Contingent Liabilities | 9. CONTINGE NT LIABILITIES Legal Proceedings Various claims, lawsuits and proceedings are pending or threatened against the Company or its subsidiaries, covering a range of matters that arise in the ordinary course of its business activities with respect to commercial, product liability and other matters. Litigation is subject to many uncertainties, and the outcome of any litigation cannot be assured. After discussions with counsel, it is the opinion of management that the various legal proceedings and investigations to which the Company currently is a party will not have a material adverse impact on the consolidated financial position of Autoliv, but the Company cannot provide assurance that Autoliv will not experience material litigation, product liability or other losses in the future. ANTITRUST MATTERS Authorities in several jurisdictions have conducted broad, and in some cases, long-running investigations of suspected anti-competitive behavior among parts suppliers in the global automotive vehicle industry. These investigations included, but are not limited to, the products that the Company sells. In addition to concluded matters, authorities of other countries with significant light vehicle manufacturing or sales may initiate similar investigations. PRODUCT WARRANTY, RECALLS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Autoliv is exposed to various claims for damages and compensation if its products fail to perform as expected. Such claims can be made, and result in costs and other losses to the Company, even where the product is eventually found to have functioned properly. Where a product (actually or allegedly) fails to perform as expected or is defective, the Company may face warranty and recall claims. Where such (actual or alleged) failure or defect results, or is alleged to result, in bodily injury and/or property damage or other loss, the Company may also face product liability and other claims. There can be no assurance that the Company will not experience material warranty, recall or product (or other) liability claims or losses in the future, or that the Company will not incur significant costs to defend against such claims. The Company may be required to participate in a recall involving its products. Each vehicle manufacturer has its own practices regarding product recalls and other product liability actions relating to its suppliers. As suppliers become more integrally involved in the vehicle design process and assume more of the vehicle assembly functions, vehicle manufacturers are increasingly looking to their suppliers for contribution when faced with recalls and product liability claims. Government safety regulators may also play a role in warranty and recall practices. A warranty, recall or product-liability claim brought against the Company in excess of its insurance may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business. Vehicle manufacturers are also increasingly requiring their outside suppliers to guarantee or warrant their products and bear the costs of repair and replacement of such products under new vehicle warranties. A vehicle manufacturer may attempt to hold the Company responsible for some, or all, of the repair or replacement costs of products when the product supplied did not perform as represented by us or expected by the customer. Accordingly, the future costs of warranty claims by customers may be material. However, the Company believes its established reserves are adequate. Autoliv’s warranty reserves are based upon the Company’s best estimates of amounts necessary to settle existing and future claims. The Company regularly evaluates the adequacy of these reserves and adjusts them when appropriate. However, the final amounts actually due related to these matters could differ materially from the Company’s recorded estimates. In addition, as vehicle manufacturers increasingly use global platforms and procedures, quality performance evaluations are also conducted on a global basis. Any one or more quality, warranty or other recall issue(s) (including those affecting few units and/or having a small financial impact) may cause a vehicle manufacturer to implement measures such as a temporary or prolonged suspension of new orders, which may have a material adverse impact on the Company’s results of operations. The Company maintains a program of insurance, which may include commercial insurance, self-insurance, or a combination of both approaches, for potential recall and product liability claims in amounts and on terms that it believes are reasonable and prudent based on our prior claims experience. The Company’s insurance policies generally include coverage of the costs of a recall, although costs related to replacement parts are generally not covered. In addition, a number of the agreements entered into by the Company, including the Spin-off Agreements, require Autoliv to indemnify the other parties for certain claims. Autoliv cannot assure that the level of coverage will be sufficient to cover every possible claim that can arise in our businesses or with respect to other obligations, now or in the future, or that such coverage always will be available should we, now or in the future, wish to extend, increase or otherwise adjust our insurance. Product Liability: On September 18, 2014 , Jamie Andrews filed a wrongful death products liability suit against several Autoliv entities stemming from a fatal car accident in 2013 where the plaintiff’s husband was fatally injured. The lawsuit alleges that Autoliv should be liable for a defectively-designed driver seatbelt. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The suit originally included Bosch and Mazda entities as well, but these entities were dismissed pursuant to confidential settlement agreements with the plaintiff, and all of the Autoliv entities except Autoliv Japan Ltd. were also dismissed. On January 10, 2017, the District Court entered an order granting summary judgment in favor of Autoliv, concluding that Autoliv was not actively involved in the design of Mr. Andrews’s seatbelt and, therefore, should not be liable for plaintiff’s claims as a matter of law. However, on appeal, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision, holding that, under Georgia’s products liability statute, Autoliv could be liable for a design defect associated with the seatbelt, regardless of its level of involvement in the seatbelt’s ultimate design, because Autoliv manufactured it. On October 4, 2021, the case proceeded to a bench trial before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On December 31, 2021, the District Court entered a Final Order and Judgment concluding that Mr. Andrews’s seatbelt was defectively designed and Autoliv was strictly liable for the design. In doing so, the District Court concluded that Mr. Andrews had incurred $ 27,019,343 in compensatory damages, but only ordered Autoliv to pay 50 percent of that amount, $ 13,509,671 after finding that 50 percent of the fault for Mr. Andrews’s damages should be apportioned to Mazda . The Court declined to apportion any fault for Mr. Andrews’s damages to Mr. Andrews or Bosch. The District Court also entered an award of punitive damages against Autoliv in the amount of $ 100,000,000 . The plaintiff has since filed a post-trial motion asking the District Court to hold Autoliv liable for the entire amount of compensatory damages ($ 27,019,343 ), not just $ 13,509,671 . The plaintiff has also requested pre-judgment interest on the damages awards plus attorneys’ fees and costs. Autoliv plans to oppose these requests. The Company has determined that a loss with respect to this litigation is probable and in the fourth quarter of 2021 accrued $ 14 million pursuant to ASC 450. The accrual is reflected in the total product liability accrual. This amount reflects the low end of the range of a probable loss of $ 14 million to $ 114 million. The accrual reflects the Company’s best estimate of the probable loss based on currently available information and does not include any amount for the punitive damages. It is reasonably possible that the Company may have to pay the entire damages awarded by the District Court. The Company believes that its insurance should cover all of the types of damages awarded by the District Court, and has therefore recognized a receivable, included within Other non-current assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets for the expected insurance proceeds. However, the extent of the Company's insurance coverage for punitive damages in this matter is uncertain and may be less than all of such punitive damages ultimately awarded. In the event all or a portion of the punitive damages award survives the Company's post-judgement actions, the Company will continue to engage with our insurance carriers and aggressively pursue all potential recoveries. The ultimate loss to the Company of the litigation matter could be materially different from the amount the Company has accrued. The Company cannot predict or estimate the duration or ultimate outcome of this matter. Specific Recalls: In the fourth quarter of 2020, the Company was made aware of a potential recall by one of its customers (the “Unannounced Recall”). The Company continues to evaluate this matter with its customer. The Company has determined pursuant to ASC 450 that a loss with respect to the Unannounced Recall is probable and has accrued an amount that is reflected in the total product liability accrual in the fourth quarter of 2020. The amount by which the product liability accrual exceeds the product liability insurance receivable with respect to the Unannounced Recall is $ 26 million, and includes self-insurance retention costs and deductibles. The ultimate loss to the Company of the Unannounced Recall could be materially different from the amount the Company has accrued. Volvo Car USA, LLC (together with its affiliates, “Volvo” ) has recalled approximately 762,000 vehicles relating to the malfunction of inflators produced by ZF (the “ZF Inflator Recall”). The recalled ZF inflators were included in airbag modules supplied by the Company only to Volvo. The recall commenced in November 2020 and later expanded in September 2021. Because the Company’s airbags were involved with the ZF Inflator Recall, the Company has determined pursuant to ASC 450 that a loss is reasonably possible with respect to the ZF Inflator Recall. The Company continues to evaluate this matter with Volvo and ZF and no accrual has been made. Although the Company currently estimates a range of $ 0 to $ 43 million with respect to this potential loss, the Company anticipates that any losses net of insurance claims and claims against ZF will be immaterial. Intellectual Property: The Company utilizes technologies in its products, which may be subject to intellectual property rights of third parties. While the Company does seek to procure the necessary rights to utilize intellectual property rights associated with its products, it may fail to do so. Where the Company so fails, the Company may be exposed to material claims from the owners of such rights. Where the Company has sold products that infringe upon such rights, its customers may be entitled to be indemnified by the Company for the claims they suffer as a result thereof. Such claims could be material. The table in Note 7. Product-Related Liabilities above summarizes the change in the balance sheet position of the product-related liabilities. |