Commitments and Contingencies

(a) Lease Commitments. The Company has various operating leases that call for annual rental payments due in equal monthly installments and a lease with a rent free occupancy period. The Company’s policy is to recognize expense for lease payment, including those with escalating provisions and rent free periods, on a straight-line basis over the lease term. Operating lease expenses were $33.5 million, $41.4 million, and $32.3 million for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

Future minimum lease payments at December 31, 2016 under these non-cancelable leases are as follows:



(in millions)
Year Ended December 31,
2017	$	24.6
2018	18.8
2019	15.1
2020	9.6
2021	8.2
Thereafter	12.3
	$	88.6

The Company has the option to renew certain plant operating leases, with the longest renewal period extending through 2043. Certain of the operating leases provide for increased rent through increases in general price levels. The Company recognizes rent expense in these situations on a straight-line basis over the lease term.

(b) Purchase Commitments. The Company will, from time to time, enter into limited purchase commitments for the purchase of certain raw materials. Amounts committed under these programs are not significant to the Company as of December 31, 2016 and 2015.

(c) Alvin Todd, and Henry and Mary Thompson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Tempur Sealy International, Inc., formerly known as Tempur-Pedic International, Inc. and Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC, Defendants; filed October 25, 2013.

On October 25, 2013, a suit was filed against Tempur Sealy International and one of its domestic subsidiaries in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, purportedly on behalf of a proposed class of “consumers” as defined by Cal. Civ. Code § 1761(d) who purchased, not for resale, a Tempur-Pedic mattress or pillow in the State of California. On November 19, 2013, the Company was served for the first time in the case but with an amended petition adding additional class representatives for additional states. The purported classes seek certification of claims under applicable state laws.

The complaint alleges that the Company engaged in unfair business practices, false advertising, and misrepresentations or omissions related to the sale of certain products. The plaintiffs seek restitution, injunctive relief and all other relief allowed under applicable state laws, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs. The purported classes do not seek damages for physical injuries. The Company believes the case lacks merit and intends to defend against the claims vigorously. The Court was scheduled to consider class certification motions in the fourth quarter of 2015; however, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint, at which time the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. A hearing on the Motion to Dismiss was held January 28, 2016 and the Court denied in part and granted in part the Company’s Motion to Dismiss allowing certain claims to proceed. The Court considered class certification motions in August 2016, and in September 2016 denied the Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. In December 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision. It is unclear what additional actions the Plaintiffs may take in light of the denial of class certification. As a result, the outcome of the case remains unclear, and the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from this litigation, or whether the Company’s applicable insurance policies will provide sufficient coverage for these claims. Accordingly, the Company can give no assurance that this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

(d) Other. The Company is involved in various other legal proceedings incidental to the operations of its business. The Company believes that the outcome of all such pending legal proceedings in the aggregate will not have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, liquidity, or operating results.