Contingent Liabilities | 12. CONTINGENT 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, and with the exception of losses resulting from the antitrust proceedings described below, 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. European Commission (“EC”) Investigations: On June 7-9, 2011, representatives of the European Commission (“EC”), the European antitrust authority, visited two facilities of a Company subsidiary in Germany to gather information for an investigation of anti-competitive behavior among suppliers of occupant safety systems. On November 22, 2017, the EC concluded a discrete portion of its investigation and imposed a fine on the Company of €8.1 million (approximately $9.7 million) with respect to this portion of the EC’s overall investigation while it continued the more significant portion of its investigation. The Company paid this amount during the first quarter of 2018, and had previously accrued €8.3 million (approximately $9.9 million) in 2017 with respect to this discrete portion of the investigation. On March 5, 2019, the EC completed the remaining portion of the investigation and imposed a fine on the Company of €179 million (approximately $203 million). In the fourth quarter of 2018, the Company had previously accrued €184 million (approximately $210 million) with respect to the remaining portion of the investigation. The difference between the actual fine and the accrual is reported in Other income (expense), net in the Consolidated statements of net income. The final payment of the actual fine was made in June 2019. Civil Litigation In May 2014, the Company, without admitting any liability, entered into separate settlement agreements with the direct purchasers, auto dealers, and end-payors, which were granted final approval by the MDL court in 2015 and 2016. In April 2016, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the truck and equipment dealers’ class, which was granted final approval by the MDL court in 2016. The class settlements do not resolve any claims of settlement class members who opt-out of the settlements or the unasserted claims of any purchasers of occupant safety systems who are not otherwise included in a settlement class, such as states and municipalities. Several individuals and one insurer (and its affiliated entities) opted-out of the end-payor class settlement, including the Company’s settlement. In September 2016, the insurer (and its affiliated entities) that opted out of the end-payor class settlement filed an antitrust lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The Company has accrued an amount that is not material to the Company’s results of operations to resolve this issue. 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, 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 the 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 future and existing 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 impact on the Company’s results of operations. The Company carries insurance for potential recall and product liability claims at coverage levels based on our prior claims experience. 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. Toyota Recall: As previously disclosed in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018, the Company determined pursuant to ASC 450 that a loss with respect to this issue is reasonably possible. If the Company is obligated to indemnify Toyota for the costs associated with the Toyota Recall, the Company expects that its insurance will generally cover such costs and liabilities and estimates that the Company’s loss, net of expected insurance recoveries, would be less than $20 million. However, the ultimate costs of the Toyota Recall could be materially different. The main variables affecting the ultimate cost for the Company are: the determination of proportionate responsibility (if any) among Toyota, the Company, and any relevant sub-suppliers; the ultimate number of vehicles repaired; the cost of repair per vehicle; and the actual recoveries from sub-suppliers and insurers. 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 its products, the Company utilizes technologies 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 which 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 10 . Product-Related Liabilities above summarizes the change in the balance sheet position of the product related liabilities. |