| Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Operating Leases We lease certain equipment and office space under non-cancelable operating leases. Rental expense under operating leases approximated $8.9 million , $10.5 million , and $8.6 million for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2017 , December 25, 2016 , and December 27, 2015 , respectively. Future minimum payments, by year and in the aggregate, under non-cancelable operating leases with initial or remaining lease terms of one year or more, are as follows at December 31, 2017 (in thousands): 2018 $ 8,076 2019 7,196 2020 5,713 2021 4,833 2022 3,292 Thereafter 5,774 $ 34,884 Portions of our payments for operating leases are denominated in foreign currencies and were translated in the table above based on their respective U.S. dollar exchange rates at December 31, 2017 . These future payments are subject to foreign currency exchange rate risk. Purchase Obligations We have entered into certain supply agreements for our products which include minimum purchase obligations. As of December 31, 2017, we have minimum purchase obligations of $3 million for 2018. Legal Contingencies The legal contingencies described in this footnote relate primarily to WMT, an indirect subsidiary of Wright Medical Group N.V., and are not necessarily applicable to Wright Medical Group N.V. or other affiliated entities. Maintaining separate legal entities within our corporate structure is intended to ring-fence liabilities. We believe our ring-fenced structure should preclude corporate veil-piercing efforts against entities whose assets are not associated with particular claims. As described below, our business is subject to various contingencies, including patent and other litigation, product liability claims, and a government inquiry. These contingencies could result in losses, including damages, fines, or penalties, any of which could be substantial, as well as criminal charges. Although such matters are inherently unpredictable, and negative outcomes or verdicts can occur, we believe we have significant defenses in all of them, and are vigorously defending all of them. However, we could incur judgments, pay settlements, or revise our expectations regarding the outcome of any matter. Such developments, if any, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in the period in which applicable amounts are accrued, or on our cash flows in the period in which amounts are paid, however, unless otherwise indicated, we do not believe any of them will have a material adverse effect on our financial position. Our legal contingencies are subject to significant uncertainties and, therefore, determining the likelihood of a loss or the measurement of a loss can be complex. We have accrued for losses that are both probable and reasonably estimable. Unless otherwise indicated, we are unable to estimate the range of reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts accrued. Our assessment process relies on estimates and assumptions that may prove to be incomplete or inaccurate. Unanticipated events and circumstances may occur that could cause us to change our estimates and assumptions. Governmental Inquiries On August 3, 2012, we received a subpoena from the United States Attorney's Office for the Western District of Tennessee requesting records and documentation relating to our PROFEMUR ® series of hip replacement devices. The subpoena covers the period from January 1, 2000 to August 2, 2012. We will continue to cooperate as required. Patent Litigation On September 23, 2014, Spineology filed a patent infringement lawsuit, Case No. 0:14-cv-03767, in the U.S. District Court in Minnesota, alleging that our X-REAM® bone reamer infringes U.S. Patent No. RE42,757 entitled “EXPANDABLE REAMER.” In January 2015, on the deadline for service of its complaint, Spineology dismissed its complaint without prejudice and filed a new, identical complaint. We filed an answer to the new complaint with the Court on April 27, 2015. The Court conducted a Markman hearing on March 23, 2016. Mediation was held on August 11, 2016, but no agreement could be reached. The Court issued a Markman decision on August 30, 2016, in which it found all asserted product claims invalid as indefinite under applicable patent laws and construed several additional claim terms. The parties completed fact and expert discovery with respect to the remaining asserted method claims. We filed a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of the remaining asserted patent claims and motions to exclude testimony from Spineology’s technical and damages experts. Spineology filed a motion for summary judgment of infringement. On July 25, 2017, the Court granted our motion for summary judgment of non-infringement; denied Spineology’s motion for summary judgment of infringement; and denied all remaining motions as moot. The Court also entered judgment in our favor and against Spineology on all issues. Spineology has appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and we are awaiting oral argument. On September 13, 2016, we filed a civil action, Case No. 2:16-cv-02737-JPM, against Spineology in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee alleging breach of contract, breach of implied warranty against infringement, and seeking a judicial declaration of indemnification from Spineology for patent infringement claims brought against us