Commitments and Contingencies

Leases

Our leases principally relate to funeral home facilities and transportation equipment. The majority of our lease arrangements contain options to (i) purchase the property at fair value on the exercise date, (ii) purchase the property for a value determined at the inception of the lease, or (iii) renew the lease for the fair rental value at the end of the primary lease term. Rental expense for operating leases was $26.8 million, $25.7 million, and $24.7 million for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011, and 2010, respectively. As of December 31, 2012, future minimum lease payments for non-cancelable operating and capital leases exceeding one year were as follows:



	Operating		Capital
	(In thousands)
2013	$	12,147	$	27,420
2014	10,187		33,121
2015	8,348		46,790
2016	7,213		14,389
2017	6,322		33,285
2018 and thereafter	45,295		33,901
Total	$	89,512	$	188,906
Less: Interest on capital leases			(12,461		)
Total principal payable on capital leases			$	176,445

Management, Consulting, and Non-Competition Agreements

We have entered into management, employment, consulting, and non-competition agreements, generally for five to ten years, with certain officers and employees and former owners of businesses that we acquired. At December 31, 2012, the maximum estimated future cash commitments under agreements with remaining commitment terms, and with original terms of more than one year, were as follows:



	Employment and Management		Consulting		Non-Competition		Total
	(In thousands)
2013	$	2,990	$	716	$	4,659	$	8,365
2014	2,441		581		4,172		7,194
2015	1,282		390		3,672		5,344
2016	541		173		3,388		4,102
2017	448		69		3,199		3,716
2018 and thereafter	267		193		10,233		10,693
Total	$	7,969	$	2,122	$	29,323	$	39,414

Insurance Loss Reserves

We purchase comprehensive general liability, morticians and cemetery professional liability, automobile liability, and workers’ compensation insurance coverage structured with high deductibles. The high-deductible insurance program means we are primarily self-insured for claims and associated costs and losses covered by these policies. As of December 31, 2012 and 2011, we have self-insurance reserves of $57.5 million and $52.7 million, respectively.

Litigation

We are a party to various litigation matters, investigations, and proceedings. For each of our outstanding legal matters, we evaluate the merits of the case, our exposure to the matter, possible legal or settlement strategies, and the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in the lawsuits described herein; however, if we determine that an unfavorable outcome is probable and can be reasonably estimated, we establish the necessary accruals. We hold certain insurance policies that may reduce cash outflows with respect to an adverse outcome of certain of these litigation matters. We accrue such insurance recoveries when they become probable of being paid and can be reasonably estimated.

Burial Practices Claims. We are named as a defendant in various lawsuits alleging improper burial practices at certain of our cemetery locations. These lawsuits include but are not limited to the Garcia, Sands, Schwartz and Niven lawsuits described in the following paragraphs.

Reyvis Garcia and Alicia Garcia v. Alderwoods Group, Inc., Osiris Holding of Florida, Inc., a Florida corporation, d/b/a Graceland Memorial Park South, f/k/a Paradise Memorial Gardens, Inc. , was filed in December 2004, in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, Case No. 04-25646 CA 32. Plaintiffs are the son and sister of the decedent, Eloisa Garcia, who was buried at Graceland Memorial Park South in March 1986, when the cemetery was owned by Paradise Memorial Gardens, Inc. Initially, the suit sought damages on the individual claims of the plaintiffs relating to the burial of Eloisa Garcia. Plaintiffs claimed that due to poor recordkeeping, spacing issues and maps, and the fact that the family could not afford to purchase a marker for the grave, the burial location of the decedent could not be readily located. Subsequently, the decedent's grave was located and verified. In July 2006, plaintiffs amended their complaint, seeking to certify a class of all persons buried at this cemetery whose burial sites cannot be located, claiming that this was due to poor recordkeeping, maps, and surveys at the cemetery. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a third amended class action complaint and added two additional named plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages, as well as equitable and injunctive relief. On May 4, 2011, the trial court certified a class and we are appealing that ruling. We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, for the payment of any damages.

F. Charles Sands, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Eden Memorial Park, et al.; Case No. BC421528; in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles - Central District. This case was filed in September 2009 against SCI and certain subsidiaries regarding our Eden Memorial Park cemetery in Mission Hills, California. The plaintiff seeks compensatory, consequential and punitive damages as well as the appointment of a receiver to oversee cemetery operations. The plaintiff alleges the cemetery engaged in wrongful burial practices and did not disclose them to customers. After a hearing in February 2012, the court in May 2012 issued an order certifying classes of cemetery plot owners and their families based on alleged Company misrepresentation, concealment or nondisclosure of material facts regarding alleged improper burial practices pertaining to the period from February 1985 to September 2009. Pursuant to a court order, the Company may be precluded from making certain arguments that challenge the sufficiency of plaintiff's physical evidence, although the extent to which that order will apply at trial remains unclear. The case is scheduled for trial in July 2013. We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, for the payment of any damages.

