Commitments and Contingencies

Environmental

The Company is subject to increasingly stringent environmental laws and regulations, including those relating to air emissions, wastewater discharges and chemical and hazardous waste management and disposal. Some of these environmental laws hold owners or operators of land or businesses liable for their own and for previous owners' or operators' releases of hazardous or toxic substances or wastes. Other environmental laws and regulations require the obtainment and compliance with environmental permits. To date, costs of complying with environmental, health and safety requirements have not been material. However, the nature of the Company's operations and the long history of industrial activities at certain of the Company's current or former facilities, as well as those acquired, could potentially result in material environmental liabilities.

While the Company must comply with existing and pending climate change legislation, regulation and international treaties or accords, current laws and regulations have not had a material impact on the Company's business, capital expenditures or financial position. Future events, including those relating to climate change or greenhouse gas regulation, could require the Company to incur expenses related to the modification or curtailment of operations, installation of pollution control equipment or investigation and cleanup of contaminated sites.

Asbestos

As of December 31, 2016, the Company was a party to 636 pending cases involving an aggregate of 5,339 claimants primarily alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos containing materials formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated and otherwise) manufactured or distributed by certain of its subsidiaries for use primarily in the petrochemical refining and exploration industries. The following chart summarizes the number of claimants, number of claims filed, number of claims dismissed, number of claims settled, the average settlement amount per claim and the total defense costs, excluding amounts reimbursed under the Company's primary insurance, at the applicable date and for the applicable periods:



	Claims pending at beginning of period	Claims filed during period	Claims dismissed during period	Claims settled during period	Average settlement amount per claim during period		Total defense costs during period
Fiscal year ended December 31, 2014	7,975	210	155	38	$	18,734	$	2,800,000
Fiscal year ended December 31, 2015	7,992	266	1,990	26	$	16,963	$	3,160,000
Fiscal year ended December 31, 2016	6,242	140	1,009	34	$	15,624	$	2,920,000

In addition, the Company acquired various companies to distribute its products that had distributed gaskets of other manufacturers prior to acquisition. The Company believes that many of the pending cases relate to locations at which none of its gaskets were distributed or used.

The Company may be subjected to significant additional asbestos-related claims in the future, the cost of settling cases in which product identification can be made may increase, and the Company may be subjected to further claims in respect of the former activities of its acquired gasket distributors. The Company is unable to make a meaningful statement concerning the monetary claims made in the asbestos cases given that, among other things, claims may be initially made in some jurisdictions without specifying the amount sought or by simply stating the requisite or maximum permissible monetary relief, and may be amended to alter the amount sought. The large majority of claims do not specify the amount sought. Of the 5,339 claims pending at December 31, 2016, 76 set forth specific amounts of damages (other than those stating the statutory minimum or maximum). At December 31, 2016, of the 76 claims that set forth specific amounts, there were no claims seeking specific amounts for punitive damages. Below is a breakdown of the amount sought for those claims seeking specific amounts:



	Compensatory
Range of damages sought (in millions)	$0.0 to $0.6	$0.6 to $5.0	$5.0+
Number of claims	3	25	48

In addition, relatively few of the claims have reached the discovery stage and even fewer claims have gone past the discovery stage.

Total settlement costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all such cases, some of which were filed over 20 years ago, have been approximately $8.3 million. All relief sought in the asbestos cases is monetary in nature. To date, approximately 40% of the Company's costs related to settlement and defense of asbestos litigation have been covered by its primary insurance. Effective February 14, 2006, the Company entered into a coverage-in-place agreement with its first level excess carriers regarding the coverage to be provided to the Company for asbestos-related claims when the primary insurance is exhausted. The coverage-in-place agreement makes asbestos defense costs and indemnity insurance coverage available to the Company that might otherwise be disputed by the carriers and provides a methodology for the administration of such expenses. Nonetheless, the Company believes it is likely that there will be a period within the next six to 18 months, prior to the commencement of coverage under this agreement and following exhaustion of the Company's primary insurance coverage, during which the Company likely will be solely responsible for defense costs and indemnity payments, the duration of which would be subject to the scope of damage awards and settlements paid.

Based on the settlements made to date and the number of claims dismissed or withdrawn for lack of product identification, the Company believes that the relief sought (when specified) does not bear a reasonable relationship to its potential liability. Based upon the Company's experience to date, including the trend in annual defense and settlement costs incurred to date, and other available information (including the availability of excess insurance), the Company does not believe that these cases will have a material adverse effect on its financial position and results of operations or cash flows.

Metaldyne Corporation

Prior to June 6, 2002, the Company was wholly-owned by Metaldyne Corporation ("Metaldyne"). In connection with the reorganization between TriMas and Metaldyne in June 2002, TriMas assumed certain liabilities and obligations of Metaldyne, mainly comprised of contractual obligations to former TriMas employees, tax related matters, benefit plan liabilities and reimbursements to Metaldyne of normal course payments to be made on TriMas' behalf.

On January 11, 2007, Metaldyne merged into a subsidiary of Asahi Tec Corporation (“Asahi”) whereby Metaldyne became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Asahi. In connection with the consummation of the merger, Metaldyne dividended the 4,825,587 shares of the Company's common stock that it owned on a pro rata basis to the holders of Metaldyne's common stock at the time of such dividend. As a result of the merger, Metaldyne and the Company were no longer related parties. In addition, as a result of the merger, it has been asserted that Metaldyne may be obligated to accelerate funding and payment of actuarially determined amounts owing to seven former Metaldyne executives under a supplemental executive retirement plan (“SERP”). Under the stock purchase agreement between Metaldyne and Heartland Industrial Partners (“Heartland”), TriMas is required to reimburse Metaldyne, when billed, for its allocated portion of the amounts due to certain Metaldyne SERP participants, as defined.

Subject to certain limited exceptions, Metaldyne and TriMas retained separate liabilities associated with the respective businesses following the reorganization in June 2002. Accordingly, the Company will indemnify and hold Metaldyne harmless from all liabilities associated with TriMas and its subsidiaries and the respective operations and assets, whenever conducted, and Metaldyne will indemnify and hold harmless Heartland and TriMas from all liabilities associated with Metaldyne and its subsidiaries (excluding TriMas and its subsidiaries) and their respective operations and assets, whenever conducted. In addition, TriMas agreed with Metaldyne to indemnify one another for its allocated share (42.01% with respect to TriMas and 57.99% with respect to Metaldyne) of liabilities not readily associated with either business, or otherwise addressed including certain costs related to other matters intended to effectuate other provisions of the agreement. These indemnification provisions survive indefinitely and are subject to a $50,000 deductible.

On May 28, 2009, Metaldyne and its U.S. subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions in the United States Bankruptcy Court under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. On February 23, 2010, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court confirmed the reorganization plan of Metaldyne and its U.S. subsidiaries.

The Company continues to evaluate the impact of Metaldyne's reorganization plans on its estimated obligations to Metaldyne. At December 31, 2016, TriMas has accrued an estimated liability to Metaldyne on its reported balance sheet of approximately $7.6 million. However, if Metaldyne is required to accelerate funding of these liabilities, TriMas may be obligated to reimburse Metaldyne up to approximately $10.0 million, which could result in future charges to the Company's statement of operations of up to $2.4 million. The Metaldyne bankruptcy distribution trust is expected to terminate in 2017, at which time a final assessment of the liabilities will be determined.

Claims and Litigation

The Company is subject to other claims and litigation in the ordinary course of business which the Company does not believe are material. In addition, a claim asserted against the Company by a competitor in 2014 alleged false advertising where, although no formal demand was made, the Company believed the competitor may have been seeking in excess of $10 million. In 2015, the Company resolved the matter for approximately $2.8 million, inclusive of attorney fees and expenses and also recorded an insurance reimbursement of $1.5 million related to this matter.

The Company does not believe claims and litigation will have a material adverse effect on its financial position and results of operations or cash flows.