stemming from our sale and/or use of certain expandable reamers purchased from Spineology. Spineology filed a motion to dismiss on October 17, 2016, but withdrew the motion on November 28, 2016. On December 7, 2016, Spineology filed an answer to our complaint and counterclaims, including counterclaims relating to a 2004 non-disclosure agreement between Spineology and WMT. On December 28, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaims relating to that 2004 agreement. On January 4, 2017, Spineology filed a motion for summary judgment on certain claims set forth in our complaint. We opposed that motion. On January 27, 2017, we filed a motion for summary judgment on certain issues pertaining to our indemnification claims. Spineology opposed that motion. On July 7, 2017, the Court extended the deadlines for completing discovery until after it ruled on those pending motions. On August 29, 2017, the Court ruled on the motions to dismiss and for summary judgment. In view of that decision, on September 22, 2017, the parties stipulated to, and the Court entered, a judgment that effectively ended the case in a draw. We have appealed the judgment as to our claims against Spineology to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Spineology did not appeal the District Court’s dismissal of its contract counterclaim. In August 2016, we received a letter from KFx alleging that a legacy Tornier product (the Piton Suture Anchor) infringes one of KFx’s patents when used in knotless double row tissue fixation techniques. On April 6, 2017, we filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 1:17-cv-00384, seeking declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of United States Patent Nos. 7,585,311; 8,100,942; and 8,109,969. On April 20, 2017, KFx filed an answer and counterclaim alleging we indirectly infringe, and induce infringement of, these patents. In February 2018, the parties reached a settlement in principle intended to fully resolve the matter and end the litigation. Under the settlement in principle, we will pay KFx a one-time lump sum license fee in an immaterial amount in exchange for a fully paid global license to the relevant KFx patents. The settlement is presently being documented. Product Liability We have received claims for personal injury against us associated with fractures of our PROFEMUR ® long titanium modular neck product (PROFEMUR ® Claims). As of December 31, 2017 there were approximately 30 pending U.S. lawsuits and approximately 60 pending non-U.S. lawsuits alleging such claims. The overall fracture rate for the product is low and the fractures appear, at least in part, to relate to patient demographics. Beginning in 2009, we began offering a cobalt-chrome version of our PROFEMUR ® modular neck, which has greater strength characteristics than the alternative titanium version. Historically, we have reflected our liability for these claims as part of our standard product liability accruals on a case-by-case basis. However, during the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2011, as a result of an increase in the number and monetary amount of these claims, management estimated our liability to patients in the United States and Canada who have previously required a revision following a fracture of a PROFEMUR ® long titanium modular neck, or who may require a revision in the future. Management has estimated that this aggregate liability is $21.5 million . We have classified $12.0 million of this liability as current in “Accrued expenses and other current liabilities,” as we expect to pay such claims within the next twelve months, and $9.5 million as non-current in “Other liabilities” on our consolidated balance sheet. We expect to pay the majority of these claims within the next three years. Any claims associated with this product outside of the United States and Canada, or for any other products, will be managed as part of our standard product liability accrual methodology on a case-by-case basis. We are aware that MicroPort has recalled certain sizes of its cobalt chrome modular neck products as a result of alleged fractures. As of December 31, 2017, there were four pending U.S. lawsuits and eight pending non-U.S. lawsuits against us alleging personal injury resulting from the fracture of a cobalt chrome modular neck. These claims will be managed as part of our standard product liability accrual methodology on a case-by-case basis. On October 27, 2017, our primary insurance carrier agreed to defend us in connection with these lawsuits under a reservation of rights. We have maintained product liability insurance coverage on a claims-made basis. During the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2013, we received a customary reservation of rights from our primary product liability insurance carrier asserting that present and future claims related to fractures of our PROFEMUR ® titanium modular neck hip products and which allege certain types of injury (Titanium Modular Neck Claims) would be covered as a single occurrence under the policy year the first such claim was asserted. The effect of this coverage position would be to place Titanium Modular Neck Claims into a single prior policy year in which applicable claims-made coverage was available, subject to the overall policy limits then in effect. Management agrees with the assertion that the Titanium Modular Neck Claims should be treated