

16.	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Company's capital commitments as of December 31, 2016 by year of expected payment were as follows (in thousands):



	2017		2018		2019		2020		Total
Offshore Marine Services	$	29,272	$	50,555	$	13,223	$	1,800	$	94,850
Shipping Services	55,430		—		—		—		55,430
Inland River Services	30,102		—		—		—		30,102
Illinois Corn Processing	1,678		375		—		—		2,053
	$	116,482	$	50,930	$	13,223	$	1,800	$	182,435

Offshore Marine Services’ capital commitments included nine fast support vessels, three supply vessels and one wind farm utility vessel. These commitments included $15.4 million for one supply vessel that may be assumed by a third party at their option. Shipping Services' capital commitments included one U.S.-flag product tanker, one U.S.-flag chemical and petroleum articulated tug-barge, three U.S.-flag harbor tugs and two foreign-flag harbor tugs. Inland River Services’ capital commitments included one 30,000 barrel inland river liquid tank barge and three inland river towboats. Subsequent to December 31, 2016, the Company committed to purchase $0.8 million of additional property and equipment.

During 2012, the Company sold National Response Corporation (“NRC”), NRC Environmental Services Inc., SEACOR Response Ltd., and certain other subsidiaries to J.F. Lehman & Company, a leading, middle-market private equity firm (the “SES Business Transaction”).

On December 15, 2010, ORM and NRC were named as defendants in one of the several “master complaints” filed in the overall multi-district litigation relating to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response and clean-up in the Gulf of Mexico pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (the “MDL”). The “B3” master complaint naming ORM and NRC asserts various claims on behalf of a putative class against multiple defendants concerning the clean-up activities generally and the use of dispersants specifically. Both prior to and following the filing of the aforementioned master complaint, individual civil actions naming the Company, ORM, and/or NRC alleging B3 exposure-based injuries and/or damages were consolidated with the MDL and stayed pursuant to court order, discussed in turn below. The Company has continually taken the position that all of the B3 claims asserted against ORM and NRC have no merit. On February 16, 2016, all but eleven B3 claims against ORM and NRC were dismissed with prejudice, whether by joinder in the master complaint, individual complaint, or otherwise (the “B3 Dismissal Order”). The deadline for Plaintiffs to appeal the B3 Dismissal Order has passed and the Company continues to evaluate how this ruling will impact the individual civil actions. On April 8, 2016, the Court entered an order establishing a summary judgment briefing schedule as to the remaining eleven B3 claimants (the “Remaining Eleven Plaintiffs”). The Clean-Up Responder Defendants, including ORM and NRC, filed an omnibus motion for summary judgment as to the Remaining Eleven Plaintiffs on May 9, 2016. Following briefing by the parties, on August 2, 2016, the Court granted the omnibus motion as it concerns ORM and NRC in its entirety, dismissing the Remaining Eleven Plaintiffs’ against ORM and NRC with prejudice (the “Remaining Eleven Plaintiffs’ Dismissal Order”). To date, no appeal has been filed and the deadline to appeal has expired.

