CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
CONTINGENCIES	CONTINGENCIES The Company is involved in a variety of claims, lawsuits, investigations and proceedings relating to securities laws, product liability, false claims, insurance, and contract disputes. Certain of these lawsuits and claims are described in further detail below. It is not possible to predict what the outcome of these matters will be and the Company cannot guarantee that any resolution will be reached on commercially reasonable terms, if at all. With the exception of the charge recorded related to the Company’s estimate of the probable loss associated with the tolled product liability claims described below, the Company has determined that an estimate of probable loss or range of loss related to material pending or threatened litigation matters cannot be determined as of September 30, 2014. Nevertheless, it is possible that future legal costs (including settlements, judgments, legal fees and other related defense costs) could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position, or future results of operations. The Company is also a party to various other legal actions that arise in the ordinary course of business and does not believe that any of these other legal actions will have a material adverse impact on the Company's business, financial position, or future results of operations. In accordance with U.S. GAAP, the Company records a liability when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. These provisions are reviewed at least quarterly and adjusted to reflect the impact of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel, and other information and events pertaining to a particular case. During the nine months ended September 30, 2014, the Company recorded pre-tax charges of $77.0 million, of which $67.4 million was recorded in the first quarter of 2014 and $9.6 million in the second quarter of 2014, to reflect the estimated cost of settling a number of the tolled product liability claims further described below. Purported Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit filed August 6, 2010 On August 6, 2010, a purported class action lawsuit entitled Perlmutter v. Intuitive Surgical et al., No. CV10-3451, was filed against seven of the Company's current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit sought unspecified damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between February 1, 2008 and January 7, 2009. The complaint alleged that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making allegedly false and misleading statements and omitting certain material facts in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. On February 15, 2011, the Police Retirement System of St. Louis was appointed lead plaintiff in the case pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. An amended complaint was filed on April 15, 2011, making allegations substantially similar to the allegations described above. On May 23, 2011, a motion was filed to dismiss the amended complaint. On August 10, 2011, that motion was granted and the action was dismissed; the plaintiffs were given 30 days to file an amended complaint. On September 12, 2011, plaintiffs filed their amended complaint. The allegations contained therein were substantially similar to the allegations in the prior complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on October 13, 2011. A hearing occurred on February 16, 2012, and on May 22, 2012, the court granted the Company's motion. The complaint was dismissed with prejudice, and a final judgment was entered in the Company's favor on June 1, 2012. On June 20, 2012, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The appeal was styled Police Retirement System of St. Louis v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. et al., No. 12-16430. Plaintiffs filed their opening brief on September 28, 2012. The Company filed an answering brief on November 13, 2012, and plaintiffs filed a reply brief on December 17, 2012. Oral argument was held on March 14, 2014, and the matter was taken under submission. On July 16, 2014, the Ninth Circuit published an opinion affirming the district court’s order dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs declined to seek any further review of the decision, and the matter is now at an end. Based on currently available information, the Company does not believe the resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position or future results of operations. Purported Derivative Actions filed August 19, 2010 On August 19, 2010, an alleged stockholder caused a purported stockholder’s derivative lawsuit entitled Himmel v. Smith et al., No. 1-10-CV-180416, to be filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara naming the Company as a nominal defendant, and naming 14 of the Company's current and former officers and directors as defendants. The lawsuit seeks to recover, for the Company's benefit, unspecified damages purportedly sustained in connection with allegedly misleading statements and/or omissions made in connection with the Company's financial reporting for the period between February 1, 2008 and January 7, 2009. It also seeks a series of changes to the Company's corporate governance policies and an award of attorneys’ fees. On September 15, 2010, another purported stockholder filed a substantially identical lawsuit entitled Applebaum v. Guthart et al., No. 1-10-CV-182645, in the same court against 15 of the Company's current and former officers and directors. On October 5, 2010, the court ordered that the two cases be consolidated for all purposes. By agreement with plaintiffs, all activity in the case has been stayed pending final resolution of the appeal in the purported shareholder class action lawsuit discussed above. Based on currently available information, the Company does not believe the resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position or future results of operations. Purported Shareholder Class Action Lawsuits filed April 26, 2013 and May 24, 2013 On April 26, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit entitled Abrams v. Intuitive Surgical, et al., No. 5-13-cv-1920, was filed against several of the Company's current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. A substantially identical complaint, entitled Adel v. Intuitive Surgical, et al., No. 5:13-cv-02365, was filed in the same court against the same defendants on May 24, 2013. The Adel case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on August 20, 2013. On October 15, 2013, plaintiffs in the Abrams matter filed an amended complaint. The case has since been re-titled In re Intuitive Surgical Securities Litigation, No. 5:13-cv-1920. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between February 6, 2012, and July 18, 2013. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making allegedly false and misleading statements and omitting certain material facts in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. On November 18, 2013, the Court appointed Employees’ Retirement System of the State of Hawaii as lead plaintiff and appointed lead counsel. