-fighting foam products by the U.S. Department of Defense (the "DOD") and others for fire suppression purposes and related training exercises. Plaintiffs generally allege that the firefighting foam products manufactured by defendants contain or break down into the chemicals perfluorooctane sulfonate ("PFOS") and perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and/or other per- and poly fluorinated ("PFAS") compounds and that the use of these products by others at various airbases, airports and other sites resulted in the release of these chemicals into the environment and ultimately into communities’ drinking water supplies neighboring those airports, airbases and other sites. PFOA, PFOS, and other PFAS compounds are being studied by the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and other environmental and health agencies and researchers. The EPA has not issued regulatory limits, however; while those studies continue, the EPA has issued a health advisory level for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water. Both PFOA and PFOS are types of synthetic chemical compounds that have been present in firefighting foam. However, both are also present in many existing consumer products. According to EPA, PFOA and PFOS have been used to make carpets, clothing, fabrics for furniture, paper packaging for food and other materials (e.g., cookware) that are resistant to water, grease or stains.

Plaintiffs generally seek compensatory damages, including damages for alleged personal injuries, medical monitoring, and alleged diminution in property values, and also seek punitive damages and injunctive relief to address remediation of the alleged contamination.

In September of 2018, the Company filed a Petition for Multidistrict Litigation with the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) seeking to consolidate all existing and future federal cases into one jurisdiction. On December 7, 2018, the JPML issued an order transferring various AFFF cases to a multi-district litigation (“MDL”) before the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. Additional cases have been identified for transfer to the MDL.

AFFF Putative Class Actions

Chemguard and Tyco Fire Products are named in 20 putative class actions in federal and state courts in Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania and Washington. Each of these cases have been transferred to the MDL. The following putative class actions were filed in fiscal year 2019:


•	Grubb v. The 3M Company et al., filed October 30, 2018 in the United States District Court, District of Delaware.


•	County of Dutchess v. 3M Company et al., filed October 12, 2018 in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York.


•	Battisti et al. v. The 3M Company et al., filed December 20, 2018 in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida.

AFFF Individual or Mass Actions

There are approximately 55 individual or “mass” actions pending in federal court in Colorado (41 cases), New York (4 cases) and Pennsylvania (10 cases) against Chemguard and Tyco Fire Products and other defendants in which the plaintiffs generally seek compensatory damages, including damages for alleged personal injuries, medical monitoring, and alleged diminution in property values. The cases involve approximately 7,000 plaintiffs in Colorado, approximately 126 plaintiffs in New York and 14 plaintiffs in Pennsylvania. These matters have been transferred to the MDL. The Company is also on notice of approximately 660 other possible individual product liability claims and 3 possible municipal claims by filings made in Pennsylvania state court, but complaints have not been filed in those matters, and, under Pennsylvania’s procedural rules, they may or may not result in lawsuits.

AFFF Municipal Cases

Chemguard and Tyco Fire Products are also defendants in 14 cases in federal and state courts involving municipal plaintiffs in Arizona, Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Ohio. These municipal plaintiffs generally allege that the use of the defendants’ fire-fighting foam products at fire training academies, municipal airports, Air National Guard bases, or Navy bases released PFOS and PFOA into public water supply wells, allegedly requiring remediation of public property. All but two of these cases either have been transferred or identified for transfer to the MDL. The following municipal actions were filed in fiscal year 2019:


•	Dutchess County v. The 3M Company et al. filed October 12, 2018 (and removed to the United States District Court, Southern District of New York) and styled as a class action.


•	City of Dayton v. The 3M Company et al., filed October 3, 2018 in the United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio.


•	City of Stuart v. the 3M Company et al., filed October 18, 2018 in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida.


•	City of Tucson and Town of Marana v. The 3M Company et al., filed November 8, 2018 in the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, County of Pima (removed to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona).


•	New Jersey-American Water Company, Inc. v. The 3M Company et al., filed November 8, 2018 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.


•	Village of Farmingdale v. The 3M Company et al., filed December 19, 2018 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau (removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York).


•	Town of East Hampton v. The 3M Company et al., filed December 28, 2018 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk.

