14.

Commitments and Contingencies

On a quarterly and annual basis, we review relevant information with respect to loss contingencies and update our accruals, disclosures and estimates of reasonably possible losses or ranges of loss based on such reviews. We establish liabilities for loss contingencies when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. For matters where a loss is believed to be reasonably possible, but not probable, no accrual has been made.

Litigation

Durom^® Cup-related claims: On July 22, 2008, we temporarily suspended marketing and distribution of the Durom Acetabular Component (Durom Cup) in the U.S. Subsequently, a number of product liability lawsuits were filed against us in various U.S. and foreign jurisdictions. The plaintiffs seek damages for personal injury, and they generally allege that the Durom Cup contains defects that result in complications and premature revision of the device. We have settled some of these claims and the others are still pending. The majority of the pending U.S. lawsuits are currently in a federal Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) in the District of New Jersey (In Re: Zimmer Durom Hip Cup Products Liability Litigation). Multi-plaintiff state court cases are pending in St. Clair County, Illinois (Santas, et al. v. Zimmer, Inc., et al.) and Los Angeles County, California (McAllister, et al. v. Zimmer, Inc., et al.). As of June 30, 2014, discovery in these lawsuits was underway. Initial trials in Santas, McAllister and the MDL are expected to commence in the fourth quarter of 2014, the first quarter of 2015 and the second quarter of 2015, respectively. Other lawsuits are pending in various jurisdictions, and additional claims may be asserted in the future.

Since 2008, we have recognized expense of $472.0 million for Durom Cup-related claims, including $21.8 million during the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2014 and $47.0 million during the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2013. Based on our review of the most recent claims information available, we increased our estimated total liability for these claims as of June 30, 2014. The increase was the result of new developments related to international claims activity.

We maintain insurance for product liability claims, subject to self-insurance retention requirements. In 2008, we notified our insurance carriers of potential claims related to the Durom Cup. As of June 30, 2014, we believe we have exhausted our self-insured retention under our insurance program and have a claim for insurance proceeds for ultimate losses which exceed the self-insured retention amount, subject to a 20 percent co-payment requirement and a cap. We believe our contracts with the insurance carriers are enforceable for these claims and, therefore, we believe it is probable that we will recover some amount from our insurance carriers. We have recognized a $218.0 million receivable in “Other assets” on our condensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2014 for estimated insurance recoveries, which reduced “Certain claims” expense. As is customary in this process, our insurance carriers have reserved all rights under their respective policies and could still ultimately deny coverage for some or all of our insurance claims.

Our estimate as of June 30, 2014 of the remaining liability for all Durom Cup-related claims is $385.4 million, of which $50.0 million is classified as short-term in “Other current liabilities” and $335.4 million is classified as long-term in “Other long-term liabilities” on our condensed consolidated balance sheet. We expect to pay the majority of the Durom Cup-related claims within the next five years.

Our understanding of clinical outcomes with the Durom Cup and other large diameter hip cups continues to evolve. We rely on significant estimates in determining the provisions for DuromCup-related claims, including our estimate of the number of claims that we will receive and the average amount we will pay per claim. The actual number of claims and the actual amount we pay per claim may differ from our estimates. Among other factors, since our understanding of the clinical outcomes is still evolving, we cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may result from Durom Cup-related claims in excess of the losses we have accrued.

Margo and Daniel Polett v. Zimmer, Inc. et al.: On August 20, 2008, Margo and Daniel Polett filed an action against us and an unrelated third party, Public Communications, Inc. (PCI), in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania seeking an unspecified amount of damages for injuries and loss of consortium allegedly suffered by Mrs. Polett and her spouse, respectively. The complaint alleged that defendants were negligent in connection with Mrs. Polett’s participation in a promotional video featuring one of our knee products. The case was tried in November 2010 and the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiffs. The jury awarded $27.6 million in compensatory damages and apportioned fault 30 percent to plaintiffs, 34 percent to us and 36 percent to PCI. Under applicable law, we may be liable for any portion of the damages apportioned to PCI that it does not pay. On December 2, 2010, we and PCI filed a Motion for Post-Trial Relief seeking a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, a new trial or a remittitur. On June 10, 2011, the trial court entered an order denying our Motion for Post-Trial Relief and affirming the jury verdict in full and entered judgment for $20.3 million against us and PCI. On June 29, 2011, we filed a Notice of Appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania and posted a bond for the verdict amount plus interest. Oral argument before the appellate court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania was held as scheduled on March 13, 2012. On March 1, 2013, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated the $27.6 million judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. On March 15, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for re-argument en banc, and on March 28, 2013, we filed our response in opposition. On May 9, 2013, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania granted plaintiffs’ motion for re-argument en banc. Oral argument (re-argument en banc) before the Superior Court of Pennsylvania was held on October 16, 2013. On December 20, 2013, the Court issued its opinion again vacating the trial court judgment and remanding the case for a new trial. On January 21, 2014, plaintiffs filed a petition for allowance of appeal in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, which was granted on May 21, 2014. Although we are defending this lawsuit vigorously, its ultimate resolution is uncertain.