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on December 16, 2013, which was granted in part and denied in part on August 21, 2014. The plaintiffs have elected not to further amend their complaint, and the case will move forward on the claims that remain. The Company does not believe the resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position or future results of operations. Purported Derivative Actions filed on February 3, 2014, February 21, 2014, March 21, 2014, and June 3, 2014 On February 3, 2014, an alleged stockholder caused a purported stockholder’s derivative lawsuit entitled Berg v. Guthart et al., No. 4-14-CV-00515, to be filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. It names the Company as a nominal defendant, and names 16 of the Company’s current and former officers and directors as defendants. The lawsuit seeks to recover, for the Company’s benefit, unspecified damages purportedly sustained by the Company in connection with allegedly misleading statements and/or omissions made in connection with the Company’s financial reporting for the period between 2012 and the present. It also seeks a series of changes to the Company’s corporate governance policies and an award of attorneys’ fees. On April 3, 2014, it was related to In re Intuitive Surgical Securities Litigation. On July 30, 2014 the court granted Berg’s motion to be appointed lead plaintiff and denied the City of Birmingham’s motion seeking such appointment (see below for additional description). The matter remains pending. Based on currently available information, the Company does not believe the resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position or future results of operations. On February 21, 2014, a second alleged stockholder caused a substantially similar purported stockholder’s derivative lawsuit entitled Public School Teachers’ Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago v. Guthart et al., No. CIV 526930, to be filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, against the same parties and seeking the same relief. On March 26, 2014, the case was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, where it was related to In re Intuitive Surgical Securities Litigation and Berg v. Guthart on April 30, 2014. The district court remanded the case back to San Mateo County Superior Court on June 30, 2014, where it remains pending. On August 28, 2014 the Company filed a motion seeking to stay the case in favor of the federal action and asking that plaintiffs be required to post a bond because the action was duplicative and was not in the Company’s best interests; by law, the filing of that motion triggered a stay of the proceedings until the motion is resolved. Based on currently available information, the Company does not believe the resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position or future results of operations. On March 21, 2014, a third alleged stockholder caused a substantially similar purported stockholder’s derivative lawsuit entitled City of Birmingham Relief and Retirement System v. Guthart et al., No. 5-14-CV-01307, to be filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the same parties and seeking the same relief. On April 8, 2014, it was related to In re Intuitive Surgical Securities Litigation and Berg v. Guthart. On July 30, 2014, the court consolidated the case with Berg v. Guthart and, as noted above, granted Berg’s motion to be appointed lead plaintiff and denied the City of Birmingham’s motion seeking such appointment. This effectively ends the City of Birmingham’s involvement in this matter. Based on currently available information, the Company does not believe the resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position or future results of operations. On June 3, 2014, a fourth alleged stockholder caused a substantially similar purported stockholder’s derivative lawsuit entitled City of Plantation Police Officers’ Employees’ Retirement System v. Guthart et al., C.A. No. 9726-CB, to be filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The Company filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings in favor of the earlier-filed stockholder derivative lawsuits pending in federal and state courts in California. In light of the Company’s motion, the plaintiff agreed to a stay of all proceedings in the case in favor of the earlier-filed actions. Based on currently available information, the Company does not believe the resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position or future results of operations. Product Liability Litigation The Company is currently named as a defendant in approximately 93 individual product liability lawsuits filed in various state and federal courts by plaintiffs who allege that they or a family member underwent surgical procedures that utilized the da Vinci Surgical System and sustained a variety of personal injuries and, in some cases, death as a result of such surgery. The Company has also received a large number of product liability claims from plaintiffs' attorneys that are part of certain tolling agreements further discussed below. In addition, the Company has been named as a defendant in a purported class action filed in Louisiana state court, and removed to federal court, seeking damages on behalf of all patients who were allegedly injured by the da Vinci Surgical System at a single hospital in Louisiana. The Company has also been named as a defendant in a multi-plaintiff lawsuit filed in Missouri state court, seeking damages on behalf of 17 patients who had da Vinci surgeries in 11 different states. The cases raise a variety of allegations including, to varying degrees, that plaintiffs’ injuries resulted from purported defects in the da Vinci Surgical System and/or failure on the Company's part to provide adequate training resources to the healthcare professionals who performed plaintiffs’ surgeries. The cases further allege that the Company failed to adequately disclose and/or misrepresented the potential risks and/or benefits of the da Vinci Surgical System. Plaintiffs also assert a variety of causes of action, including for example, strict liability based on purported design defects, negligence, fraud, breach of express and implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and loss of consortium. Plaintiffs seek recovery for alleged personal injuries and, in many cases, punitive damages. The Company has reached confidential settlements in a small number of filed cases. With certain exceptions, including the Taylor case described below, the remaining filed cases generally are in the early stages of pretrial activity. Plaintiffs’ attorneys have engaged in well-funded national advertising efforts seeking patients dissatisfied with da Vinci surgery. Among the allegations, a substantial number of claims relate to alleged complications from surgeries performed with certain versions of Monopolar Curved Scissor (“MCS”) instruments that included an MCS tip cover accessory that was the subject of a market withdrawal in 2012 and MCS instruments that were the subject of a recall in 2013. The Company has received a significant number of claims from plaintiffs’ attorneys that it believes are as