Contingencies | 9 Months Ended |
Sep. 30, 2013 |
Contingencies [Abstract] | ' |
Contingencies | ' |
Note M — Contingencies |
|
The Company’s operations and earnings have been and may be affected by various forms of governmental action. Examples of such governmental action include, but are by no means limited to: tax increases and retroactive tax claims; import and export controls; price controls; allocation of supplies of crude oil and petroleum products and other goods; laws and regulations intended for the promotion of safety and the protection and/or remediation of the environment; governmental support for other forms of energy; and laws and regulations affecting the Company’s relationships with employees, suppliers, customers, stockholders and others. Because governmental actions are often motivated by political considerations, may be taken without full consideration of their consequences, and may be taken in response to actions of other governments, it is not practical to attempt to predict the likelihood of such actions, the form the actions may take or the effect such actions may have on the Company. |
|
ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS AND LEGAL MATTERS — Murphy USA is subject to numerous federal, state and local laws and regulations dealing with the environment. Violation of such environmental laws, regulations and permits can result in the imposition of significant civil and criminal penalties, injunctions and other sanctions. A discharge of hazardous substances into the environment could, to the extent such event is not insured, subject the Company to substantial expense, including both the cost to comply with applicable regulations and claims by neighboring landowners and other third parties for any personal injury, property damage and other losses that might result. |
|
The Company currently owns or leases, and has in the past owned or leased, properties at which hazardous substances have been or are being handled. Although the Company believes it has used operating and disposal practices that were standard in the industry at the time, hazardous substances may have been disposed of or released on or under the properties owned or leased by the Company or on or under other locations where they have been taken for disposal. In addition, many of these properties have been operated by third parties whose management of hazardous substances was not under the Company’s control. Under existing laws the Company could be required to remediate contaminated property (including contaminated groundwater) or to perform remedial actions to prevent future contamination. Certain of these contaminated properties are in various stages of negotiation, investigation, and/or cleanup, and the Company is investigating the extent of any related liability and the availability of applicable defenses. With the sale of the U.S. refineries in 2011, Murphy Oil retained certain liabilities related to environmental matters. Murphy Oil also obtained insurance covering certain levels of environmental exposures. The Company believes costs related to these sites will not have a material adverse effect on Murphy USA’s net income, financial condition or liquidity in a future period. |
|
Certain environmental expenditures are likely to be recovered by the Company from other sources, primarily environmental funds maintained by certain states. Since no assurance can be given that future recoveries from other sources will occur, the Company has not recorded a benefit for likely recoveries at September 30, 2013, however certain jurisdictions provide reimbursement for these expenses which have been considered in recording the net exposure. |
|
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) currently considers the Company a Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) at one Superfund site. The potential total cost to all parties to perform necessary remedial work at this site may be substantial. However, based on current negotiations and available information, the Company believes that it is a de minimis party as to ultimate responsibility at the Superfund site. Accordingly, the Company has not recorded a liability for remedial costs at the Superfund site at September 30, 2013. The Company could be required to bear a pro rata share of costs attributable to nonparticipating PRPs or could be assigned additional responsibility for remediation at this site or other Superfund sites. The Company believes that its share of the ultimate costs to clean-up this site will be immaterial and will not have a material adverse effect on its net income, financial condition or liquidity in a future period. |
|
Based on information currently available to the Company, the amount of future remediation costs to be incurred to address known contamination sites is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s future net income, cash flows or liquidity. However, there is the possibility that additional environmental expenditures could be required to address contamination, including as a result of discovering additional contamination or the imposition of new or revised requirements applicable to known contamination. |
|
Since the beginning of fiscal 2007, over 45 class action lawsuits have been filed in federal courts across the country against petroleum companies and significant retailers in the petroleum industry, in which the plaintiffs generally allege that they received less motor fuel than the defendants agreed to deliver because the defendants measured the amount of motor fuel they delivered in non-temperature adjusted gallons which, at higher temperatures, contain less energy. Murphy USA’s subsidiary, Murphy Oil USA, Inc., is a defendant in eight of these cases. |
|
Pursuant to an Order entered by the Joint Panel on Multi-District Litigation, all of the cases, including those in which Murphy Oil USA, Inc. is named, have been transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Kansas and consolidated for all pre-trial proceedings. These cases seek, among other relief, an order requiring the defendants to install temperature adjusting equipment on their retail motor fuel dispensing devices. In certain of the cases, including some of the cases in which Murphy Oil USA, Inc. is named, plaintiffs also have alleged that because defendants pay fuel taxes based on temperature adjusted 60 degree gallons, but allegedly collect taxes from consumers on non-temperature adjusted gallons, defendants receive a greater amount of tax from consumers than they paid on the same gallon of fuel. The plaintiffs in these cases seek, among other relief, recovery of excess taxes paid and punitive damages. Both types of cases seek compensatory damages, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and costs, and prejudgment interest. |
