Note 19—Contingencies

We categorize the product liability losses that we experience into two main categories, single incident and cumulative trauma. Single incident product liability claims are discrete incidents that are typically known to us when they occur and involve observable injuries and, therefore, more quantifiable damages. Therefore, we maintain a reserve for single incident product liability claims based on expected settlement costs for pending claims and an estimate of costs for unreported claims derived from experience, sales volumes and other relevant information. Our reserve for single incident product liability claims was $4.7 million and $5.2 million at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. Single incident product liability expense during the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 was $1.5 million, $0.2 million and $0.5 million, respectively. We evaluate our single incident product liability exposures on an ongoing basis and make adjustments to the reserve as new information becomes available.

Cumulative trauma product liability claims involve exposures to harmful substances (e.g., silica, asbestos and coal dust) that occurred many years ago and may have developed over long periods of time into diseases such as silicosis, asbestosis or coal worker's pneumoconiosis. We are presently named as a defendant in 2,321 lawsuits in which plaintiffs allege to have contracted certain cumulative trauma diseases related to exposure to silica, asbestos, and/or coal dust. These lawsuits mainly involve respiratory protection products allegedly manufactured and sold by us. We are unable to estimate total damages sought in these lawsuits as they generally do not specify the injuries alleged or the amount of damages sought, and potentially involve multiple defendants.

Cumulative trauma product liability litigation is difficult to predict. In our experience, until late in a lawsuit, we cannot reasonably determine whether it is probable that any given cumulative trauma lawsuit will ultimately result in a liability. This uncertainty is caused by many factors, including the following: cumulative trauma complaints generally do not provide information sufficient to determine if a loss is probable; cumulative trauma litigation is inherently unpredictable and information is often insufficient to determine if a lawsuit will develop into an actively litigated case; and even when a case is actively litigated, it is often difficult to determine if the lawsuit will be dismissed or otherwise resolved until late in the lawsuit. Moreover, even once it is probable that such a lawsuit will result in a loss, it is difficult to reasonably estimate the amount of actual loss that will be incurred. These amounts are highly variable and turn on a case-by-case analysis of the relevant facts, which are often not learned until late in the lawsuit.

Because of these factors, we cannot reliably determine our potential liability for such claims until late in the lawsuit. We, therefore, do not record cumulative trauma product liability losses when a lawsuit is filed, but rather, when we learn sufficient information to determine that it is probable that we will incur a loss and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. We record expenses for defense costs associated with open cumulative trauma product liability lawsuits as incurred.

We cannot estimate any amount or range of possible losses related to resolving pending and future cumulative trauma product liability claims that we may face because of the factors described above. As new information about cumulative trauma product liability cases and future developments becomes available, we reassess our potential exposures.

A summary of cumulative trauma product liability claims activity follows:


	2011			2010			2009
Open claims, January 1		1,900			2,480			2,550
New claims		479			260			220
Settled and dismissed claims		(58	)		(840	)		(290	)

Open claims, December 31		2,321			1,900			2,480

With some common contract exclusions, we maintain insurance for cumulative trauma product liability claims. We have purchased insurance policies from over 20 different insurance carriers that provide coverage for cumulative trauma product liability losses and related defense costs. In the normal course of business, we make payments to settle product liability claims and for related defense costs. We record receivables for the amounts that are covered by insurance. The available limits of these policies are many times our recorded insurance receivable balance.

Various factors could affect the timing and amount of recovery of our insurance receivables, including the outcome of negotiations with insurers, legal proceedings with respect to product liability insurance coverage and the extent to which insurers may become insolvent in the future.

Our insurance receivables at December 31, 2011 and 2010 totaled $112.1 million and $89.0 million, respectively, all of which is reported in other non-current assets.