a result of these advertising efforts. In an effort to avoid the expense and distraction of defending multiple lawsuits, the Company entered into tolling agreements to pause the applicable statutes of limitations for the claims, and engaged in confidential mediation efforts. The attorneys for the patients agreed to collect and supply medical records, operative notes and other necessary information from these patients to the Company. Each claim was individually investigated. The collection and evaluation of the patients’ medical information was laborious. For hundreds of the asserted claims, the Company has never received medical records. As of September 30, 2014, approximately 2,600 sets of patient records have been received and evaluated. To evaluate these claims, the Company, assisted by independent medical consultants, reviewed and analyzed the large volumes of medical information that began to arrive in the fall of 2013. The completion of the legal and medical evaluation of a significant number of these claims occurred during the first quarter of 2014 and continued throughout the second and third quarters of 2014. During the nine months ended September 30, 2014, the Company recorded pre-tax charges of $77.0 million, of which $67.4 million was recorded in the first quarter of 2014 and $9.6 million in the second quarter of 2014, to reflect the estimated cost of settling a number of the product liability claims covered by the tolling agreements. After an extended confidential mediation process with legal counsel for many of the claimants covered by the tolling agreements, the Company determined during the first quarter of 2014 that, while it denies any and all liability, in light of the costs and risks of litigation, settlement of certain claims may be appropriate. The Company’s estimate of the anticipated cost of resolving these claims is based on negotiations with attorneys for patients who have participated in the mediation process. To date, approximately 4,700 claims have been added to the tolling agreements and/or submitted into the mediation program. Of those, however, over 2,800 claims have voluntarily been removed from the tolling agreement and/or mediation program and plaintiffs’ counsels have indicated to the Company that they no longer intend to pursue these claims. Nonetheless, the claimants that have been removed from the tolling agreement remain free to pursue lawsuits against the Company and it is also possible that more claims will be made by additional individuals who have undergone da Vinci surgery and allege that they suffered injuries. It is further possible that the claimants who participate in the mediations, as well as those claimants who have not participated in negotiations, will choose to pursue greater amounts in a court of law. Consequently, the final outcome of these claims is dependent on many variables that are difficult to predict and the ultimate cost associated with these product liability claims may be materially different than the amount of the current estimate and accruals and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position, and future results of operations. Although there is a reasonable possibility that a loss in excess of the amount recognized exists, the Company is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss in excess of the amount recognized at this time. As of September 30, 2014, a total of $56.7 million of the charges recorded during 2014 was included in other accrued liabilities in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets related to the tolled product liability claims. In February 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in a product liability action that had originally been filed in Washington State Superior Court for Kitsap County against the healthcare providers and hospital involved in plaintiff’s decedent’s surgery (Josette Taylor, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Fred E. Taylor, deceased; and on behalf of the Estate of Fred E. Taylor v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No. 09-2-03136-5). In Taylor, plaintiff asserted wrongful death and product liability claims against the Company, generally alleging that the decedent died four years after surgery as a result of injuries purportedly suffered during the surgery, which was conducted with the use of the da Vinci Surgical System. The plaintiff in Taylor asserted that such injuries were caused, in whole or in part, by the Company's purported failure to properly train, warn, and instruct the surgeon. The lawsuit sought unspecified damages for past medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of consortium as well as punitive damages. A trial commenced in the action on April 15, 2013. On May 23, 2013, the jury returned a defense verdict, finding that the Company was not negligent. Judgment was entered in the Company's favor on June 7, 2013. Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal. False Claims Act Litigation In October 2013, the Company was served in a case entitled Rose v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No. 12-cv-1812, in the Middle District of Florida. Relator Bryan Rose, a former employee of Intuitive Surgical, brought the action on behalf of the United States of America, alleging violations of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq., and the analogous false-claims statutes of 21 states and of the District of Columbia. The parties reached a settlement in the case, and the court granted their joint motion for dismissal on May 21, 2014. The settlement did not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position or results of operations. Insurance Litigation In October 2013, the Company was named as a defendant in an insurance action entitled Illinois Union Insurance Co. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-04863-JST, filed in the Northern District of California. Plaintiff Illinois Union Insurance Co. seeks to rescind the Life Sciences Products-Completed Operations Liability Policy issued by plaintiff to the Company, which provides coverage for products liability claims first made against the Company during the policy period March 1, 2013 to March 1, 2014. In December 2013, the Company was named as a defendant in another insurance action entitled Navigators Specialty Insurance Co. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No. 5:13-cv-05801-HRL, filed in the Northern District of California. Plaintiff Navigators Insurance Co. alleges that the Follow Form Excess Liability Insurance Policy issued by plaintiff to the Company for product liability claims first made against the Company during the policy period March 1, 2013 to March 1, 2014 should be rescinded. Both plaintiffs generally allege that the Company did not disclose the existence of tolling agreements and the number of claimants incorporated within those agreements, and that those agreements were material to plaintiffs’ underwriting processes. The Company intends to vigorously defend these actions. Based on currently available information, the Company does not believe the resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position or future results of operations.