as a single occurrence, but notified the carrier that it disputed the carrier's selection of available policy years. During the second quarter of 2013, we received confirmation from the primary carrier confirming their agreement with our policy year determination. Based on our insurer's treatment of Titanium Modular Neck Claims as a single occurrence, we increased our estimate of the total probable insurance recovery related to Titanium Modular Neck Claims by $19.4 million , and recognized such additional recovery as a reduction to our selling, general and administrative expenses for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2013, within results of discontinued operations. In the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2013, we received payment from the primary insurance carrier of $5 million . In the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2013, we received payment of $10 million from the next insurance carrier in the tower. We have requested, but not yet received, payment of the remaining $25 million from the third insurance carrier in the tower for that policy period. The policies with the second and third carrier in this tower are “follow form” policies and management believes the third carrier should follow the coverage position taken by the primary and secondary carriers. On September 29, 2015, that third carrier asserted that the terms and conditions identified in its reservation of rights will preclude coverage for the Titanium Modular Neck Claims. Pursuant to applicable accounting standards, we reduced our insurance receivable balance for this claim to $0 , and recorded a $25 million charge within “Net loss from discontinued operations” during the fiscal year ended December 27, 2015. We strongly dispute the carrier's position and, in accordance with the dispute resolution provisions of the policy, have initiated an arbitration proceeding in London, England seeking payment of these funds. The arbitration proceeding was completed on February 15, 2018 and the parties await the decision of the arbitration tribunal. Claims for personal injury have also been made against us associated with our metal-on-metal hip products (primarily our CONSERVE ® product line). The pre-trial management of certain of these claims has been consolidated in the federal court system, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under the MDL and certain other claims by the JCCP in state court in Los Angeles County, California (collectively the Consolidated Metal-on-Metal Claims). As of December 31, 2017, there were approximately 800 lawsuits pending in the MDL and JCCP, and an additional 50 cases pending in various U.S. state courts. As of that date, we have also entered into approximately 700 so called “tolling agreements” with potential claimants who have not yet filed suit. The number of lawsuits pending in the MDL and JCCP and tolling agreements disclosed above includes the claims that have been resolved pursuant to the Master Settlement Agreement and Second Settlement Agreements discussed below. Based on presently available information, we believe approximately 300 of these matters allege claims involving bilateral implants. As of December 31, 2017, there were also approximately 50 non-U.S. lawsuits pending. We believe we have data that supports the efficacy and safety of our metal-on-metal hip products. Every metal-on-metal hip case involves fundamental issues of law, science and medicine that often are uncertain, that continue to evolve, and which present contested facts and issues that can differ significantly from case to case. Such contested facts and issues include medical causation, individual patient characteristics, surgery specific factors, statutes of limitation, and the existence of actual, provable injury. The first bellwether trial in the MDL commenced on November 9, 2015 in Atlanta, Georgia. On November 24, 2015, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and awarded the plaintiff $1 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages. We believe there were significant trial irregularities and vigorously contested the trial result. On December 28, 2015, we filed a post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new trial or a reduction of damages awarded. On April 5, 2016, the trial judge issued an order reducing the punitive damage award from $10 million to $1.1 million , but otherwise denied our motion. On May 4, 2016, we filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit heard oral arguments on January 26, 2017 and on March 20, 2017, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s verdict. On April 10, 2017, we filed a petition for rehearing en banc or for panel rehearing, which was denied. In light of this denial, we elected to forego a further appeal and paid the judgment in July 2017. The first bellwether trial in the JCCP, which was scheduled to commence on October 31, 2016, and subsequently rescheduled to January 9, 2017, was settled for an immaterial amount. The first state court metal-on-metal hip trial not part of the MDL or JCCP commenced on October 24, 2016, in St. Louis, Missouri. On November 3, 2016, the jury returned a verdict in our favor. The plaintiff appealed and the appellate court heard oral argument on November 8, 2017. On February 20, 2018, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, denied the plaintiff’s appeal and upheld the verdict