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 $30.5 million, $31.9 million, and $33.3 million for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015, respectively. As of December 31, 2017, future minimum lease payments for non-cancelable operating and capital leases exceeding one year were as follows:



	Operating		Capital
	(In thousands)
2018	$	13,683	$	58,678
2019	10,889		30,528
2020	9,461		36,344
2021	8,404		32,690
2022	7,739		11,044
2023 and thereafter	59,473		27,948
Total	$	109,649	$	197,232
Less: Interest on capital leases			(30,694		)
Total principal payable on capital leases			$	166,538

Employment and Management, Consulting, and Non-Competition Agreements

We have entered into employment and management, 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, 2017, 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)
2018	$	1,796	$	412	$	5,230	$	7,438
2019	1,257		367		4,822		6,446
2020	609		258		3,594		4,461
2021	307		217		2,554		3,078
2022	51		146		1,935		2,132
2023 and thereafter	—		255		3,977		4,232
Total	$	4,020	$	1,655	$	22,112	$	27,787

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, 2017 and 2016, we have self-insurance reserves of $78.2 million and $78.0 million, respectively.

Litigation and Regulatory Matters

We are a party to various litigation and regulatory matters, investigations, and proceedings. Some of the more frequent routine litigations incidental to our business are based on burial practices claims and employment-related matters, including discrimination, harassment, and wage and hour laws and regulations. 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 matters 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 matters. We accrue such insurance recoveries when they become probable of being paid and can be reasonably estimated.

Wage and Hour Claims. We are named a defendant in various lawsuits alleging violations of federal and state laws regulating wage and hour pay, including but not limited to the Samborsky, Vasquez, Romano, and Horton lawsuits described below.

Charles Samborsky, et al, individually and on behalf of those persons similarly situated, v. SCI California Funeral Services, Inc., et al ; Case No. BC544180; in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Central District-Central Civil West Courthouse. This lawsuit was filed in April 2014 against an SCI subsidiary and purports to have been brought on behalf of employees who worked as family service counselors in California since April 2010. The plaintiffs allege causes of action for various violations of state laws regulating wage and hour pay. The plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, interest, and injunctive relief. The claims have been sent to arbitration. In July 2017, the arbitrator entered an award rejecting the plantiffs' claims, ruling that they did not sue the correct party. We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, in this lawsuit.

Adrian Mercedes Vasquez, an individual and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. California Cemetery and Funeral Services, LLC, et al; Case No. BC58837; in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. This lawsuit was filed in July 2015 against SCI subsidiaries and purports to be brought on behalf of current and former non-exempt California employees of defendants during the four years preceding the filing of the complaint. The plaintiff alleges numerous causes of action for alleged wage and hour pay violations. The plaintiff seeks unpaid wages, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, interest, and injunctive relief. The claims have been ordered to arbitration and the arbitrator has determined that the claims will proceed as a bilateral proceeding. In addition, the plaintiff filed an unfair labor practice charge against defendants with the National Labor Relations Board alleging that by enforcing a mandatory arbitration provision, defendants allegedly violated the National Labor Relations Act. We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, in this lawsuit.

Nicole Romano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SCI Direct, Inc., et al; Case No. BC656654; in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles. This lawsuit was filed in April 2017 against an SCI subsidiary and purports to have been brought on behalf of persons who worked as independent sales representatives in the U.S. during the four years preceding the filing of the complaint. The plaintiff alleges numerous causes of action for alleged wage and hour pay violations, including misclassifying the independent sales representatives as independent contractors instead of employees. The plaintiff seeks unpaid wages, compulsory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, interest, and injunctive relief. We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, in the lawsuit.

Felicia Horton, an individual and on behalf of other aggrieved employees v. SCI Direct, Inc., et al; Case No. 37-2016-00039356-CU-OE-CTL; in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego. This lawsuit was filed in November 2016 on behalf of the plaintiff who worked as an independent sales representative of our subsidiary in California. In addition, this lawsuit asserts claims under California Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) provisions on behalf of other similarly situated California persons. The lawsuit alleges causes of action and seeks damages and relief similar to those in the Romano case described above. The attorneys in the Horton case have also filed additional lawsuits alleging individual and PAGA claims similar to those alleged in the Horton case. The additional lawsuits are styled Jandy Quismundo v. SCI Direct, Inc., et al; Case No. 37-2017-00031825-CU-OE-CTL; in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego, and Jaime Kallweit v. SCI Direct, Inc., et al; Case No. 37-2017-00037186-CU-OE-CTL; in the Superior Court for the State of California for the County of San Diego. We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, in the lawsuits.

Claims Regarding the Acquisition of Stewart Enterprises. We are involved in the following lawsuit.

Karen Moulton, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Stewart Enterprises, Inc., Service Corporation International and others ; Case No. 2013-5636; in the Civil District Court Parish of New Orleans. This case was filed as a class action in June 2013 against SCI and our subsidiary in connection with SCI's acquisition of Stewart Enterprises, Inc. The plaintiffs allege that SCI aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties by Stewart Enterprises and its board of directors in negotiating the combination of Stewart Enterprises with a subsidiary of SCI. The plaintiffs seek damages concerning the combination. We filed exceptions to the plaintiffs’ complaint that were granted in June 2014. Thus, subject to appeals, SCI will no longer be party to the suit. The case has continued against our subsidiary, Stewart Enterprises, and its former individual directors. However, in October 2016, the court entered a judgment dismissing all of plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs have filed documents indicating that they are appealing the dismissal. We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, for the payment of damages.

Operational Claims. We are named a defendant in various lawsuits alleging operational claims, including but not limited to the Allard and Schaefer lawsuits described below.

Linda Allard, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SCI Direct, Inc., Case No 16-1033; in the United States District Court, Middle District of Tennessee. This case was filed in June 2016 as a class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the Act). Plaintiff alleges she received telemarketing telephone calls that were made with a prerecorded voice or made by an automatic telephone dialing system in violation of the Act. Plaintiff seeks actual and statutory damages, as well as attorney’s fees and costs. The parties reached a settlement of the lawsuit as reported in our Form 8-K filed on August 30, 2017. The settlement agreement is subject to court approval and notice to the class. The financial terms of the settlement call for SCI Direct to pay $15.0 million, of which $3.5 million will be paid by its insurer. As of December 31, 2017, the Company has met all obligations under the settlement agreement.

Caroline Bernstein, on behalf of herself and Marla Urofsky on behalf of Rhea Schwartz, and both on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SCI Pennsylvania Funeral Services, Inc. and Service Corporation International, Case No. 2:17-cv-04960-GAM; in the United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This case was filed in November 2017 as a purported national or alternatively as a Pennsylvania class action regarding our Forest Hills/Shalom Memorial Park in Huntingdon Valley, Pennsylvania and our Roosevelt Memorial Park Cemetery in Trevose, Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs allege wrongful burial and sales practices. Plaintiffs seek compensatory, consequential and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, interest, and injunctive relief. We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, in this matter.

Unclaimed Property Audit. We are involved in the following matter.

We have received notices from third party auditors representing unclaimed property departments of certain states regarding preneed funeral and cemetery contracts that were not funded by the purchase and assignment of the proceeds of insurance policies. The auditor claims that we are subject to the laws of those states concerning escheatment of unclaimed funds. The auditor seeks escheatment of funds from the portion of such contracts for which it claims that we will probably not be required to provide services or merchandise in the future. No actual audits have commenced at this time. We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, in this matter.

The ultimate outcome of the matters described above cannot be determined at this time. We intend to vigorously defend all of the above matters; 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.