Barbara Schwartz & Carol Neitlich, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SCI Funeral Services of Florida, Inc., et al.; Case No. 2012CA015954, In the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial District in and for Palm Beach County, Florida. This lawsuit has been removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida and is now Case No. 9:12-CV-80180-DMM. This case was filed by counsel for plaintiffs in the Sands case regarding our Star of David Memorial Gardens Cemetery and Funeral Chapel and Bailey Memorial Gardens located in North Lauderdale, Florida. Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of cemetery plot owners and their families. Plaintiffs allege the cemetery engaged in wrongful burial practices and did not disclose them to customers. Plaintiffs seek compensatory, consequential and punitive damages as well as the appointment of a receiver to oversee the cemetery operations. We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, for the payment of damages.

Janie Niven & Jennifer Mazzo, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SCI Funeral Services of Florida, Inc., et al .; Case No. 2012CA015951, In the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial District in and for Palm Beach County, Florida. This lawsuit was filed by plaintiffs in the preceding Sands and Schwartz cases regarding Beth David Memorial Gardens and Chapel located in Hollywood, Florida. Although we acquired the cemetery in connection with our 2006 acquisition of Alderwoods Group, Inc., we never managed the cemetery and sold it to a third-party shortly after closing on the Alderwoods acquisition. Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of cemetery plot owners and their families. Plaintiffs allege the cemetery engaged in wrongful burial practices and did not disclose them to customers. Plaintiffs seek compensatory, consequential and punitive damages as well as the appointment of a receiver to oversee the cemetery operations. We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, for the payment of damages.

Wage and Hour Claims. We are named a defendant in various lawsuits alleging violations of federal and state laws regulating wage and hour overtime pay, including but not limited to the Prise, Bryant and Southern lawsuits described in the following paragraphs.

Prise, et al., v. Alderwoods Group, Inc., and Service Corporation International; Cause No. 06-164; in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (the “Wage and Hour Lawsuit”). The Wage and Hour Lawsuit was filed by two former Alderwoods (Pennsylvania), Inc. employees in December 2006 and was originally brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and various state laws on behalf of all Alderwoods and SCI-affiliated employees who performed work for which they allegedly were not fully compensated, including work for which overtime pay was owed. Although the court initially conditionally certified an FLSA class of claims as to certain job positions for Alderwoods employees, the court granted our motion to decertify the class on September 9, 2011, and dismissed the claims of all collective members except two named plaintiffs. Of the two remaining plaintiffs, one has dismissed her claims with prejudice and we have settled with the other plaintiff for an amount that is not material to the Company.

Bryant, et al. v. Service Corporation International, et al.; Case No. RG-07359593; and Helm, et al. v. AWGI & SCI; Case No. RG-07359602; in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda. These cases were filed on December 5, 2007 by counsel for plaintiffs in the Wage and Hour Lawsuit. These cases assert state law claims similar to the federal claims asserted in the Wage and Hour Lawsuit. These cases were removed to federal court in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco/Oakland Division. The Bryant case is now Case No. 3:08-CV-01190-SI and the Helm case is now Case No. C 08-01184-SI. On December 29, 2009, the court in the Helm case denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a class action. The plaintiffs modified and refiled their motion for certification. On March 9, 2011, the court denied plaintiffs' renewed motions to certify a class in both of the Bryant and Helm cases and dismissed the Helm case. The Helm plaintiff is appealing the court's order decertifying her claims. The individual claims in the Bryant case are still pending. The plaintiffs have also (i) filed additional lawsuits with similar allegations seeking class certification of state law claims in different states, and (ii) made a large number of demands for arbitration. We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, in these lawsuits.

Southern, et al. v. SCI Kentucky Funeral Services, Inc.; Case No. 11CIO6501; in the Jefferson Circuit Court, Division Eight, Kentucky. This lawsuit was filed on October 6, 2011 against an SCI subsidiary and purports to have been brought on behalf of employees who worked in Kentucky as funeral directors. The plaintiffs allege causes of action for various violations of Kentucky wage and hour laws, and breach of contract. Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, compensatory and exemplary relief, damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and post judgment interest. We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, in this lawsuit.

The ultimate outcome of the matters described above cannot be determined at this time. We intend to vigorously defend all of the above lawsuits; however, an adverse decision in one or more of such matters could have a material effect on us, our financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows.