Commitments and Contingencies

Product Litigation

The Company is currently named as a defendant in nine lawsuits in which the plaintiffs allege either wrongful death or personal injury in situations in which a TASER CEW was used (or present) by law enforcement officers in connection with arrests or during training exercises. While the facts vary from case to case, the product liability claims are typically based on an alleged product defect resulting in injury or death, usually involving a failure to warn, and the plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages. One recent lawsuit alleges fraud and misrepresentation and is seeking punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages. The information throughout this note is current through the date of these financial statements.

As a general rule, it is the Company’s policy not to settle suspect injury or death cases. Exceptions are sometimes made where the settlement is strategically beneficial to the Company. Also, on occasion, the Company’s insurance company has settled such lawsuits over the Company’s objection where the risk is over the Company’s liability insurance deductibles. Due to the confidentiality of the Company's litigation strategy and the confidentiality agreements that are executed in the event of a settlement, it does not identify or comment on which specific lawsuits have been settled or the amount of any settlement.

In 2009, the Company implemented new risk management strategies, including revisions to product warnings and training to better protect both the Company and its customers from litigation based on ‘failure to warn’ theories - which comprise the vast majority of the cases against the Company. These risk management strategies have been highly effective in reducing the rate and exposure from litigation post-2009. From the third quarter of 2011 to the first quarter of 2016, product liability cases have been reduced from 55 active to nine active cases.

Management believes that pre-2009 cases have a different risk profile than cases which have occurred since the risk management procedures were introduced in 2009. Therefore, the Company necessarily treats certain pre-2009 cases as exceptions to the Company’s general no settlement policy in order to reduce caseload, legal costs and liability exposure. The Company intends to continue its successful practice of aggressively defending and generally not settling litigation except in very limited and unusual circumstances as described above.

With respect to each of the pending lawsuits, the following table lists the name of plaintiff, the date the Company was served with process, the jurisdiction in which the case is pending, the type of claim and the status of the matter.



Plaintiff	Month Served	Jurisdiction	Claim Type	Status
Derbyshire	Nov-09	Ontario, Canada Superior Court of Justice	Officer Injury	Discovery Phase
Thompson	Mar-10	11th Judicial Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County, FL	Wrongful Death	Discovery Phase
Doan	Apr-10	The Queen's Bench Alberta, Red Deer Judicial Dist.	Wrongful Death	Discovery Phase
Shymko	Dec-10	The Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Centre, Manitoba	Wrongful Death	Pleading Phase
Ramsey	Jan-12	12th Judicial Circuit Court, Broward County, FL	Wrongful Death	Discovery Phase
Firman	Apr-12	Ontario, Canada Superior Court of Justice	Wrongful Death	Pleading Phase
Schrock	Sep-14	San Bernardino County Superior Court, CA	Wrongful Death	Motion of Summary Judgment Granted, on all claims except negligent design and manufacture subject to repleading by Plaintiff. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint for negligent design claims as well as a Petition for Writ of Mandate of Prohibition Petition from the Court; which writ was summarily denied.
Llach	Sep-15	11th Judicial Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County, FL	Wrongful Death	Discovery Phase
Bennett	Sep-15	11th Judicial Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County, FL	Wrongful Death	Discovery Phase

There are no product litigation matters in which the Company is involved that are currently on appeal.

There were 2 cases that were dismissed or judgment entered during the first quarter of 2016 and through the date of these financial statements. Cases that were dismissed or judgment entered in prior fiscal quarters are not included.



Plaintiff	Month Served	Jurisdiction	Claim Type	Status
Koon	Dec-08	17th Judicial Circuit Court, Broward County, FL	Training Injury	Dismissed
Demery	Aug-15	US District Court, Louisiana WD LA	Wrongful Death	Dismissed

The claims, and in some instances the defense, of each of these lawsuits have been submitted to the Company’s insurance carriers that maintained insurance coverage during the applicable periods. The Company continues to maintain product liability insurance coverage with varying limits and deductibles. The following table provides information regarding the Company’s product liability insurance. Remaining insurance coverage is based on information received from the Company’s insurance provider (in millions).



