In the normal course of business, the Company is party to various commercial and legal claims, actions and complaints, including matters involving warranty claims, intellectual property claims, general liability and various other risks. It is not possible to predict with certainty whether or not the Company will ultimately be successful in any of these commercial and legal matters or, if not, what the impact might be. The Company's environmental and product liability contingencies are discussed separately below. The Company's management does not expect that an adverse outcome in any of these commercial and legal claims, actions and complaints will have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, financial position or cash flows, although it could be material to the results of operations in a particular quarter.

Litigation

In January 2006, BorgWarner Diversified Transmission Products Inc. ("DTP"), a subsidiary of the Company, filed a declaratory judgment action in United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana (Indianapolis Division) against the United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implements Workers of America (“UAW”) Local No. 287 and Gerald Poor, individually and as the representative of a defendant class. DTP sought the Court's affirmation that DTP did not violate the Labor-Management Relations Act or the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by unilaterally amending certain medical plans effective April 1, 2006 and October 1, 2006, prior to the expiration of the then-current collective bargaining agreements. On September 10, 2008, the Court found that DTP's reservation of the right to make such amendments reducing the level of benefits provided to retirees was limited by its collectively bargained health insurance agreement with the UAW, which did not expire until April 24, 2009. Thus, the amendments were untimely. In 2008, the Company recorded a charge of $4.0 million as a result of the Court's decision.

DTP filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana (Indianapolis Division) against the UAW Local No. 287 and Jim Barrett and others, individually and as representatives of a defendant class, on February 26, 2009 again seeking the Court's affirmation that DTP did not violate the Labor - Management Relations Act or ERISA by modifying the level of benefits provided retirees to make them comparable to other Company retiree benefit plans after April 24, 2009. Certain retirees, on behalf of themselves and others, filed a mirror-image action in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan (Southern Division) on March 11, 2009, for which a class has been certified. During the last quarter of 2009, the action pending in Indiana was dismissed, while the action in Michigan is continuing. The Company is vigorously defending against the suit. This contingency is subject to many uncertainties, therefore based on the information available to date, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the amount or the range of potential loss, if any.

Environmental

The Company and certain of its current and former direct and indirect corporate predecessors, subsidiaries and divisions have been identified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and certain state environmental agencies and private parties as potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”) at various hazardous waste disposal sites under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“Superfund”) and equivalent state laws and, as such, may presently be liable for the cost of clean-up and other remedial activities at 26 such sites. Responsibility for clean-up and other remedial activities at a Superfund site is typically shared among PRPs based on an allocation formula.

The Company believes that none of these matters, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, financial position or cash flows. Generally, this is because either the estimates of the maximum potential liability at a site are not material or the liability will be shared with other PRPs, although no assurance can be given with respect to the ultimate outcome of any such matter.

Based on information available to the Company (which in most cases includes: an estimate of allocation of liability among PRPs; the probability that other PRPs, many of whom are large, solvent public companies, will fully pay the cost apportioned to them; currently available information from PRPs and/or federal or state environmental agencies concerning the scope of contamination and estimated remediation and consulting costs; and remediation alternatives), the Company has an accrual for indicated environmental liabilities of $4.9 million and $6.2 million at September 30, 2015 and at December 31, 2014, respectively. The Company expects to pay out substantially all of the amounts accrued for environmental liability over the next five years.

In connection with the sale of Kuhlman Electric Corporation (“Kuhlman Electric”), the Company agreed to indemnify the buyer and Kuhlman Electric for certain environmental liabilities, then unknown to the Company, relating to certain operations of Kuhlman Electric that pre-date the Company's 1999 acquisition of Kuhlman Electric. The Company previously settled or obtained dismissals of various lawsuits that were filed against Kuhlman Electric and others, including the Company, on behalf of plaintiffs alleging personal injury relating to alleged environmental contamination at its Crystal Springs, Mississippi plant. The Company filed a lawsuit against Kuhlman Electric and a related entity challenging the validity of the indemnity and the defendants filed counterclaims (the “Indemnity Action”) and a related lawsuit. On September 28, 2015, the parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement that, among other things, released and terminated all of BorgWarner’s indemnity obligations. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the parties voluntarily dismissed the Indemnity Action on September 29, 2015 and the related lawsuit was dismissed on October 13, 2015. The Company continues to pursue insurance coverage actions for reimbursement of amounts it spent under the indemnity. The Company may in the future become subject to further legal proceedings.

