9. Commitments and Contingencies

Leases

Certain properties occupied by the Company are leased. The leases expire at various dates through 2022 and generally require the Company to assume the obligations for insurance, property taxes and maintenance of the facilities.

Rental expense for 2012, 2011 and 2010 with respect to all leased property was approximately $6.9 million, $7.3 million and $7.1 million, respectively.

At December 31, 2012, minimum rental commitments under all non-cancelable leases were as follows:

(in thousands)



2013	$	6,391
2014	4,897
2015	3,620
2016	2,815
2017	1,823
Thereafter	1,304
	$	20,850

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 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 interest payments on fixed-term debt, line-of-credit borrowings and 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, 2012, other contractual obligations were as follows:

(in thousands)

			Debt
	Purchase		Interest
	Obligations		Obligations		Total

2013	$	9,247	$	450	$	9,697
2014	535		450		985
2015	—		450		450
2016	—		450		450
2017	—		263		263
Thereafter	—		—		—
	$	9,782	$	2,063	$	11,845

Employee Relations

Approximately 14% of the Company’s employees are represented by labor unions and are covered by collective bargaining agreements. Simpson Strong-Tie’s facility in San Bernardino County, California, has two collective bargaining agreements, one with its tool and die craftsmen and maintenance workers, and the other with its sheetmetal workers. These two contracts expire February 2014 and June 2014, respectively. Simpson Strong-Tie’s facility in Stockton, California, is also a union facility with two collective bargaining agreements, which also cover its tool and die craftsmen and maintenance workers, and its sheetmetal workers. These two contracts will expire June 2015 and September 2015, respectively.

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 these matters will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, cash flows or results of operations.

Litigation

From time to time, the Company is involved in various legal proceedings and other matters arising in the normal course of business. The resolution of claims and litigation is subject to inherent uncertainty and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, cash flows and results of operations.

Pending Claims

Four lawsuits (the “Cases”) have been filed against the Company in the Hawaii First Circuit Court: Alvarez v. Haseko Homes, Inc. and Simpson Manufacturing, Inc., Civil No. 09-1-2697-11 (“Case 1”); Ke Noho Kai Development, LLC v. Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc., and Honolulu Wood Treating Co., LTD., Case No. 09-1-1491-06 SSM (“Case 2”); North American Specialty Ins. Co. v. Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc. and K.C. Metal Products, Inc., Case No. 09-1-1490-06 VSM (“Case 3”); and Charles et al. v. Haseko Homes, Inc. et al. and Third Party Plaintiffs Haseko Homes, Inc. et al. v. Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc., et al., Civil No. 09-1-1932-08 (“Case 4”). Case 1 was filed on November 18, 2009. Cases 2 and 3 were originally filed on June 30, 2009. Case 4 was filed on August 19, 2009. The Cases all relate to alleged premature corrosion of the Company’s strap tie holdown products installed in buildings in a housing development known as Ocean Pointe in Honolulu, Hawaii, allegedly causing property damage. Case 1 is a putative class action brought by the owners of allegedly affected Ocean Pointe houses. Case 1 was originally filed as Kai et al. v. Haseko Homes, Inc., Haseko Construction, Inc. and Simpson Manufacturing, Inc., Case No. 09-1-1476, but was voluntarily dismissed and then re-filed with a new representative plaintiff. Case 2 is an action by the builders and developers of Ocean Pointe against the Company, claiming that either the Company’s strap tie holdowns are defective in design or manufacture or the Company failed to provide adequate warnings regarding the products’ susceptibility to corrosion in certain environments. Case 3 is a subrogation action brought by the insurance company for the builders and developers against the Company claiming the insurance company expended funds to correct problems allegedly caused by the Company’s products. Case 4 is a putative class action brought, like Case 1, by owners of allegedly affected Ocean Pointe homes. In Case 4, Haseko Homes, Inc. (“Haseko”), the developer of the Ocean Pointe development, brought a third party complaint against the Company alleging that any damages for which Haseko may be liable are actually the fault of the Company. Similarly, Haseko’s sub-contractors on the Ocean Pointe development brought cross-claims against the Company seeking indemnity and contribution for any amounts for which they may ultimately be found liable. None of the Cases alleges a specific amount of damages sought, although each of the Cases seeks compensatory damages, and Case 1 seeks punitive damages. Cases 1 and 4 have been consolidated. In December 2012, the Court granted the Company summary judgment on the claims asserted by the plaintiff homeowners in Cases 1 and 4, and on the third party complaint and cross-claims asserted by Haseko and the sub-contractors, respectively, in Case 4. Haseko and the sub-contractors may yet attempt to assert new or additional claims against the Company, and the Court has not definitively precluded them from doing so. The Company continues to investigate the facts underlying the claims asserted in the Cases, including, among other things, the cause of the alleged corrosion; the severity of any problems shown to exist; the buildings affected; the responsibility of the general contractor, various subcontractors and other construction professionals for the alleged damages; the amount, if any, of damages suffered; and the costs of repair, if needed. At this time, the likelihood that the Company will be found liable under any legal theory, and the extent of such liability, if any, are unknown. Management believes the Cases may not be resolved for an extended period. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in connection with the Cases.