of the trial court. On November 1, 2016, WMT entered into the MSA with Court-appointed attorneys representing plaintiffs in the MDL and JCCP. Under the terms of the MSA, the parties agreed to settle 1,292 specifically identified claims associated with CONSERVE ® , DYNASTY ® and LINEAGE ® products that meet the eligibility requirements of the MSA and are either pending in the MDL or JCCP, or subject to court-approved tolling agreements in the MDL or JCCP, for a settlement amount of $240 million . The $240 million settlement amount is a maximum settlement based on the pool of 1,292 specific, existing claims comprised of an identified mix of CONSERVE ® , DYNASTY ® and LINEAGE ® products (Initial Settlement Pool), with a value assigned to each product type, resulting in a total settlement of $240 million for the 1,292 claims in the Initial Settlement Pool. Actual settlements paid to individual claimants are determined under the claims administration procedures contained in the MSA and may be more or less than the amounts used to calculate the $240 million settlement for the 1,292 claims in the Initial Settlement Pool. However in no event will variations in actual settlement amounts payable to individual claimants affect WMT’s maximum settlement obligation of $240 million or the manner in which it may be reduced due to opt outs, final product mix, or elimination of ineligible claims. If it is determined a claim in the Initial Settlement Pool is ineligible due to failure to meet the eligibility criteria of the MSA, such claim will be removed and, where possible, replaced with a new eligible claim involving the same product, with the goal of having the number and mix of claims in the final settlement pool (before opt-outs) (Final Settlement Pool) equal, as nearly as possible, the number and mix of claims in the Initial Settlement Pool. Additionally, if any DYNASTY ® or LINEAGE ® claims in the Final Settlement Pool are determined to have been misidentified as CONSERVE ® claims, or vice versa, the total settlement amount will be adjusted based on the value for each product type (not to exceed $240 million). The MSA contains specific eligibility requirements and establishes procedures for proof and administration of claims, negotiation and execution of individual settlement agreements, determination of the final total settlement amount, and funding of individual settlement amounts by WMT. Eligibility requirements include, without limitation, that the claimant has a claim pending or tolled in the MDL or JCCP, that the claimant has undergone a revision surgery within eight years of the original implantation surgery, and that the claim has not been identified by WMT as having possible statute of limitation issues. Claimants who have had bilateral revision surgeries will be counted as two claims but only to the extent both claims separately satisfy all eligibility criteria. The MSA includes a 95% opt-in requirement, meaning the MSA could have been terminated by WMT prior to any settlement disbursement if claimants holding greater than 5% of eligible claims in the Final Settlement Pool elected to “opt-out” of the settlement. WMT has confirmed that of the 1,292 eligible claims, 1,279 opted to participate in the settlement and 13 opted out, resulting in a final opt-in percentage of approximately 99%, well in excess of the required 95% threshold. On March 2, 2017, WMT agreed to replace the 13 opt-out claims with 13 additional claims that would have been eligible to participate in the MSA but for the 1,292 claim limit, bringing the total MSA settlement to the maximum limit of $240 million to settle 1,292 claims. Due to apparent demand from additional claimants excluded from settlement because of the 1,292 claims ceiling, but otherwise eligible for participation, on May 15, 2017 WMT agreed to settle an additional 53 such claims, on terms substantially identical to the MSA settlement terms, for a maximum additional settlement amount of $9.4 million . During 2016 WMT escrowed $150 million to secure its obligations under the MSA, all of which had been paid as of December 31, 2017. As additional security, Wright Medical Group N.V., the indirect parent company of WMT, agreed to guarantee WMT’s obligations under the MSA. On October 3, 2017, WMT entered into the Second Settlement Agreements with the Court-appointed attorneys representing plaintiffs in the MDL and JCCP. Under the terms of the Second Settlement Agreements, the parties agreed to settle 629 specifically identified CONSERVE ® , DYNASTY ® and LINEAGE ® claims that meet the eligibility requirements of the Second Settlement Agreements and are either pending in the MDL or JCCP, or subject to court-approved tolling agreements in the MDL or JCCP, for a maximum settlement amount of $89.75 million. The comprehensive settlement amount was contingent on WMT’s recovery of new insurance proceeds totaling at least $35 million from applicable insurance carriers by December 31, 2017. On December 29, 2017, WMT entered into a First Amendment to the Third Settlement Agreement pursuant to which the deadline for the recovery of new insurance proceeds totaling at least $35 million from applicable insurance carriers was extended through February 28, 2018 and, on February 23, 2018, WMT entered into a Second Amendment to the Third Settlement Agreement pursuant to which the deadline was extended through March 30, 2018. To date, certain