Product Liability

Like many other industrial companies who have historically operated in the U.S., the Company (or parties the Company is obligated to indemnify) continues to be named as one of many defendants in asbestos-related personal injury actions. We believe that the Company's involvement is limited because, in general, these claims relate to a few types of automotive products that were manufactured many years ago and contained encapsulated asbestos. The nature of the fibers, the encapsulation and the manner of use lead the Company to believe that these products are highly unlikely to cause harm. As of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, the Company had approximately 11,700 and 13,300 pending asbestos-related product liability claims, respectively. The decrease in the pending claims is primarily a result of the Company's continued efforts to obtain dismissal of dormant claims.

The Company's policy is to vigorously defend against these lawsuits and the Company has been successful in obtaining dismissal of many claims without any payment. The nature of the historical product being encapsulated and the lifecycle of the product allow the Company to aggressively defend against these lawsuits. The Company expects that the vast majority of the pending asbestos-related product liability claims where it is a defendant (or has an obligation to indemnify a defendant) will result in no payment being made by the Company or its insurers. In the first nine months of 2015, of the approximately 3,200 claims resolved, 262 (8%) resulted in payment being made to a claimant by or on behalf of the Company. In the full year of 2014, of the approximately 6,500 claims resolved, 397 (6%) resulted in payment being made to a claimant by or on behalf of the Company.

Prior to June 2004, the settlement and defense costs associated with all claims were paid by the Company's primary layer insurance carriers under a series of interim funding arrangements. In addition to the primary insurance available for asbestos-related claims, the Company has excess insurance coverage available for potential future asbestos-related product claims. In June 2004, primary layer insurance carriers notified the Company of the alleged exhaustion of their policy limits.

A declaratory judgment action was filed in January 2004 in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois by Continental Casualty Company and related companies against the Company and certain of its historical general liability insurers. The court has issued a number of interim rulings and discovery is continuing. The Company has entered into settlement agreements with some of its insurance carriers, resolving their coverage disputes by agreeing to pay specified amounts to the Company. This includes a settlement with a carrier that occurred in the third quarter of 2015. The Company is vigorously pursuing the litigation against the remaining insurers.

In August 2013, the Los Angeles Superior Court entered a jury verdict against the Company in an asbestos-related personal injury action with damages of $35.0 million, of which $32.5 million were punitive and would not be recoverable through insurance. In July 2015, the Court of Appeal for the State of California issued a verdict striking the $32.5 million in punitive damages assessed by the Los Angeles Superior Court, that decision was appealed. In October 2015, the appeal was denied by the California Supreme Court.

To date, the Company has paid and accrued $378.6 million in defense and indemnity costs in advance of insurers' reimbursement and has received $228.4 million in cash and notes from insurers. The net balance of $150.2 million is expected to be fully recovered. Timing of recovery is dependent on final resolution of the declaratory judgment action referred to above or additional negotiated settlements. At December 31, 2014, insurers owed $141.9 million in association with these claims.

In addition to the $150.2 million net balance relating to past settlements and defense costs, the Company has estimated a liability of $111.9 million for claims asserted, but not yet resolved and their related defense costs at September 30, 2015. The Company also has a related asset of $111.9 million to recognize proceeds from the insurance carriers, which is expected to be fully recovered. Receipt of these proceeds is not expected prior to the resolution of the declaratory judgment action referred to above, which is expected to occur subsequent to September 30, 2016. At December 31, 2014, the comparable value of the accrued liability and associated insurance asset was $111.8 million.

The amounts recorded in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets related to the estimated future settlement of existing claims are as follows:



	September 30,		December 31,
(in millions)	2015		2014
Assets:
Other non-current assets	$	111.9	$	111.8
Total insurance assets	$	111.9	$	111.8
Liabilities:
Accounts payable and accrued expenses	$	48.6	$	47.4
Other non-current liabilities	63.3		64.4
Total accrued liabilities	$	111.9	$	111.8

The Company believes that its ultimate liability (i.e., the total of its indemnity or other claim dispositions plus legal related fees) cannot be reasonably estimated at this time in excess of amounts accrued. The Company's ability to reasonably estimate its liability has been significantly affected by, among other factors, the volatility of asbestos-related litigation in the United States, the significant number of co-defendants that have filed for bankruptcy, the magnitude and timing of co-defendant bankruptcy trust payments, the inherent uncertainty of future disease incidence and claiming patterns against the Company, and the impact of tort reform legislation that may be enacted at the state or federal levels. The Company’s ability to reasonably estimate its liability for asbestos-related claims may also be affected in the future by the new discovery of facts; changes in litigation; the impact of any possible tort reform; changes in assumptions regarding the number and nature of asbestos-related claims, including the total population claiming exposure; the amounts of any judgments over time; and changes in settlement/defense strategies. The Company reviews factors relevant to asbestos-related claims that have been, or may in the future, be asserted against it on an ongoing basis.