CONTINGENCIES

In the normal course of business, the Company is party to various commercial and legal claims, actions and complaints, including matters involving warranty claims, intellectual property claims, general liability and various other risks. It is not possible to predict with certainty whether or not the Company will ultimately be successful in any of these commercial and legal matters or, if not, what the impact might be. The Company's environmental and product liability contingencies are discussed separately below. The Company's management does not expect that the results in any of these commercial and legal claims, actions and complaints will have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

Litigation

In January 2006, BorgWarner Diversified Transmission Products Inc. ("DTP"), a subsidiary of the Company, filed a declaratory judgment action in United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana (Indianapolis Division) against the United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implements Workers of America (“UAW”) Local No. 287 and Gerald Poor, individually and as the representative of a defendant class. DTP sought the Court's affirmation that DTP did not violate the Labor-Management Relations Act or the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by unilaterally amending certain medical plans effective April 1, 2006 and October 1, 2006, prior to the expiration of the then-current collective bargaining agreements. On September 10, 2008, the Court found that DTP's reservation of the right to make such amendments reducing the level of benefits provided to retirees was limited by its collectively bargained health insurance agreement with the UAW, which did not expire until April 24, 2009. Thus, the amendments were untimely. In 2008, the Company recorded a charge of $4.0 million as a result of the Court's decision.

DTP filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana (Indianapolis Division) against the UAW Local No. 287 and Jim Barrett and others, individually and as representatives of a defendant class, on February 26, 2009 again seeking the Court's affirmation that DTP will not violate the Labor - Management Relations Act or ERISA by modifying the level of benefits provided retirees to make them comparable to other Company retiree benefit plans after April 24, 2009. Certain retirees, on behalf of themselves and others, filed a mirror-image action in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan (Southern Division) on March 11, 2009, for which a class has been certified. During the last quarter of 2009, the action pending in Indiana was dismissed, while the action in Michigan is continuing and in the discovery phase. The Company is vigorously defending against the suit. This contingency is subject to many uncertainties, therefore based on the information available to date, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the amount or the range of potential loss, if any.

Environmental

The Company and certain of its current and former direct and indirect corporate predecessors, subsidiaries and divisions have been identified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and certain state environmental agencies and private parties as potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”) at various hazardous waste disposal sites under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“Superfund”) and equivalent state laws and, as such, may presently be liable for the cost of clean-up and other remedial activities at 39 such sites. Responsibility for clean-up and other remedial activities at a Superfund site is typically shared among PRPs based on an allocation formula.

The Company believes that none of these matters, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, financial position or cash flows. Generally, this is because either the estimates of the maximum potential liability at a site are not material or the liability will be shared with other PRPs, although no assurance can be given with respect to the ultimate outcome of any such matter.

Based on information available to the Company (which in most cases includes: an estimate of allocation of liability among PRPs; the probability that other PRPs, many of whom are large, solvent public companies, will fully pay the cost apportioned to them; currently available information from PRPs and/or federal or state environmental agencies concerning the scope of contamination and estimated remediation and consulting costs; remediation alternatives; and estimated legal fees), the Company has an accrual for indicated environmental liabilities with a balance of $10.4 million at December 31, 2011. The accrued amounts do not exceed $3.0 million related to any individual site except for the Crystal Springs site discussed below, and we do not believe that the costs related to any of these sites will have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, financial position or cash flows. The Company expects to pay out substantially all of the amounts accrued for environmental liability over the next five years.

In connection with the sale of Kuhlman Electric Corporation, the Company agreed to indemnify the buyer and Kuhlman Electric for certain environmental liabilities, then unknown to the Company, relating to certain operations of Kuhlman Electric that pre-date the Company's 1999 acquisition of Kuhlman Electric. In 2007 and 2008, lawsuits were filed against Kuhlman Electric and others, including the Company, on behalf of approximately 340 plaintiffs, alleging personal injury relating to alleged environmental contamination at its Crystal Springs, Mississippi plant. The Company entered into a settlement in July 2010 regarding the personal injury claims of the plaintiffs and those of approximately 2,700 unfiled claimants represented by those plaintiffs' attorneys. In exchange for, among other things, the dismissal with prejudice of these lawsuits and the release of claims by the unfiled claimants, the Company agreed to pay up to $28 million in settlement funds, which was expensed in the second quarter of 2010. The Company paid $13.9 million in November 2010 and made the final payment of $13.9 million in February 2011. Litigation concerning indemnification is pending and the Company may in the future become subject to further legal proceedings.