CONTINGENCIES

The Company is involved in a variety of claims, lawsuits, investigations and proceedings relating to securities laws, product liability, false claims, insurance, and contract disputes. Certain of these lawsuits and claims are described in further detail below. It is not possible to predict what the outcome of these matters will be and the Company cannot guarantee that any resolution will be reached on commercially reasonable terms, if at all. With the exception of the charge recorded related to the Company’s estimate of the probable loss associated with the tolled product liability claims described below, the Company has determined that an estimate of probable loss or range of loss related to material pending or threatened litigation matters cannot be determined as of September 30, 2014. Nevertheless, it is possible that future legal costs (including settlements, judgments, legal fees and other related defense costs) could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position, or future results of operations.

The Company is also a party to various other legal actions that arise in the ordinary course of business and does not believe that any of these other legal actions will have a material adverse impact on the Company's business, financial position, or future results of operations.

In accordance with U.S. GAAP, the Company records a liability when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. These provisions are reviewed at least quarterly and adjusted to reflect the impact of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel, and other information and events pertaining to a particular case. During the nine months ended September 30, 2014, the Company recorded pre-tax charges of $77.0 million, of which $67.4 million was recorded in the first quarter of 2014 and $9.6 million in the second quarter of 2014, to reflect the estimated cost of settling a number of the tolled product liability claims further described below.

Purported Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit filed August 6, 2010

On August 6, 2010, a purported class action lawsuit entitled Perlmutter v. Intuitive Surgical et al., No. CV10-3451, was filed against seven of the Company's current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit sought unspecified damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between February 1, 2008 and January 7, 2009. The complaint alleged that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making allegedly false and misleading statements and omitting certain material facts in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. On February 15, 2011, the Police Retirement System of St. Louis was appointed lead plaintiff in the case pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. An amended complaint was filed on April 15, 2011, making allegations substantially similar to the allegations described above. On May 23, 2011, a motion was filed to dismiss the amended complaint. On August 10, 2011, that motion was granted and the action was dismissed; the plaintiffs were given 30 days to file an amended complaint. On September 12, 2011, plaintiffs filed their amended complaint. The allegations contained therein were substantially similar to the allegations in the prior complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on October 13, 2011. A hearing occurred on February 16, 2012, and on May 22, 2012, the court granted the Company's motion. The complaint was dismissed with prejudice, and a final judgment was entered in the Company's favor on June 1, 2012. On June 20, 2012, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The appeal was styled Police Retirement System of St. Louis v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. et al., No. 12-16430. Plaintiffs filed their opening brief on September 28, 2012. The Company filed an answering brief on November 13, 2012, and plaintiffs filed a reply brief on December 17, 2012. Oral argument was held on March 14, 2014, and the matter was taken under submission. On July 16, 2014, the Ninth Circuit published an opinion affirming the district court’s order dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs declined to seek any further review of the decision, and the matter is now at an end. Based on currently available information, the Company does not believe the resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position or future results of operations.