In May 2018, the Company was also notified by the Widefield Water and Sanitation District in Colorado Springs, Colorado that it may assert claims regarding its remediation costs in connection with PFOS and PFOA contamination allegedly resulting from the use of those products at the Peterson Air Force Base. In addition, three water districts in Pennsylvania, Horsham Water and Sewer Authority, Warminster Municipal Authority, and Warrington Township have filed praecipes for summons against Chemguard and Tyco Fire Products and other AFFF manufacturers relating to alleged PFOS and PFOA contamination. These praecipes are not active suits, but have the effect of tolling the statute of limitations.

State Attorneys General Litigation related to AFFF

In June 2018, the State of New York filed a lawsuit in New York state court (State of New York v. 3M Co., No. 904029-18 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Albany County)) against a number of manufacturers, including affiliates of the Company, with respect to alleged PFOS and PFOA contamination purportedly resulting from firefighting foams used at locations across New York, including Stewart Air National Guard Base in Newburgh and Gabreski Air National Guard Base in Southampton, Plattsburgh Air Force Base in Plattsburgh, Griffiss Air Force Base in Rome, and unspecified “other” sites throughout the State. The lawsuit seeks to recover costs and natural resource damages associated with contamination at these sites. This suit has been removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York and identified for transfer to the MDL.

In January 2019, the State of Ohio filed a lawsuit in Ohio state court (State of Ohio v. 3M Co., No. G-4801-CI-021804752 -000 (Court of Common Pleas of Lucas County, Ohio)) against a number of manufacturers, including affiliates of the Company, with respect to PFOS and PFOA contamination allegedly resulting from the use of firefighting foams at various specified and unspecified locations across Ohio. The lawsuit seeks to recover costs and natural resource damages associated with the contamination. This lawsuit has been removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio and identified for transfer to the MDL.

AFFF Matters Related to the Tyco Fire Products Fire Technology Center in Marinette, Wisconsin

Tyco Fire Products, in coordination with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources ("WDNR") and the Wisconsin Department of Health Services ("DHS"), has been conducting an environmental assessment of its Fire Technology Center ("FTC") located in Marinette, Wisconsin and surrounding areas in the City of Marinette and Town of Peshtigo, Wisconsin. In connection with the assessment, PFOS and PFOA have been detected at the FTC and in groundwater and surface water outside of the boundaries of the FTC. Tyco Fire Products continues to investigate the extent of potential migration of these compounds and is working closely with WDNR and DHS to develop interim measures to remove these compounds from certain areas where they have been detected.

Tyco Fire Products and its subsidiary Chemguard are defendants in two lawsuits in Marinette County, Wisconsin alleging damages due to the historical use of AFFF products at Tyco’s Fire Technology Center in Marinette, Wisconsin. The putative class action, Joan & Richard Campbell for themselves and on behalf of other similarly situated v. Tyco Fire Products LP and Chemguard Inc., et al (Marinette County Circuit Court, filed Dec. 17, 2018) alleges PFOA/PFOS contaminated groundwater migrated off Tyco’s property and into residential drinking water wells causing both personal injuries and property damage to the plaintiffs; Tyco and Chemguard removed this case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin and will identify it for transfer to the MDL. A second lawsuit, Duane and Janell Goldsmith individually and on behalf of H.G. and K.G v. Tyco Fire Products LP and Chemguard Inc., et al. (Marinette County Circuit Court, filed Dec. 17, 2018) was also filed by a family alleging personal injuries due to contaminated groundwater.

The Company is vigorously defending the above AFFF matters and believes that it has meritorious defenses to class certification and the claims asserted. However, there are numerous factual and legal issues to be resolved in connection with these claims, and it is extremely difficult to predict the outcome or ultimate financial exposure, if any, represented by these matters, but there can be no assurance that any such exposure will not be material. The Company is also pursuing insurance coverage for these matters.

Other Matters

The Company is involved in various lawsuits, claims and proceedings incident to the operation of its businesses, including those pertaining to product liability, environmental, safety and health, intellectual property, employment, commercial and contractual matters, and various other casualty matters. Although the outcome of litigation cannot be predicted with certainty and some lawsuits, claims or proceedings may be disposed of unfavorably to us, it is management’s opinion that none of these will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Costs related to such matters were not material to the periods presented.