|
The defendants filed motions to dismiss all cases for failure to state a claim, which were denied by the court on February 21, 2008. A number of the defendants, including Murphy Oil USA, Inc., subsequently moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiffs’ claims constitute non-justiciable “political questions.” The Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss on political question grounds on December 3, 2009, and defendants request to appeal that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit was denied on August 31, 2010. In May 2010, in a lawsuit in which Murphy Oil USA, Inc. was not a party, the Court granted class certification to Kansas fuel purchasers seeking implementation of automated temperature controls and/or certain disclosures, but deferred ruling on any class for damages. Defendants sought permission to appeal that decision to the Tenth Circuit in June 2010, and that request was denied on August 31, 2010. On November 12, 2011, Defendants in the Kansas case filed a motion to decertify the Kansas classes in light of a new favorable United States Supreme Court decision. On January 19, 2012, the Judge denied the Defendants’ motion to decertify and granted plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class as to liability and injunctive relief aspects of plaintiffs’ claims. The court has continued to deny certification of a damages class. On September 24, 2012, the jury in the Kansas case returned a unanimous verdict in favor of defendants finding that defendants did not violate Kansas law by willfully failing to disclose temperature and its effect on the energy content of motor fuel. On October 3, 2012 the judge in the Kansas case also ruled that defendants’ practice of selling motor fuel without disclosing temperature or disclosing the effect of temperature was not unconscionable under Kansas law. On January 23, 2013, the judge ordered that three cases not involving the Company venued in California be remanded for trial. |
|
At this stage of proceedings, losses are reasonably possible, however, we cannot estimate our loss, range of loss or liability, if any, related to these lawsuits because there are a number of unknown facts and unresolved legal issues that will impact the amount of any potential liability, including, without limitation: (i) whether defendants are required, or even permitted under state law, to sell temperature adjusted gallons of motor fuel; (ii) the amounts and actual temperature of fuel purchased by plaintiffs; and (iii) whether or not class certification is proper in cases to which Murphy Oil USA, Inc. is a party. An adverse outcome in this litigation could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. |
|
Murphy USA is engaged in a number of other legal proceedings, all of which the Company considers routine and incidental to its business. Based on information currently available to the Company, the ultimate resolution of those other legal matters is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s net income, financial condition or liquidity in a future period. |
|
INSURANCE — The Company maintains insurance coverage at levels that are customary and consistent with industry standards for companies of similar size. Murphy USA maintains statutory workers compensation insurance with a deductible of $1 million per occurrence. As of September 30, 2013, there were a number of outstanding claims that are of a routine nature. The estimated incurred but unpaid liabilities relating to these claims are include in Trade account payables and accrued liabilities on the Consolidated and Combined Balance Sheets. While the ultimate outcome of these claims cannot presently be determined, management believes that the accrued liability of $4.0 million will be sufficient to cover the related liability and that the ultimate disposition of these claims will have no material effect on the Company’s financial position and results of operations. |
|
The Company was insured under Murphy Oil’s insurance policies for occurrences prior to the completion of the separation. The specifications and insured limits under those policies, however, were at a level consistent with Murphy Oil as a whole. Following the separation, the Company has obtained insurance coverage as appropriate for the business in which it is engaged, but may incur losses that are not covered by insurance or reserves, in whole or in part, and such losses could adversely affect our results of operations and financial position. |
|
TAX MATTERS — Murphy USA is subject to extensive tax liabilities imposed by multiple jurisdictions, including income taxes, indirect taxes (excise/duty, sales/use and gross receipts taxes), payroll taxes, franchise taxes, withholding taxes and ad valorem taxes. New tax laws and regulations and changes in existing tax laws and regulations are continuously being enacted or proposed that could result in increased expenditures for tax liabilities in the future. Many of these liabilities are subject to periodic audits by the respective taxing authority. Subsequent changes to our tax liabilities because of these audits may subject us to interest and penalties. |
|
OTHER MATTERS — In the normal course of its business, the Company is required under certain contracts with various governmental authorities and others to provide financial guarantees or letters of credit that may be drawn upon if the Company fails to perform under those contracts. At September 30, 2013, the Company had contingent liabilities of $18.6 million on outstanding letters of credit. The Company has not accrued a liability in its balance sheet related to these financial guarantees and letters of credit because it is believed that the likelihood of having these drawn is remote. |
|