NexGen^® Knee System claims: Following a wide-spread advertising campaign conducted by certain law firms beginning in 2010, a number of product liability lawsuits have been filed against us in various jurisdictions. The plaintiffs seek damages for personal injury, alleging that certain products within the NexGen Knee System suffer from defects that cause them to loosen prematurely. The majority of the cases are currently pending in a federal Multidistrict Litigation in the Northern District of Illinois (In Re: Zimmer NexGen Knee Implant Products Liability Litigation). Other cases are pending in other state and federal courts, and additional lawsuits may be filed. As of June 30, 2014, discovery in these lawsuits was underway. Bellwether trials are expected to commence in the second quarter of 2015. We have not accrued an estimated loss relating to these lawsuits because we believe the plaintiffs’ allegations are not consistent with the record of clinical success for these products. As a result, we do not believe that it is probable that we have incurred a liability, and we cannot reasonably estimate any loss that might eventually be incurred. Although we are vigorously defending these lawsuits, their ultimate resolution is uncertain.

Hays v. Dvorak et al.: On June 16, 2014, a shareholder derivative action, Hays v. Dvorak et al., was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The plaintiff seeks to maintain the action purportedly on our behalf against certain of our current and former directors and two non-director executive officers. The plaintiff alleges, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duties, abuse of control, unjust enrichment and gross mismanagement by the named defendants based on the trial court’s ruling in the patent infringement lawsuit brought by Stryker Corporation and related entities described below relating to certain of our Pulsavac^® Plus Wound Debridement Products. The plaintiff does not seek damages from us, but instead requests damages of an unspecified amount on our behalf. The plaintiff also seeks equitable relief to remedy the individual defendants’ alleged misconduct, attorneys’ fees, costs and other relief.

Intellectual Property-Related Claims

Patent infringement lawsuit: On December 10, 2010, Stryker Corporation and related entities (Stryker) filed suit against us in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, alleging that certain of our Pulsavac^® Plus Wound Debridement Products infringe three U.S. patents assigned to Stryker. The case was tried beginning on January 15, 2013, and on February 5, 2013, the jury found that we infringed certain claims of the subject patents. The jury awarded $70.0 million in monetary damages for lost profits. The jury also found that we willfully infringed the subject patents. We filed multiple post-trial motions, including a motion seeking a new trial. On August 7, 2013, the trial court issued a ruling denying all of our motions and awarded treble damages and attorneys’ fees to Stryker. We filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to seek reversal of both the jury’s verdict and the trial court’s rulings on our post-trial motions. That appeal is pending. We have not accrued an estimated loss related to this matter in our condensed consolidated statement of earnings for the quarter ended June 30, 2014 or any prior period because we do not believe that it is probable that we have incurred a liability. Although we believe we have strong grounds to reverse the trial court’s judgment, the ultimate resolution of this matter is uncertain. In the future we could be required to record a charge of up to $210.0 million plus interest and attorneys’ fees that could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

Regulatory Matters

In September 2012, we received a warning letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) citing concerns relating to certain manufacturing and validation processes pertaining toTrilogy^® Acetabular System products manufactured at our Ponce, Puerto Rico manufacturing facility. We have provided detailed responses to the FDA as to our corrective actions and will continue to work expeditiously to address the issues identified by the FDA during inspections in Ponce. As of June 30, 2014, the warning letter remains pending. Until the violations are corrected, we may be subject to additional regulatory action by the FDA, including seizure, injunction and/or civil monetary penalties. Additionally, requests for Certificates to Foreign Governments related to products manufactured at the Ponce facility may not be granted and premarket approval applications for Class III devices to which the quality system regulation deviations are reasonably related will not be approved until the violations have been corrected. In addition to responding to the warning letter described above, we are in the process of addressing various FDA Form 483 inspectional observations at certain of our manufacturing facilities. The ultimate outcome of these matters is presently uncertain.