A summary of insurance receivable balances and activity related to cumulative trauma product liability losses follows:


(In millions)	2011			2010			2009
Balance January 1	$	89.0		$	91.7		$	60.6
Additions		35.6			30.9			33.1
Collections and settlements		(12.5	)		(33.6	)		(2.0	)

Balance December 31		112.1			89.0			91.7

Additions to insurance receivables in the above table represent insured cumulative trauma product liability losses and related defense costs. Uninsured cumulative trauma product liability losses during the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 were $1.1 million, $0.2 million and $1.7 million, respectively.

Our aggregate cumulative trauma product liability losses and administrative and defense costs for the three years ended December 31, 2011, totaled approximately $102.7 million, substantially all of which was insured.

We believe that the increase in the insurance receivable balance that we have experienced since 2005 is primarily due to disagreements among our insurance carriers, and consequently with us, as to when their individual obligations to pay us are triggered and the amount of each insurer's obligation, as compared to other insurers. We believe that our insurers do not contest that they have issued policies to us or that these policies cover cumulative trauma product liability claims. We believe that our ability to successfully resolve our insurance litigation with various insurance carriers during 2011 and 2010 demonstrates that we had strong legal positions concerning our rights to coverage.

We regularly evaluate the collectability of the insurance receivables and record the amounts that we conclude are probable of collection. Our conclusions are based on our analysis of the terms of the underlying insurance policies, our experience in successfully recovering cumulative trauma product liability claims from our insurers under other policies, the financial ability of our insurance carriers to pay the claims, our understanding and interpretation of the relevant facts and applicable law and the advice of legal counsel, who believe that our insurers are required to provide coverage based on the terms of the policies.

Although the outcome of cumulative trauma product liability matters cannot be predicted with certainty and unfavorable resolutions could materially affect our results of operations on a quarter-to-quarter basis, based on information currently available and the amounts of insurance coverage available to us, we believe that the disposition of cumulative trauma product liability lawsuits that are pending against us will not have a materially adverse effect on our future results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity.

We are currently involved in coverage litigation with The North River Insurance Company (North River). We have sued North River in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, alleging that North River breached one insurance policy by failing to pay amounts owed to us and that its refusal to pay constitutes bad faith. The case was assigned to the Court's mandatory Alternative Dispute Resolution program, in an attempt to resolve the dispute. The mediation was unsuccessful and the case will proceed to trial. We believe that North River's refusal to indemnify us under the policy for product liability losses and legal fees paid by us is wholly contrary to Pennsylvania law and we are vigorously pursuing the legal actions necessary to collect all amounts.

In April 2010, North River filed a complaint against us and two excess insurance carriers in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania seeking a declaratory judgment concerning their responsibilities under three additional policies shared with Northbrook Insurance Company. We filed a motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment claim and a counter claim for breach of contract against North River and the two excess carriers. The court stayed the declaratory judgment claim and the breach of contract claim is now in discovery. We believe that Pennsylvania law supports our position that North River has insurance responsibilities to indemnify us against various product liability losses to the full limits of these policies.

In May 2010, we resolved coverage litigation with Century Indemnity Company through a negotiated settlement. As part of this settlement, both parties dismissed all claims against one another under the previously-filed coverage litigation. The settlement did not have an impact on our operating results.

In July 2010, we resolved coverage litigation with Columbia Casualty Company on some of their policies through a negotiated settlement. As part of this settlement, both parties dismissed all claims against one another under the previously-filed coverage litigation. The settlement did not have an impact on our operating results.

In July 2010, we filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware seeking declaratory and other relief from the majority of our excess insurance carriers concerning the future rights and obligations of MSA and our excess insurance carriers under various insurance policies. The reason for this insurance coverage action is to secure a comprehensive resolution of our rights under the insurance policies issued by our insurers.

In December 2010, North River filed a motion to dismiss or stay the Delaware action asserting that the previously-discussed cases in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania were capable of resolving the claims presented in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware action. In January 2011, the Superior Court of the State of Delaware granted North River's motion to stay the Delaware insurance coverage action, pending resolution of the ongoing actions in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and the Court of Common Please of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. We appealed the trial court's decision to stay this case and our appeal was denied. We continue to seek removal of the stay.