of the insurance carriers have contributed or agreed to contribute $20 million of funds applicable against the contingency. The $89.75 million settlement amount is a maximum settlement based on the pool of 629 specific, existing claims comprised of an identified mix of CONSERVE ® , DYNASTY ® and LINEAGE ® products (Second Settlement Initial Settlement Pool), with a value assigned to each product type. The actual settlement may be less, but not more, depending on several factors including the mix of products and claimants in the final settlement pool (Second Settlement Final Settlement Pool) and the number of claimants electing to “opt-out” of the settlement. The total maximum settlement amount of $89.75 million is allocated among the following three tranches: (1) Tranche 1: $7.9 million to settle 49 additional claims that would have been eligible to participate in the MSA but for the claim limit contained therein, which amount will be funded as such claims are settled; (2) Tranche 2: $5.1 million to settle 39 eligible claims of the oldest claimants (by age), which amount will be funded as such claims are settled; and (3) Tranche 3: $76.75 million to settle 511 eligible claims pending or tolled in the MDL and JCCP existing as of June 30, 2017, and 30 new eligible claims which were presented between July 1, 2017 and October 1, 2017, which amount will be funded as follows: $45 million by June 30, 2018 and $31.75 million by September 30, 2019. Actual funding may extend beyond these dates pending completion of claims administration processes. The Tranche 3 settlement is contingent upon WMT receiving at least $35 million of new insurance proceeds from applicable carriers by March 30, 2018. There is no contingency with respect to Tranches 1 and 2. Actual settlements paid to individual claimants will be determined under the claims administration procedures contained in the Second Settlement Agreements and may be more or less than the amounts used to calculate the $89.75 million settlement for the 629 claims in the Second Settlement Initial Settlement Pool. However in no event will variations in actual settlement amounts payable to individual claimants affect WMT’s maximum settlement obligation of $89.75 million or the manner in which it may be reduced due to opt outs, final product mix, or elimination of ineligible claims. If it is determined that a claim in the Second Settlement Initial Settlement Pool is ineligible due to failure to meet the eligibility criteria of the Second Settlement Agreements, such claim will be removed and, where possible, replaced with a new eligible claim involving the same products as the removed claim. The Second Settlement Agreements contain specific eligibility requirements and establish procedures for proof and administration of claims, negotiation and execution of individual settlement agreements, determination of the final total settlement amount, and funding of individual settlement amounts by WMT. Eligibility requirements include, without limitation, that the claimant has a claim pending or tolled in the MDL or JCCP and that, with limited exceptions, the claimant has undergone a revision surgery. Claimants who have had bilateral revision surgeries will be counted as two claims but only to the extent both claims separately satisfy all eligibility criteria. Each of the Second Settlement Agreements includes a 95% opt-in requirement, meaning WMT may terminate either Settlement Agreement prior to any settlement disbursement if claimants holding greater than 5% of eligible claims in Tranches 1 and 2, collectively, or claimants holding greater than 5% of eligible claims in Tranche 3 in the Second Settlement Final Settlement Pool, elect to “opt-out” of the settlement. On January 2, 2018, WMT received notification that 100% of the claimants in Tranches 1 and 2 opted-in. WMT is currently reviewing proof of claim documentation for these claimants and has until March 2, 2018 to confirm that the 95% opt-in requirement has been met. Claimants in Tranche 3 have until April 2, 2018 to opt into the Second Settlement Agreements. While the Second Settlement Agreements did not require WMT to escrow any amount to secure its obligations thereunder, as additional security, Wright Medical Group N.V., the indirect parent company of WMT, agreed to guarantee WMT’s obligations under the Second Settlement Agreements. The MSA (which reference includes the supplemental settlements described above) and the Second Settlement Agreements were entered into solely as a compromise of the disputed claims being settled and are not evidence that any claim has merit nor are they an admission of wrongdoing or liability by WMT. WMT will continue to vigorously defend metal-on-metal hip claims not settled pursuant to the above agreements. The Second Settlement Agreements are contingent upon the dismissal without prejudice of pending and tolled claims in the MDL and JCCP that do not meet the inclusion criteria of the MDL or JCCP. Additionally, the Second Settlement Agreements are contingent upon the dismissal without prejudice of all remaining non-revision claims in the MDL and JCCP, pursuant to a tolling agreement that tolls applicable statutes of limitation and repose for three months from a revision of the products or determination that a revision of the products is necessary. The MDL and JCCP courts have both entered orders closing these proceedings to new