Purported Derivative Actions filed August 19, 2010

On August 19, 2010, an alleged stockholder caused a purported stockholder’s derivative lawsuit entitled Himmel v. Smith et al., No. 1-10-CV-180416, to be filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara naming the Company as a nominal defendant, and naming 14 of the Company's current and former officers and directors as defendants. The lawsuit seeks to recover, for the Company's benefit, unspecified damages purportedly sustained in connection with allegedly misleading statements and/or omissions made in connection with the Company's financial reporting for the period between February 1, 2008 and January 7, 2009. It also seeks a series of changes to the Company's corporate governance policies and an award of attorneys’ fees. On September 15, 2010, another purported stockholder filed a substantially identical lawsuit entitled Applebaum v. Guthart et al., No. 1-10-CV-182645, in the same court against 15 of the Company's current and former officers and directors. On October 5, 2010, the court ordered that the two cases be consolidated for all purposes. By agreement with plaintiffs, all activity in the case has been stayed pending final resolution of the appeal in the purported shareholder class action lawsuit discussed above. Based on currently available information, the Company does not believe the resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position or future results of operations.

Purported Shareholder Class Action Lawsuits filed April 26, 2013 and May 24, 2013

On April 26, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit entitled Abrams v. Intuitive Surgical, et al., No. 5-13-cv-1920, was filed against several of the Company's current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. A substantially identical complaint, entitled Adel v. Intuitive Surgical, et al., No. 5:13-cv-02365, was filed in the same court against the same defendants on May 24, 2013. The Adel case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on August 20, 2013.

On October 15, 2013, plaintiffs in the Abrams matter filed an amended complaint. The case has since been re-titled In re Intuitive Surgical Securities Litigation, No. 5:13-cv-1920. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between February 6, 2012, and July 18, 2013. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making allegedly false and misleading statements and omitting certain material facts in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. On November 18, 2013, the Court appointed Employees’ Retirement System of the State of Hawaii as lead plaintiff and appointed lead counsel. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on December 16, 2013, which was granted in part and denied in part on August 21, 2014. The plaintiffs have elected not to further amend their complaint, and the case will move forward on the claims that remain. The Company does not believe the resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position or future results of operations.

Purported Derivative Actions filed on February 3, 2014, February 21, 2014, March 21, 2014, and June 3, 2014

On February 3, 2014, an alleged stockholder caused a purported stockholder’s derivative lawsuit entitled Berg v. Guthart et al., No. 4-14-CV-00515, to be filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. It names the Company as a nominal defendant, and names 16 of the Company’s current and former officers and directors as defendants. The lawsuit seeks to recover, for the Company’s benefit, unspecified damages purportedly sustained by the Company in connection with allegedly misleading statements and/or omissions made in connection with the Company’s financial reporting for the period between 2012 and the present. It also seeks a series of changes to the Company’s corporate governance policies and an award of attorneys’ fees. On April 3, 2014, it was related to In re Intuitive Surgical Securities Litigation. On July 30, 2014 the court granted Berg’s motion to be appointed lead plaintiff and denied the City of Birmingham’s motion seeking such appointment (see below for additional description). The matter remains pending. Based on currently available information, the Company does not believe the resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position or future results of operations.

On February 21, 2014, a second alleged stockholder caused a substantially similar purported stockholder’s derivative lawsuit entitled Public School Teachers’ Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago v. Guthart et al., No. CIV 526930, to be filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, against the same parties and seeking the same relief. On March 26, 2014, the case was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, where it was related to In re Intuitive Surgical Securities Litigation and Berg v. Guthart on April 30, 2014. The district court remanded the case back to San Mateo County Superior Court on June 30, 2014, where it remains pending. On August 28, 2014 the Company filed a motion seeking to stay the case in favor of the federal action and asking that plaintiffs be required to post a bond because the action was duplicative and was not in the Company’s best interests; by law, the filing of that motion triggered a stay of the proceedings until the motion is resolved. Based on currently available information, the Company does not believe the resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position or future results of operations.

On March 21, 2014, a third alleged stockholder caused a substantially similar purported stockholder’s derivative lawsuit entitled City of Birmingham Relief and Retirement System v. Guthart et al., No. 5-14-CV-01307, to be filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the same parties and seeking the same relief. On April 8, 2014, it was related to In re Intuitive Surgical Securities Litigation and Berg v. Guthart. On July 30, 2014, the court consolidated the case with Berg v. Guthart and, as noted above, granted Berg’s motion to be appointed lead plaintiff and denied the City of Birmingham’s motion seeking such appointment. This effectively ends the City of Birmingham’s involvement in this matter. Based on currently available information, the Company does not believe the resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position or future results of operations.

On June 3, 2014, a fourth alleged stockholder caused a substantially similar purported stockholder’s derivative lawsuit entitled City of Plantation Police Officers’ Employees’ Retirement System v. Guthart et al., C.A. No. 9726-CB, to be filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The Company filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings in favor of the earlier-filed stockholder derivative lawsuits pending in federal and state courts in California. In light of the Company’s motion, the plaintiff agreed to a stay of all proceedings in the case in favor of the earlier-filed actions. Based on currently available information, the Company does not believe the resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position or future results of operations.

Product Liability Litigation

The Company is currently named as a defendant in approximately 93 individual product liability lawsuits filed in various state and federal courts by plaintiffs who allege that they or a family member underwent surgical procedures that utilized the da Vinci Surgical System and sustained a variety of personal injuries and, in some cases, death as a result of such surgery. The Company has also received a large number of product liability claims from plaintiffs' attorneys that are part of certain tolling agreements further discussed below. In addition, the Company has been named as a defendant in a purported class action filed in Louisiana state court, and removed to federal court, seeking damages on behalf of all patients who were allegedly injured by the da Vinci Surgical System at a single hospital in Louisiana. The Company has also been named as a defendant in a multi-plaintiff lawsuit filed in Missouri state court, seeking damages on behalf of 17 patients who had da Vinci surgeries in 11 different states. The cases raise a variety of allegations including, to varying degrees, that plaintiffs’ injuries resulted from purported defects in the da Vinci Surgical System and/or failure on the Company's part to provide adequate training resources to the healthcare professionals who performed plaintiffs’ surgeries. The cases further allege that the Company failed to adequately disclose and/or misrepresented the potential risks and/or benefits of the da Vinci Surgical System. Plaintiffs also assert a variety of causes of action, including for example, strict liability based on purported design defects, negligence, fraud, breach of express and implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and loss of consortium. Plaintiffs seek recovery for alleged personal injuries and, in many cases, punitive damages. The Company has reached confidential settlements in a small number of filed cases. With certain exceptions, including the Taylor case described below, the remaining filed cases generally are in the early stages of pretrial activity.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys have engaged in well-funded national advertising efforts seeking patients dissatisfied with da Vinci surgery. Among the allegations, a substantial number of claims relate to alleged complications from surgeries performed with certain versions of Monopolar Curved Scissor (“MCS”) instruments that included an MCS tip cover accessory that was the subject of a market withdrawal in 2012 and MCS instruments that were the subject of a recall in 2013. The Company has received a significant number of claims from plaintiffs’ attorneys that it believes are as a result of these advertising efforts. In an effort to avoid the expense and distraction of defending multiple lawsuits, the Company entered into tolling agreements to pause the applicable statutes of limitations for the claims, and engaged in confidential mediation efforts. The attorneys for the patients agreed to collect and supply medical records, operative notes and other necessary information from these patients to the Company. Each claim was individually investigated. The collection and evaluation of the patients’ medical information was laborious. For hundreds of the asserted claims, the Company has never received medical records. As of September 30, 2014, approximately 2,600 sets of patient records have been received and evaluated. To evaluate these claims, the Company, assisted by independent medical consultants, reviewed and analyzed the large volumes of medical information that began to arrive in the fall of 2013. The completion of the legal and medical evaluation of a significant number of these claims occurred during the first quarter of 2014 and continued throughout the second and third quarters of 2014.