Policy Year	Policy Start Date	Policy End Date	Insurance Coverage		Deductible Amount		Defense Costs Covered	Remaining Insurance Coverage		Active Cases and Cases on Appeal
2004	12/1/2003	12/1/2004	$	2.0	$	0.1	N	$	2.0	n/a
2005	12/1/2004	12/1/2005	10.0		0.3		Y	7.0		n/a
2006	12/1/2005	12/1/2006	10.0		0.3		Y	3.7		n/a
2007	12/1/2006	12/1/2007	10.0		0.3		Y	8.0		n/a
2008	12/1/2007	12/15/2008	10.0		0.5		Y	—		n/a
2009	12/15/2008	12/15/2009	10.0		1.0		N	10.0		Derbyshire
2010	12/15/2009	12/15/2010	10.0		1.0		N	10.0		Thompson, Shymko, Doan
2011	12/15/2010	12/15/2011	10.0		1.0		N	10.0		n/a
Jan-Jun 2012	12/15/2011	6/25/2012	7.0		1.0		N	7.0		Ramsey, Firman
Jul-Dec 2012	6/25/2012	12/15/2012	12.0		1.0		N	12.0		n/a
2013	12/15/2012	12/15/2013	12.0		1.0		N	12.0		n/a
2014	12/15/2013	12/15/2014	11.0		4.0		N	11.0		Schrock
2015	12/15/2014	12/15/2015	10.0		5.0		N	10.0		Llach, Bennett
2016	12/15/2015	12/15/2016	10.0		5.0		N	10.0		n/a

Other Litigation

In November, 2015 the Company filed a complaint against Phazzer Electronics Inc. and Sang Min International Co. Ltd. for patent infringement, trademark infringement and false advertising. This litigation is in the pleading phase.

In February, 2016 the Company was served with a first amended complaint filed by Digital Ally in the Federal District Court for the District of Kansas alleging patent infringement, commercial bribery, contracts, combinations and conspiracies in restraint of trade and unfair or anti-competitive acts and practices. In March 2016 the Company was served with a second amended complaint with similar allegations. The second amended complaint seeks a judgment of infringement, monetary damages, a permanent injunction, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company believes the second amended complaint is frivolous and the Company will vigorously defend this litigation. This litigation is in the pleading phase.

In April 2016, the Company was served with a notice of arbitration claim filed by the Company’s former distributor in France, for commissions allegedly owed. The arbitration claim was filed with the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris, France, and the amount that is claimed in controversy is approximately $0.6 million. The Company’s records reflect that all commissions that were due under contract were paid or offered, and the Company will vigorously defend this arbitration claim.

General

From time to time, the Company is notified that it may be a party to a lawsuit or that a claim is being made against it. It is the Company’s policy to not disclose the specifics of any claim or threatened lawsuit until the summons and complaint are actually served on the Company. After carefully assessing the claim, and assuming the Company determines that it is not at fault or it disagrees with the damages or relief demanded, the Company vigorously defend any lawsuit filed against the Company. In certain legal matters, the Company records a liability when losses are deemed probable and reasonably estimable. In evaluating matters for accrual and disclosure purposes, the Company takes into consideration factors such as our historical experience with matters of a similar nature, the specific facts and circumstances asserted, the likelihood of our prevailing, and the severity of any potential loss. the Company reevaluates and updates our accruals as matters progress over time.

Based on the Company's assessment of outstanding litigation and claims as of March 31, 2016, the Company has determined that it is not reasonably possible that these lawsuits will individually, or in the aggregate, materially affect its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. However, the outcome of any litigation is inherently uncertain and there can be no assurance that any expense, liability or damages that may ultimately result from the resolution of these matters will be covered by its insurance or will not be in excess of amounts recognized or provided by insurance coverage and will not have a material adverse effect on our operating results, financial condition or cash flows.

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

Under certain circumstances, the Company uses letters of credit and surety bonds to guarantee its performance under various contracts, principally in connection with the installation and integration of its Axon cameras and related technologies. Certain of the Company's letters of credit contracts and surety bonds have stated expiration dates with others being released as the contractual performance terms are completed. At March 31, 2016, the Company had outstanding letters of credit of approximately $3.0 million. Of that amount, $2.7 million is expected to expire in May 2017 and $0.3 million is expected to expire in January 2017. Additionally, the Company had approximately $4.7 million of outstanding surety bonds at March 31, 2016, with $2.3 million expiring in April 2021, $2.2 million expiring in July 2018 and the remaining $0.2 million expected to be released in August 2016.