Contingent Liabilities | 20. Contingent Liabilities As of December 31, 2023, the Company was a defendant in nine (9) lawsuits and is aware of certain other such claims. The lawsuits fall into four (4) categories: traditional product liability litigation, municipal litigation . Each is discussed in turn below. Traditional Product Liability Litigation One lawsuit involves a claim for damages related to an allegedly defective product due to its design and/or manufacture. The lawsuit stems from a specific incident of personal injury and is based on traditional product liability theories such as strict liability, negligence, and/or breach of warranty. The Company believes that the allegations in this case are unfounded, that the incident is unrelated to the design or manufacture of the firearm involved, and that there should be no recovery against the Company. Municipal Litigation Municipal litigation generally includes those cases brought by cities or other governmental entities against firearms manufacturers, distributors and retailers seeking to recover damages allegedly arising out of the criminal misuse of firearms by third parties. The Complaint in City of Gary v. Smith & Wesson Corp., et al seeks damages, among other things, for the costs of medical care , police and emergency services, public health services , and other services as well as punitive damages. In addition , nuisance abatement and/or injunctive relief is sought to change th e design , manufacture , mark e ting and distribution practices of th e various defendants. The suit alleges , among other claims , negligence in the design of products , public nuisance , negligent distribution and marketing , negligence per se and deceptive advertising. The case does not allege a specific injury to a specific individual of the misuse or use of any of the Company's products. After a long procedural history, during the quarter ended April 3, 2021, the City initiated discovery and the manufacturer Defendants reciprocated. Discovery is ongoing. Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al. On December 20, 2022, the City of Buffalo, New York filed a lawsuit captioned The City of Buffalo v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al. On December 21, 2022, the City of Rochester, New York filed a lawsuit captioned The City of Rochester v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al. Buffalo Defendants moved to consolidate the Buffalo Rochester National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. et al. v. James N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law Negligence Rossiter v. Sturm, Ruger, et al. The Company was named in two purported class action lawsuits arising out of a data breach at Freestyle Solutions, Inc., the vendor who was hosting the Company’s ShopRuger.com website at the time of the breach. Jones v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., Copeland v. Sturm, Ruger & Company, et al. Copeland Copeland Jones Unfair Trade Practices Estate of Suzanne Fountain v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc., Ahmad Al Aliwi Al-Issa. The Complaint alleged that the Company’s advertising and marketing of the Ruger AR-556 pistol violate the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and were a substantial factor in bringing about the wrongful death of Suzanne Fountain. Estate of Neven Stanisic et al. v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc., Estate of Suzanne Fountain Ahmad Al Aliwi Al-Issa and Plaintiffs alleged that the Company’s advertising and marketing of the Ruger AR-556 pistol violate the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and were a substantial factor in causing the wrongful death of Plaintiffs’ decedents. The Fountain Stanisic The matter was timely removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut based upon the new allegations and federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiffs moved to remand the case to state court, the matter has been briefed fully, and the parties are awaiting a ruling. Summary of Claimed Damages and Explanation of Product Liability Accruals Punitive damages , as well as compensatory damages, are demanded in certain of the lawsuits and claims. In many instances , the plaintiff does not seek a specified amount of money , though aggregate amounts ultimately sought may exceed product liability accruals and applicable insurance coverage. For product liability claims made after July 10, 2000 , coverage is provided on an annual basis for losses exceeding $5 million per claim , or an aggregate maximum loss of $10 million annually , except for certain new claims which might be brought by governments or municipalities after July 10 , 2000 , which are excluded from coverage. The Company management monitors the status of known claims and the product liability accrual , which includes amounts for asserted and unasserted claims. While it is not possible to forecast the outcome of litigation or the timing of costs , in the opinion of management , after consultation with special and corporate counsel, it is not probable and is unlikely that litigation , including punitive damage claims , will have a material adverse effect on the financial position of the Compan y, but may have a material impact on the Company’ s financial results for a particular period. Product liability claim payments are made when appropriate if, as, and when claimants and the Company reach agreement upon an amount to finally resolve all claims. Legal costs are paid as the lawsuits and claims develop, the timing of which may vary greatly from case to case. A schedule cannot be determined in advance with any reliability concerning when payments will be made in any given case. Provision is made for product liability claims based upon many factors related to the severity of the alleged injury and potential liability exposure, based upon prior claim experience. Because the Company's experience in defending these lawsuits and claims is that unfavorable outcomes are typically not probable or estimable, only in rare cases is an accrual established for such costs. In most cases, an accrual is established only for estimated legal defense costs. Product liability accruals are periodically reviewed to reflect then-current estimates of possible liabilities and expenses incurred to date and reasonably anticipated in the future. Threatened product liability claims are reflected in the Company's product liability accrual on the same basis as actual claims; i.e. Often, a Complaint does not specify the amount of damages being sought and a range of reasonably possible losses relating to unfavorable outcomes cannot be made. The dollar amount of damages claimed at December 31, 2023 and December 31, 2022 was de minimis During 2023, one (1) traditional product liability lawsuit was filed against the Company and one (1) was resolved. As of December 31, 2023, the Company was a defendant in seven (7) lawsuits involving its products, including one (1) traditional product liability lawsuit, four (4) municipal lawsuits and two (2) lawsuits based upon alleged unfair trade practices. The Company was also a defendant in two (2) negligence lawsuits. During 2022, no Jones Copeland During 2021, one (1) traditional product liability lawsuit was filed against the Company. As of December 31, 2021, the Company was a defendant in four (4) lawsuits involving its products, including two (2) traditional lawsuits and two (2) municipal lawsuits. The Company’s product liability expense was $1.3 million in 2022, and $1.1 million in 2021. This expense includes the cost of outside legal fees, insurance, and other expenses incurred in the management and defense of product liability matters. A roll-forward of the product liability reserve and detail of product liability expense for the three years ended December 31, 2023 follows: Balance Sheet Roll-forward for Product Liability Reserve Cash Payments Balance ) Accrued Legal Fees Settlements Balance 2021 $ 1,126 (7 ) (227 ) — $ 892 2022 $ 892 (417 ) (167 ) — $ 308 2023 $ 308 500 (129 ) — $ 679 Income Statement Detail for Product Liability Expense Accrued Insurance Total 2021 $ (7 ) 1,119 $ 1,112 2022 $ (417 ) 1,524 $ 1,107 2023 $ 500 1,226 $ 1,726 Notes (a) The beginning and ending liability balances represent accrued legal fees only. Settlements and administrative costs are expensed as incurred. Only in rare instances is an accrual established for settlements. (b) The expense accrued in the liability is for legal fees only. In 2022 and 2021, the costs incurred related to cases that were settled or dismissed were less than the amounts accrued for these cases in prior years. (c) Legal fees represent payments to outside counsel related to product liability matters. (d) Settlements represent payments made to plaintiffs or allegedly injured parties in exchange for a full and complete release of liability. (e) Insurance expense represents the cost of insurance premiums. There were no insurance recoveries during any of the above years. |