During the nine months ended September 30, 2014, the Company recorded pre-tax charges of $77.0 million, of which $67.4 million was recorded in the first quarter of 2014 and $9.6 million in the second quarter of 2014, to reflect the estimated cost of settling a number of the product liability claims covered by the tolling agreements. After an extended confidential mediation process with legal counsel for many of the claimants covered by the tolling agreements, the Company determined during the first quarter of 2014 that, while it denies any and all liability, in light of the costs and risks of litigation, settlement of certain claims may be appropriate. The Company’s estimate of the anticipated cost of resolving these claims is based on negotiations with attorneys for patients who have participated in the mediation process. To date, approximately 4,700 claims have been added to the tolling agreements and/or submitted into the mediation program. Of those, however, over 2,800 claims have voluntarily been removed from the tolling agreement and/or mediation program and plaintiffs’ counsels have indicated to the Company that they no longer intend to pursue these claims. Nonetheless, the claimants that have been removed from the tolling agreement remain free to pursue lawsuits against the Company and it is also possible that more claims will be made by additional individuals who have undergone da Vinci surgery and allege that they suffered injuries. It is further possible that the claimants who participate in the mediations, as well as those claimants who have not participated in negotiations, will choose to pursue greater amounts in a court of law. Consequently, the final outcome of these claims is dependent on many variables that are difficult to predict and the ultimate cost associated with these product liability claims may be materially different than the amount of the current estimate and accruals and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position, and future results of operations. Although there is a reasonable possibility that a loss in excess of the amount recognized exists, the Company is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss in excess of the amount recognized at this time. As of September 30, 2014, a total of $56.7 million of the charges recorded during 2014 was included in other accrued liabilities in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets related to the tolled product liability claims.

In February 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in a product liability action that had originally been filed in Washington State Superior Court for Kitsap County against the healthcare providers and hospital involved in plaintiff’s decedent’s surgery (Josette Taylor, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Fred E. Taylor, deceased; and on behalf of the Estate of Fred E. Taylor v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No. 09-2-03136-5). In Taylor, plaintiff asserted wrongful death and product liability claims against the Company, generally alleging that the decedent died four years after surgery as a result of injuries purportedly suffered during the surgery, which was conducted with the use of the da Vinci Surgical System. The plaintiff in Taylor asserted that such injuries were caused, in whole or in part, by the Company's purported failure to properly train, warn, and instruct the surgeon. The lawsuit sought unspecified damages for past medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of consortium as well as punitive damages. A trial commenced in the action on April 15, 2013. On May 23, 2013, the jury returned a defense verdict, finding that the Company was not negligent. Judgment was entered in the Company's favor on June 7, 2013. Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal.

False Claims Act Litigation

In October 2013, the Company was served in a case entitled Rose v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No. 12-cv-1812, in the Middle District of Florida. Relator Bryan Rose, a former employee of Intuitive Surgical, brought the action on behalf of the United States of America, alleging violations of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq., and the analogous false-claims statutes of 21 states and of the District of Columbia. The parties reached a settlement in the case, and the court granted their joint motion for dismissal on May 21, 2014. The settlement did not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position or results of operations.

Insurance Litigation

In October 2013, the Company was named as a defendant in an insurance action entitled Illinois Union Insurance Co. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-04863-JST, filed in the Northern District of California. Plaintiff Illinois Union Insurance Co. seeks to rescind the Life Sciences Products-Completed Operations Liability Policy issued by plaintiff to the Company, which provides coverage for products liability claims first made against the Company during the policy period March 1, 2013 to March 1, 2014. In December 2013, the Company was named as a defendant in another insurance action entitled Navigators Specialty Insurance Co. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No. 5:13-cv-05801-HRL, filed in the Northern District of California. Plaintiff Navigators Insurance Co. alleges that the Follow Form Excess Liability Insurance Policy issued by plaintiff to the Company for product liability claims first made against the Company during the policy period March 1, 2013 to March 1, 2014 should be rescinded. Both plaintiffs generally allege that the Company did not disclose the existence of tolling agreements and the number of claimants incorporated within those agreements, and that those agreements were material to plaintiffs’ underwriting processes. The Company intends to vigorously defend these actions. Based on currently available information, the Company does not believe the resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position or future results of operations.