As noted above, various civil actions concerning the Deepwater Horizon clean-up have been consolidated with the MDL and stayed. On April 8, 2011, ORM was named as a defendant in Johnson Bros. Corporation of Louisiana v. BP, PLC, et al., No. 2:11-CV-00781 (E.D. La.) (the “Johnson Action”), which is a suit by an individual business seeking damages allegedly caused by a delay on a construction project alleged to have resulted from the clean-up operations. On March 29, 2016, the Court issued a pretrial order for disclosures clarifying the basis for the non-governmental economic property damage claims asserted in the MDL, termed the “B1” claims, and ordered plaintiffs to come forward with specific information in a sworn statement in support of their claims. On July 14, 2016, the Court dismissed all claimants who had failed to comply with the terms of the aforementioned pretrial order, and the plaintiff in the Johnson Action failed to submit the requisite sworn statement. Liaison Counsel confirmed the dismissal of the Johnson Action in a Status Report submitted to the Court on February 14, 2017. On April 15, 2011, ORM and NRC were named as defendants in Thomas Edward Black v. BP Exploration, et al., No. 2:11-CV-00867 (E.D. La.) (the “Black Action”), which is a suit by an individual who is seeking damages for, among other things, lost income because he allegedly could not find work in the fishing industry after the oil spill and exposure during the spill. The B3 exposure claims against ORM and NRC in the Black Action have been dismissed by virtue of the B3 Dismissal Order. On October 3, 2012, ORM and NRC were served with a Rule 14(c) Third-Party Complaint by Jambon Supplier II, L.L.C. and Jambon Marine Holdings L.L.C. in their Limitation of Liability action, In the Matter of Jambon Supplier II, L.L.C., et al., No. 2:12-CV-00426 (E.D. La.). This Third-Party Complaint alleges that if claimant David Dinwiddie, who served as a clean-up crewmember aboard the M/V JAMBON SUPPLIER II vessel during the clean-up efforts, was injured as a result of his exposure to dispersants and chemicals during the course and scope of his employment, then said injuries were caused by the third-party defendants. On November 25, 2012, ORM was named as a defendant in Victoria Sanchez v. American Pollution Control Corp. et al., No. 2:12-CV-00164 (E.D. La.), a maritime suit filed by an individual who allegedly participated in the clean-up effort and sustained personal injuries during the course of such employment. Ms. Sanchez’s B3 claim against ORM has been dismissed by virtue of the B3 Dismissal Order. On December 17, 2012, the Court unsealed a False Claims Act lawsuit naming ORM as a defendant, Dillon v. BP, PLC et al., No. 2:12-CV-00987 (E.D. La.) (the “Dillon Action”), which is a suit by an individual seeking damages and penalties arising from alleged false reports and claims made to the federal government with respect to the amount of oil burned and dispersed during the clean-up. The federal government has declined to intervene in this suit. On March 28, 2017 the Court entered an order dismissing, with prejudice, plaintiffs claims asserted in the Dillon action against ORM. On April 8, 2013, the Company, ORM, and NRC were named as defendants in William and Dianna Fitzgerald v. BP Exploration et al., No. 2:13-CV-00650 (E.D. La.) (the “Fitzgerald Action”), which is a suit by a husband and wife whose son allegedly participated in the clean-up effort and became ill as a result of his exposure to oil and dispersants. While the decedent in the Fitzgerald Action’s claims against ORM and NRC were dismissed by virtue of the Remaining Eleven Plaintiffs’ Dismissal Order, the claim as against the Company remains stayed. The Company continues to evaluate the impact of the B3 Dismissal Order, the Remaining Eleven Plaintiffs’ Dismissal Order, and other developments in the MDL, including the settlements discussed below, on these individual actions. A status conference with the Court took place on February 17, 2017 and the Court indicated it will be issuing new pretrial orders in connection with the remaining claims in the MDL. The Company is unable to estimate the potential exposure, if any, resulting from these matters, to the extent they remain viable, but believes they are without merit and does not expect that they will have a material effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

On February 18, 2011, Triton Asset Leasing GmbH, Transocean Holdings LLC, Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc., and Transocean Deepwater Inc. (collectively “Transocean”) named ORM and NRC as third-party defendants in a Rule 14(c) Third-Party Complaint in Transocean's own Limitation of Liability Act action, which is part of the overall MDL, tendering to ORM and NRC the claims in the referenced master complaint that have already been asserted against ORM and NRC. Transocean, Cameron International Corporation (“Cameron”), Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., and M-I L.L.C. (“M-I”) also filed cross-claims against ORM and NRC for contribution and tort indemnity should they be found liable for any damages in Transocean's Limitation of Liability Act action and ORM and NRC asserted counterclaims against those same parties for identical relief. The remainder of the aforementioned cross-claims in Transocean's limitation action remain pending, although the Court has found Cameron and M-I to be not liable in connection with the Deepwater Horizon incident and resultant oil spill and dismissed these parties from the MDL. As indicated above, the Company is unable to estimate the potential exposure, if any, resulting from these actions but believes they are without merit and does not expect that these matters will have a material effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

