Commitments, Contingencies and Warranties

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Commitments, Contingencies and Warranties [Abstract]

COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND WARRANTIES

11. COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND WARRANTIES

Warranties

The Company issues product performance warranties to customers with the sale of its products. The specific terms and conditions of these warranties vary depending upon the product sold and the country in which the Company conducts business, with warranty periods generally ranging from one to ten years. The Company estimates the costs that may be incurred under its basic limited warranty and records a liability in the amount of such costs at the time the sale of the related product is recognized. Factors that affect the Company’s warranty liability include the number of units under warranty from time to time, historical and anticipated rates of warranty claims and costs per claim. The Company periodically assesses the adequacy of its recorded warranty liabilities and adjusts the amounts as necessary.

Changes in the Company’s warranty liabilities in the nine month periods ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

($ in millions)	2011			2010
Balance at beginning of year	$	5.7		$	6.2
Provisions to expense		6.9			5.2
Actual costs incurred		(6.1	)		(5.0	)
Balance at September 30	$	6.5		$	6.4

Environmental Liabilities

The Company retained an environmental consultant to conduct an environmental risk assessment at its Pearland, Texas facility. The facility, which was previously used by the Company’s discontinued Pauluhn business, manufactured marine, offshore and industrial lighting products. While the Company has not completed the risk assessment analysis, it appears probable the site will require remediation. As of September 30, 2011, $2.2 million of reserves related to the environmental remediation are included in Liabilities of discontinued operations on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. The Company’s estimate may change in the near term as more information becomes available; however, the costs are not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, financial position or liquidity.

Legal Proceedings

The Company is subject to various claims as well as other pending and possible legal actions for product liability and other damages, and other matters arising out of the conduct of the Company’s business. The Company believes, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that the outcome of such claims and actions will not have an adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations. However, in the event of unexpected future developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of such matters, if unfavorable, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations.

The Company has been sued by firefighters seeking damages claiming that exposure to the Company’s sirens has impaired their hearing and that the sirens are therefore defective. There were 33 cases filed during the period 1999-2004, involving a total of 2,443 plaintiffs, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. Beginning in 2009, six additional cases were filed in Cook County, involving 299 Pennsylvania firefighter plaintiffs. The trial of the first 27 of these plaintiffs’ claims occurred in 2008, when a Cook County jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the Company. An additional 40 firefighter plaintiffs were selected for trial in 2009. Plaintiffs’ counsel later moved to reduce the number of plaintiffs from 40 to 9. The trial for these nine plaintiffs concluded with a verdict returned against the Company and for the plaintiffs in varying amounts totaling $0.4 million. The Company is appealing this verdict. All trials previously scheduled in Cook County during 2009 and 2010 were stayed pending the result of this appeal. On April 18, 2011, the trial court lifted this stay and ordered that trials continue while the appeal is pending. Trials have been scheduled in Cook County for November 7, 2011, February 13, 2012, May 14, 2012, August 13, 2012, November 12, 2012, and February 14, 2013. A maximum of 10 plaintiffs have been selected for each trial.

The Company has also been sued on this issue outside of the Cook County, Illinois venue. Most of these cases have involved lawsuits filed by a single attorney in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. Since September 2007, this attorney filed a total of 71 lawsuits, involving 71 plaintiffs in this jurisdiction. Three of these cases were dismissed pursuant to pretrial motions filed by the Company. Another case was voluntarily dismissed. Prior to trial in four cases, the Company paid nominal sums, which included reimbursements of expenses, to obtain dismissals. Three trials occurred in Philadelphia involving these cases. The first trial involving one of these plaintiffs occurred in 2010, when the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. In particular, the jury found that the Company’s siren was not defectively designed, but that the Company negligently constructed the siren. The jury awarded damages in the amount of $0.1 million, which was subsequently reduced to $0.08 million. The Company appealed this verdict. Another trial, involving 9 Philadelphia firefighter plaintiffs, also occurred in 2010 when the jury returned a defense verdict for the Company as to all claims and all plaintiffs involved in that trial. The third trial, involving 9 Philadelphia firefighter plaintiffs, was completed during 2010 when the jury returned a defense verdict for the Company as to all claims and all plaintiffs involved in that trial.

Following defense verdicts in the last two Philadelphia trials, the Company negotiated settlements with respect to all remaining filed cases in Philadelphia as well as other firefighter claimants represented by the attorney who filed the Philadelphia cases. On January 4, 2011, the Company entered into a Global Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) with the law firm of the attorney representing the Philadelphia claimants, on behalf of 1,125 claimants the firm represents (the “Claimants”) and who have asserted product claims against the Company (the “Claims”). Three hundred and eight of these claimants have lawsuits pending against the Company in Cook County, Illinois.

The Settlement Agreement, as amended, provides that the Company shall pay (the “Settlement Payment”) a total amount of $3.8 million to settle the Claims (including the costs, fees and other expenses of the law firm in connection with its representation of the claimants), subject to certain terms, conditions and procedures set forth in the Settlement Agreement. In order for the Company to be required to make the Settlement Payment: (i) each claimant who agrees to settle his or her claims must sign a release acceptable to the Company (a “Release”); (ii) each claimant who agrees to the settlement and who is a plaintiff in a lawsuit, must dismiss his or her lawsuit, with prejudice; (iii) by April 29, 2011, at least 93% of the claimants identified in Appendix A to the Settlement Agreement must have agreed to settle their claims and provide a signed Release to the Company; and (iv) the law firm shall have withdrawn from representing any claimants who do not agree to the settlement, including those who have filed lawsuits. If the conditions to the settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement are met, but less than 100% of the claimants have agreed to settle their Claims and sign a Release, the Settlement Payment will be reduced by the percentage of claimants who do not agree to the settlement.

On April 22, 2011, the Company confirmed that the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement had been met and made a payment of $3.6 million to conclude the settlement. The amount was based upon the Company’s receipt of 1,069 signed releases provided by claimants, which was 95.02% of all claimants identified in the Settlement Agreement.

The Company generally denies the allegations made in the claims and lawsuits and denies that its products caused any injuries to the claimants. Nonetheless, to avoid the expense and uncertainty of further litigation, the Company has entered into the Settlement Agreement for the purpose of minimizing its expenses, including legal fees, and the inconvenience and distraction of the claims and lawsuits.

Firefighters have brought hearing loss claims against the Company in jurisdictions other than Philadelphia and Cook County. In particular, cases have been filed in New Jersey, Missouri, Maryland, and New York. All of those cases were dismissed prior to trial, including four cases in the Supreme Court of Kings County, New York which were dismissed upon the Company’s motion in 2008. The trial court subsequently denied reconsideration of its ruling. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of these cases. Plaintiffs’ attorneys have threatened to file additional lawsuits. The Company intends to vigorously defend all of these lawsuits.

On July 29, 2011, a complaint for alleged patent infringements was filed in the U.S. District Court of Delaware by Neology, Inc. against the Company. The lawsuit demands that the Company cease manufacturing, marketing, importing or selling any devices that infringe on certain specified patents and also demands compensation for past alleged infringement. The Company has denied the allegations in the complaint and intends to vigorously defend itself in this litigation.