Product Liability

Like many other industrial companies who have historically operated in the U.S., the Company (or parties the Company is obligated to indemnify) continues to be named as one of many defendants in asbestos-related personal injury actions. We believe that the Company's involvement is limited because, in general, these claims relate to a few types of automotive friction products that were manufactured many years ago and contained encapsulated asbestos. The nature of the fibers, the encapsulation and the manner of use lead the Company to believe that these products are highly unlikely to cause harm. As of December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the Company had approximately 16,000 and 17,000 pending asbestos-related product liability claims, respectively. Of the approximately 16,000 outstanding claims at December 31, 2011, approximately half were pending in jurisdictions that have undergone significant tort and judicial reform activities subsequent to the filing of these claims.

The Company's policy is to vigorously defend against these lawsuits and the Company has been successful in obtaining dismissal of many claims without any payment. The Company expects that the vast majority of the pending asbestos-related product liability claims where it is a defendant (or has an obligation to indemnify a defendant) will result in no payment being made by the Company or its insurers. In 2011, of the approximately 1,800 claims resolved, 288 (16%) resulted in any payment being made to a claimant by or on behalf of the Company. In the full year of 2010, of the approximately 7,700 claims resolved, 245 (3%) resulted in any payment being made to a claimant by or on behalf of the Company.

Prior to June 2004, the settlement and defense costs associated with all claims were paid by the Company's primary layer insurance carriers under a series of funding arrangements. In addition to the primary insurance available for asbestos-related claims, the Company has substantial excess insurance coverage available for potential future asbestos-related product claims. In June 2004, primary layer insurance carriers notified the Company of the alleged exhaustion of their policy limits.

A declaratory judgment action was filed in January 2004 in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois by Continental Casualty Company and related companies (“CNA”) against the Company and certain of its other historical general liability insurers. The court has issued a number of interim rulings and discovery is continuing. CNA and the Company have entered into a settlement agreement resolving their coverage disputes, pursuant to which CNA will pay amounts over the next four years to the Company. The Company is vigorously pursuing the litigation against the remaining insurers.

Although it is impossible to predict the outcome of pending or future claims or the impact of tort reform legislation that may be enacted at the state or federal levels, due to the encapsulated nature of the products, the Company's experience in vigorously defending and resolving claims in the past, and the Company's significant insurance coverage with solvent carriers as of the date of this filing, management does not believe that asbestos-related product liability claims are likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

To date, the Company has paid and accrued $190.9 million in defense and indemnity in advance of insurers' reimbursement and has received $81.1 million in cash and notes from insurers, including CNA. The net balance of $109.8 million, is expected to be fully recovered, of which approximately $33 million is estimated to be recovered within one year. Timing of recovery is dependent on final resolution of the declaratory judgment action referred to above or additional negotiated settlements. At December 31, 2010, insurers owed $120.6 million in association with these claims.

On April 5, 2010, the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed a lower court judgment in an asbestos-related action against the Company and others. The Company filed its Notice of Petition to the Supreme Court of New Jersey in late April, seeking to appeal the decisions of the lower courts. On July 8, 2010 the Supreme Court of New Jersey denied the Company's Notice of Petition appealing the decision of the lower courts. The total claim of $40.7 million was paid by the Company in July 2010.

In addition to the $109.8 million net balance relating to past settlements and defense costs, the Company has estimated a liability of $61.7 million for claims asserted, but not yet resolved and their related defense costs at December 31, 2011. The Company also has a related asset of $61.7 million to recognize proceeds from the insurance carriers. Insurance carrier reimbursement of 100% expected based on the Company's experience, its insurance contracts and decisions received to date in the declaratory judgment action referred to above. At December 31, 2010, the comparable value of the insurance asset and accrued liability was $50.6 million.

The amounts recorded in the Consolidated Balance Sheets related to the estimated future settlement of existing claims are as follows:



	December 31,
(millions of dollars)	2011		2010
Assets:
Prepayments and other current assets	$	28.8	$	25.8
Other non-current assets	32.9		24.8
Total insurance assets	$	61.7	$	50.6
Liabilities:
Accounts payable and accrued expenses	$	28.8	$	25.8
Other non-current liabilities	32.9		24.8
Total accrued liabilities	$	61.7	$	50.6

The Company cannot reasonably estimate possible losses, if any, in excess of those for which it has accrued, because it cannot predict how many additional claims may be brought against the Company (or parties the Company has an obligation to indemnify) in the future, the allegations in such claims, the possible outcomes, or the impact of tort reform legislation that may be enacted at the State or Federal levels.