On November 16, 2012, 668 individuals who served as beach clean-up workers in Escambia County, Florida during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response commenced a civil action in the Circuit Court for the First Judicial Circuit of Florida, in and for Escambia County, Abney et al. v. Plant Performance Services, LLC et al., No. 2012-CA-002947, in which they allege, among other things, that ORM and other defendants engaged in the contamination of Florida waters and beaches in violation of Florida Statutes Chapter 376 and injured the Plaintiffs by exposing them to dispersants during the course and scope of their employment. This case was removed to federal court and ultimately consolidated with the MDL on April 2, 2013. On April 22, 2013, a companion case to this matter was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Abood et al. v. Plant Performance Services, LLC et al., No. 3:13-CV-00284 (N.D. Fla.), which alleges identical allegations against the same parties but names an additional 174 Plaintiffs, all of whom served as clean-up workers in various Florida counties during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response. This case was consolidated with the MDL on May 10, 2013. By court order, both of these matters have been stayed since they were consolidated with the MDL. The Company continues to evaluate the impact of the developments in the MDL, including the settlements discussed below, on these cases, but believes that the potential exposure, if any, resulting from these matters has been reduced as a result of the B3 Dismissal Order and does not expect that these matters will have a material effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Separately, on March 2, 2012, the Court announced that BP Exploration and BP America Production Company (“BP America”) (collectively “BP”) and the Plaintiffs had reached an agreement on the terms of two proposed class action settlements that will resolve, among other things, Plaintiffs’ economic loss claims and clean-up related claims against BP. Both settlements were granted final approval by the Court, all appeals have concluded, and the deadline for submitting claims with respect to both settlements has passed. Although neither the Company, ORM, nor NRC are parties to the settlement agreements, the Company, ORM, and NRC are listed as released parties on the releases accompanying both settlement agreements. Consequently, class members who did not file timely requests for exclusion will be barred from pursuing economic loss, property damage, personal injury, medical monitoring, and/or other released claims against the Company, ORM, and NRC. The Company believes these settlements have reduced the potential exposure, if any, from some of the pending actions described above, and continues to evaluate the settlements’ impacts on these cases.

In the course of the Company’s business, it may agree to indemnify the counterparty to an agreement. If the indemnified party makes a successful claim for indemnification, the Company would be required to reimburse that party in accordance with the terms of the indemnification agreement. Indemnification agreements generally are subject to threshold amounts, specified claim periods and other restrictions and limitations.

In connection with the SES Business Transaction, the Company remains contingently liable for certain obligations, including potential liabilities relating to work performed in connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response. Pursuant to the agreement governing the sale, the Company’s potential liability to the purchaser may not exceed the consideration received by the Company for the SES Business Transaction. The Company is currently indemnified under contractual agreements with BP for the potential liabilities relating to work performed in connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response.

During the twelve months ended December 31, 2014, the Company received net litigation settlement proceeds of $14.7 million from an equipment supplier relating to the May 2008 mechanical malfunction and fire onboard the SEACOR Sherman, an anchor handling towing supply vessel then under construction. Upon settlement of the litigation, the Company recognized a gain of $14.7 million, which is included in other income (expense) in the accompanying consolidated statements of income (loss).

In the normal course of its business, the Company becomes involved in various other litigation matters including, among other things, claims by third parties for alleged property damages and personal injuries. Management has used estimates in determining the Company’s potential exposure to these matters and has recorded reserves in its financial statements related thereto where appropriate. It is possible that a change in the Company’s estimates of that exposure could occur, but the Company does not expect such changes in estimated costs would have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

As of December 31, 2016, the Company leases eight offshore support vessels, four inland river towboats, six inland river harbor boats, three U.S.-flag product tankers, nine U.S.-flag harbor tugs and certain facilities and other equipment. These leasing agreements have been classified as operating leases for financial reporting purposes and related rental fees are charged to expense over the lease terms. The leases generally contain purchase and lease renewal options or rights of first refusal with respect to the sale or lease of the equipment. The remaining lease terms of the U.S.-flag product tankers, which are subject to subleases, have durations of 69 and 85 months. The lease terms of the other equipment range in duration from one to 17 years. Certain of the equipment leases are the result of sale-leaseback transactions with finance companies (see Note 3) and certain of the gains arising from such sale-leaseback transactions have been deferred in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets and are being amortized as reductions in rental expense over the lease terms (see Note 1).

Total rental expense for the Company’s operating leases in 2016, 2015 and 2014 was $54.6 million, $59.9 million and $66.8 million, respectively. Future minimum payments in the years ended December 31 under operating leases that have a remaining term in excess of one year as of December 31, 2016 were as follows (in thousands):



	Total Minimum Payments		Non-cancelable Subleases⁽¹⁾			Net Minimum Payments
2017	$	59,014	$	(17,345	)	$	41,669
2018	58,772		(17,345		)	41,427
2019	43,836		(17,345		)	26,491
2020	38,570		(17,392		)	21,178
2021	28,386		(17,345		)	11,041
Years subsequent to 2021	31,267		(24,045		)	7,222

____________________


(1)	The total minimum offsetting payments to be received under existing long-term bareboat charter-out arrangements.