Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2018

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Leases

Certain properties occupied by the Company are leased. The leases expire at various dates through 2026 and generally require the Company to assume the obligations for insurance, property taxes and maintenance of the facilities.

Rental expense for 2018, 2017 and 2016 with respect to all leased property was approximately $6.9 million, $6.4 million and $5.9 million, respectively.

At December 31, 2018, minimum rental commitments under all non-cancelable leases were as follows:

(in thousands)



2019	$	6,962
2020	5,830
2021	4,481
2022	3,457
2023	2,399
Thereafter	8,563
Total	$	31,692

Some of these minimum rental commitments contain renewal options and provide for periodic rental adjustments based on changes in the consumer price index or current market rental rates. Other rental commitments provide options to cancel early without penalty. Future minimum rental payments under the earliest cancellation options are included in the minimum rental commitments in the table above.

Other Contractual Obligations

Purchase obligations consist of commitments primarily related to the acquisition, construction or expansion of facilities and equipment, consulting agreements, and minimum purchase quantities of certain raw materials. The Company is not a party to any long-term supply contracts with respect to the purchase of raw materials or finished goods. Debt interest obligations include annual facility fees on the Company’s primary line-of-credit facility. Interest on line-of-credit facilities was estimated based on historical borrowings and repayment patterns.

At December 31, 2018, other contractual obligations were as follows:

(in thousands)



As of December 31, 2018	Debt and Interest Obligations		Capital Lease Obligations		Purchase Obligations		Total
2019	$	1,234	$	1,160	$	28,438	$	30,832
2020	450		1,160		2,367		3,977
2021	250		484		1,507		2,241
2022	—		—		583		583
2023	—		—		—		—
Thereafter	—		—		—		—
Total	$	1,934	$	2,804	$	32,895	$	37,633

Employee Relations

As of December 31, 2018, in the U.S. approximately 14% of our employees are represented by labor unions and are covered by collective bargaining agreements. The Company has two-facility locations with collective bargaining agreements covering tool and die craftsmen, maintenance workers, and sheet-metal workers. In Stockton, California, two union contracts will expire in September 2019 and June 2023, respectively. Also, the Company has two contracts in San Bernardino County, California that will expire in June 2022 and February 2021, respectively. The Company expects to agree on the extension with the existing labor union contract that will expire in September 2019, while parties are negotiating a new agreement. Based on current information and subject to future events and circumstances, the Company believes that, even if new agreements are not reached before the existing labor union contracts expire, it is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's ability to provide products to customers or on the Company's profitability.

Environmental

The Company’s policy with regard to environmental liabilities is to accrue for future environmental assessments and remediation costs when information becomes available that indicates that it is probable that the Company is liable for any related claims and assessments and the amount of the liability is reasonably estimable. The Company does not believe that any such matters will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, cash flows or results of operations.

Litigation and Potential Claims

From time to time, the Company is involved in various legal proceedings and other matters arising in the normal course of business. Corrosion, hydrogen enbrittlement, cracking, material hardness, wood pressure-treating chemicals, misinstallations, misuse, design and assembly flaws, manufacturing defects, labeling defects, product formula defects, inaccurate chemical mixes, adulteration, environmental conditions, or other factors can contribute to failure of fasteners, connectors, anchors, adhesives, specialty chemicals, such as fiber reinforced polymers, and tool products. In addition, inaccuracies may occur in product information, descriptions and instructions found in catalogs, packaging, data sheets, and the Company’s website.

The resolution of any claim or litigation is subject to inherent uncertainty and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, cash flows or results of operations.

Gentry Homes, Ltd. v. Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc., et al., Case No. 17-cv-00566, was filed in a federal district court in Hawaii against Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. and the Company on November 20, 2017. The Gentry case is a product of a previous state court class action, Nishimura v. Gentry Homes, Ltd., et al., Civil No. 11-1-1522-07, which is now closed. The Nishimura case concerned alleged corrosion of the Company’s galvanized “hurricane straps” and mudsill anchor products used in a residential project in Ewa by Gentry, Honolulu, Hawaii. In the Nishimura case, the plaintiff homeowners and the developer, Gentry Homes, Ltd. (“Gentry”), arbitrated their dispute and agreed on a settlement in the amount of approximately $90 million. In the subsequent Gentry case, Gentry alleges breach of warranty and negligent misrepresentation by the Company related to its “hurricane strap” and mudsill anchor products, and demands general, special, and consequential damages from the Company in an amount to be proven at trial. Gentry also seeks pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, and other relief. The Company admits no liability and will vigorously defend the claims brought against it. At this time, the Company cannot reasonably ascertain the likelihood that it will be found responsible for substantial damages to Gentry. Based on the facts currently known, and subject to future events and circumstances, the Company believes that all or part of the claims brought against it in the Gentry case may be covered by its insurance policies.

Charles Vitale, et al. v. D.R. Horton, Inc. and D.R. Horton-Schuler Homes, LLC, Civil No. 15-1-1347-07, a putative class action lawsuit, was filed in the Hawaii First Circuit on July 13, 2015, in which the plaintiff homeowners allege that all homes built by D.R Horton/D.R. Horton-Schuler Homes (collectively, “Horton Homes”) in the State of Hawaii have strap-tie holdowns that are suffering premature corrosion. The complaint alleges that various manufacturers make strap-tie holdowns that suffer from such corrosion. Although the plaintiffs’ original complaint did not specifically reference the Company’s products, their subsequent amended complaints make such reference. The amended complaints also allege that sill plates made by a third party are prematurely corroding. The Company is not currently a party to the Vitale lawsuit, but the lawsuit in the future could potentially involve the Company’s strap-tie holdowns and mudsill anchors. If claims are asserted against the Company in the Vitale case, it will vigorously defend any such claims, whether brought by the plaintiff homeowners or by Horton Homes. Based on the facts currently known, and subject to future events and circumstances, the Company believes that all or part of any claims that any party might bring against it related to the Vitale case may be covered by its insurance policies.

Ronald Yee, et al. v. D.R. Horton, Inc. and D.R. Horton-Schuler Homes, LLC, Civil No. 18-1-1748-10, a putative class action lawsuit, was filed in the Hawaii First Circuit on October 30, 2018 in which the plaintiff homeowners allege that all homes built by D.R Horton/D.R. Horton-Schuler Homes (collectively, “Horton Homes”) in the State of Hawaii have strap-tie holdowns and mudsill anchors made by the Company that are suffering premature corrosion. The case is related to the Vitale matter discussed above. The complaint also alleges that sill plates made by a third party are prematurely corroding. The plaintiff homeowners have not sued the Company, and the Company is not currently a party to the Yee lawsuit. The lawsuit in the future could potentially involve the Company. If claims are asserted against the Company in the Yee case, it will vigorously defend any such claims, whether brought by the plaintiff homeowners or by Horton Homes. Based on the facts currently known, and subject to future events and circumstances, the Company believes that all or part of any claims that any party might bring against it related to the Yee case may be covered by its insurance policies

Given the nature and the complexities involved in the Gentry, Vitale and Yee proceedings, the Company is unable to estimate reasonably the likelihood of possible loss or a range of possible loss until the Company knows, among other factors, (i) the specific claims brought against the Company and the legal theories on which they are based; (ii) what claims, if any, might be dismissed without trial; (iii) how the discovery process will affect the litigation; (iv) the settlement posture of the other parties to the litigation; (v) the damages to be proven at trial, particularly if the damages are not specified or are indeterminate; (vi) the extent to which the Company’s insurance policies will cover the claims or any part thereof, if at all; and (vii) any other factors that may have a material effect on the proceeding.