Based on facts currently known to the Company, the Company believes that all or part of the claims alleged in the Cases may be covered by its insurance policies. On April 19, 2011, an action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA v. Simpson Manufacturing Company, Inc., et al., Civil No. 11-00254 ACK. In this action, Plaintiff National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (“National Union”), which issued certain Commercial General Liability insurance policies to the Company, seeks declaratory relief in the Cases with respect to its obligations to defend or indemnify the Company, Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc., and a vendor of the Company’s strap tie holdown products. By Order dated November 7, 2011, all proceedings in the National Union action have been stayed. If the stay is lifted and the National Union action is not dismissed, the Company intends vigorously to defend all claims advanced by National Union.

On April 12, 2011, Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company (“Fireman’s Fund”), another of the Company’s general liability insurers, sued Hartford Fire Insurance Company (“Hartford”), a third insurance company from whom the Company purchased general liability insurance, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Civil No. 11 1789 SBA (the “Fireman’s Fund action”). The Company has intervened in the Fireman’s Fund action and has moved to stay all proceedings in that action as well, pending resolution of the underlying Ocean Pointe Cases.

On November 21, 2011, the Company commenced a lawsuit against National Union, Fireman’s Fund, Hartford and others in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the City and County of San Francisco (the “San Francisco coverage action”). In the San Francisco coverage action, the Company alleges generally that the separate pendency of the National Union action and the Fireman’s Fund action presents a risk of inconsistent adjudications; that the San Francisco Superior Court has jurisdiction over all of the parties and should exercise jurisdiction at the appropriate time to resolve any and all disputes that have arisen or may in the future arise among the Company and its liability insurers; and that the San Francisco coverage action should also be stayed pending resolution of the underlying Ocean Pointe Cases. The San Francisco coverage action has been ordered stayed pending resolution of the Cases.

Nishimura v. Gentry Homes, Ltd; Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc.; and Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc., Civil no. 11-1-1522-07, was filed in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit of Hawaii on July 20, 2011. The Nishimura case alleges premature corrosion of the Company’s strap tie holdown products in a housing development at Ewa Beach in Honolulu, Hawaii. The case is a putative class action brought by owners of allegedly affected homes. The Complaint alleges that the Company’s strap products and mudsill anchors are insufficiently corrosion resistant and/or fail to comply with Honolulu’s building code. In February 2012, the Court dismissed three of the five claims the plaintiffs had asserted against the Company. The Company is currently investigating the allegations of the complaint, including, among other things: the existence and extent of the alleged corrosion, if any; the building code provisions alleged to be applicable and, if applicable, whether the products complied; the buildings affected; the responsibility of the general contractor, various subcontractors and other construction professionals for the alleged damages; the amount, if any, of damages suffered; and the costs of repair, if any are needed. At this time, the likelihood that the Company will be found liable for any damage allegedly suffered and the extent of such liability, if any, are unknown. The Company denies any liability of any kind and intends to defend itself vigorously in this case.

With respect to these legal proceedings, individually and in the aggregate, the Company has not yet been able to determine whether an unfavorable outcome is probable or reasonably possible and has not been able to reasonably estimate the amount or range of any possible loss. As a result, no amounts have been accrued or disclosed in the accompanying consolidated financial statements with respect to these legal proceedings.

The Company is not engaged in any other legal proceedings as of the date hereof, which the Company expects individually or in the aggregate to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, cash flows or results of operations. The resolution of claims and 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.

Other

Corrosion, hydrogen enbrittlement, cracking, material hardness, wood pressure-treating chemicals, misinstallations, misuse, design and assembly flaws, manufacturing defects, environmental conditions or other factors can contribute to failure of fasteners, connectors, anchors, adhesives and tool products. On occasion, some of the products that the Company sells have failed, although the Company has not incurred any material liability resulting from those failures. The Company attempts to avoid such failures by establishing and monitoring appropriate product specifications, manufacturing quality control procedures, inspection procedures and information on appropriate installation methods and conditions. The Company subjects its products to extensive testing, with results and conclusions published in Company catalogues and on its websites. Based on test results to date, the Company believes that, generally, if its products are appropriately selected, installed and used in accordance with the Company’s guidance, they may be reliably used in appropriate applications.