Commitments and Contingencies

Leases

The Company conducts operations in leased facilities located in Texas and New Jersey. The Texas lease includes lease concessions which amounts are included as part of the aggregate minimum lease payments and recognized on a straight-line basis over the minimum lease terms.

Future minimum lease payments required under the non-cancelable operating lease as and for the years ending December 31 are as follows (in thousands):



2017		2018		2019
$	483	$	487	$	490

Rent expense for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 was $328,000 and $343,000, respectively.

Legal Proceedings

(a) Neil and Kristine Markey, et al., Plaintiffs v. Lapolla Industries, Inc., Delfino Insulation, et al, Defendants.

A complaint initially entitled Neil and Kristine Markey, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. Lapolla industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Lapolla International, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and Delfino Insulation Company, Inc., a New York Corporation, Defendants, was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and served on or about October 10, 2012 and amended last on November 11, 2013. Plaintiffs brought this lawsuit only individually, having amended out any request for a class action. The complaint alleged, among other things, that Lapolla designed, labeled, distributed, and manufactured spray polyurethane foam insulation, which created a highly toxic compound when applied as insulation resulting in exposure to harmful gases. Plaintiffs sought: actual, compensatory, and punitive damages; injunctive relief; and attorney fees. Lapolla considered the allegations to be without merit and vigorously defended the allegations. On February 4, 2015, the Court dismissed the litigation with prejudice, per the voluntary request of Plaintiffs upon the advice of their new counsel and after their original litigation counsel withdrew citing irreconcilable differences with the Plaintiffs. The Court retained jurisdiction to address a pending motion for sanctions filed by Lapolla. The primary basis for Lapolla’s motion for sanctions is the Plaintiffs’ and their original attorney’s filing of the lawsuit without sufficient factual basis for the claims of personal injury and for failing to comply with discovery obligations to produce numerous potentially dispositive documents that Plaintiffs knew existed and their original counsel either knew or should have known existed. Lapolla seeks to recover over $800,000 in legal fees for the defense of the lawsuit. All motions have been filed with the Court and Lapolla is awaiting a final ruling. The final outcome of this litigation cannot be determined at this time.

Note 14 - Commitments and Contingencies - continued

(b) Michael Commaroto, Kimberly S. Commaroto, and Gretchen Schlegel, Plaintiffs v. Pasquale Guzzo a/k/a Pasqualino Guzzo PDB Home Improvements, Perfect Wall, LLC, and Jozsef Finta, Defendants.

Pasquale Guzzo a/k/a Pasqualino Guzzo PDB Home Improvements filed a third-party complaint against Lapolla Industries, Inc. in the Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford/Norwalk, in Connecticut on January 3, 2013. Guzzo is alleging Lapolla’s spray polyurethane foam product is a defective product under Connecticut law and seeking indemnification and attorney’s fees. On August 28, 2013, Michael Commaroto, Kimberly S. Commaroto, and Gretchen Schlegel filed an amended complaint against Lapolla also asserting the spray polyurethane foam is a defective product. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees, among other relief. Lapolla considers the allegations to be without merit and is vigorously defending the allegations. The outcome of this litigation cannot be determined at this time.

We are involved in various lawsuits and claims arising in the ordinary course of business, which are, in our opinion, immaterial both individually and in the aggregate with respect to our consolidated financial position, liquidity or results of operations.