claims. As of December 31, 2017, we estimate there were approximately 50 outstanding metal-on-metal hip revision claims that were not included in the MSA or Second Settlement Agreements, approximately 50 claims pending in U.S courts other than the MDL and JCCP, and approximately 50 claims pending in non-U.S. courts. We also estimate that there were approximately 600 outstanding metal-on-metal hip non-revision claims as of December 31, 2017. These non-revision cases were excluded from the MSA and Second Settlement Agreements. As a result of entering into the Second Settlement Agreements during the third quarter of 2017, we recorded an additional accrual of $82.7 million for the 629 matters included within the settlement and for matters that have the same eligibility criteria. As of December 31, 2017, our accrual for metal-on-metal claims totaled $177.5 million , of which $127.4 million is included in our consolidated balance sheet within “Accrued expenses and other current liabilities” and $50.1 million is included within “Other liabilities.” Our accrual is based on (i) case by case accruals for specific cases where facts and circumstances warrant, and (ii) the implied settlement values for eligible claims under the MSA or Second Settlement Agreements. We are unable to reasonably estimate the high-end of a possible range of loss for claims which elected or will elect to opt-out of the MSA or Second Settlement Agreements. Claims we can confirm would meet MSA or Second Settlement Agreements eligibility criteria but are excluded from the settlements due to the maximum settlement cap, or because they are state cases not part of the MDL or JCCP, have been accrued as of the respective settlement rates. Due to the general uncertainties surrounding all metal-on metal claims as noted above, as well as insufficient information about individual claims, we are presently unable to reasonably estimate a range of loss for future claims; hence we have not accrued for these claims at the present time. We are unable to predict whether we will be successful in recovering the necessary insurance proceeds required to complete the comprehensive settlement pursuant to the Second Settlement Agreements within the requisite timeframe. We continue to believe the high-end of a possible range of loss for existing revision claims that do not meet eligibility criteria of the MSA or Second Settlement Agreements will not, on an average per case basis, exceed the average per case accrual we take for revision claims we can confirm do meet eligibility criteria of the MSA or Second Settlement Agreements, as applicable. Future claims will be evaluated for accrual on a case by case basis using the accrual methodologies described above (which could change if future facts and circumstances warrant). We have maintained product liability insurance coverage on a claims-made basis. During the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2012, we received a customary reservation of rights from our primary product liability insurance carrier asserting that certain present and future claims which allege certain types of injury related to our CONSERVE ® metal-on-metal hip products (CONSERVE ® Claims) would be covered as a single occurrence under the policy year the first such claim was asserted. The effect of this coverage position would be to place CONSERVE ® Claims into a single prior policy year in which applicable claims-made coverage was available, subject to the overall policy limits then in effect. Management agrees that there is insurance coverage for the CONSERVE ® Claims, but has notified the carrier that it disputes the carrier's characterization of the CONSERVE ® Claims as a single occurrence. In June 2014, Travelers, which was an excess carrier in our coverage towers across multiple policy years, filed a declaratory judgment action in Tennessee state court naming us and certain of our other insurance carriers as defendants and asking the court to rule on the rights and responsibilities of the parties with regard to the CONSERVE ® Claims. Among other things, Travelers appeared to dispute our contention that the CONSERVE ® Claims arise out of more than a single occurrence thereby triggering multiple policy periods of coverage. Travelers further sought a determination as to the applicable policy period triggered by the alleged single occurrence. We filed a separate lawsuit in state court in California for declaratory judgment against certain carriers and breach of contract against the primary carrier, and moved to dismiss or stay the Tennessee action on a number of grounds, including that California is the most appropriate jurisdiction. During the third quarter of 2014, the California Court granted Travelers' motion to stay our California action. On April 29, 2016, we filed a dispositive motion seeking partial judgment in our favor in the Tennessee action, which motion is pending and has been referred to a Special Master to consider the parties’ arguments. On June 10, 2016, Travelers withdrew its motion for summary judgment in the Tennessee action. One of the other insurance companies in the Tennessee action has stated that it will re-file a similar motion in the future. In March 2017, Lexington, which had been dismissed from the Tennessee action, requested arbitration under five Lexington insurance policies in connection with the CONSERVE ® Claims. We subsequently engaged in discu |
