10.             Commitments and Contingencies

Lease Commitments — We lease certain manufacturing facilities, warehouse distribution centers, service centers, and sales offices under operating leases. Rental expense for 2013, 2012, and 2011 was $23.7, $9.5, and $9.0.  The aggregate future minimum lease payments for operating leases, excluding renewable periods, as of September 30, 2013, were as follows:

Litigation

General — Like most companies, we are involved on an ongoing basis in claims, lawsuits, and government proceedings relating to our operations, including environmental, patent infringement, business practices, commercial transactions, product and general liability, workers’ compensation, auto liability, employment, and other matters.  The ultimate outcome of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty.  An estimated loss from these contingencies is recognized when we believe it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated; however, it is difficult to measure the actual loss that might be incurred related to litigation.  If a loss is not considered probable and/or cannot be reasonably estimated, we are required to make a disclosure if there is at least a reasonable possibility that a significant loss may have been incurred.  Legal fees associated with claims and lawsuits are generally expensed as incurred.

Claims other than employment and related matters have deductibles and self-insured retentions ranging from $0.5 to $1.0 per occurrence or per claim, depending upon the type of coverage and policy period.  Outside insurance companies and third-party claims administrators assist in establishing individual claim reserves, and an independent outside actuary provides estimates of ultimate projected losses, including incurred but not reported claims, which are used to establish reserves for losses.  Claim reserves for employment-related matters are established based upon advice from internal and external counsel and historical settlement information for claims and related fees when such amounts are considered probable of payment.

The recorded amounts represent our best estimate of the costs we will incur in relation to such exposures, but it is possible that actual costs will differ from those estimates.

Matthews Litigation — In August 2010, the York Group, Inc., Milso Industries Corporation, and Matthews International Corporation (collectively “Matthews”) filed a lawsuit against Scott Pontone and Batesville Casket Company, Inc. in the U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, which was subsequently amended by Matthews in February 2011 to include two additional defendants, Harry Pontone and Pontone Casket Company, LLC (the “Matthews Litigation”).  The Matthews Litigation arises, in part, as a result of a Marketing Consulting Agreement entered into between Batesville and Pontone Casket Company effective June 24, 2010, and Batesville’s hiring of two former employees of certain Matthews entities in June 2010.  Scott Pontone provides consulting services to Batesville pursuant to the Marketing Consulting Agreement entered into between Batesville and Pontone Casket Company.  Matthews alleges that Scott Pontone and Harry Pontone breached contractual and business obligations with Matthews and that Batesville induced certain of those breaches as part of its sales initiatives in the New York metropolitan area.

Matthews claims that it has lost revenue and will lose future revenue in the New York metropolitan area, although the amount of those alleged damages is unspecified.  Matthews seeks to: (i) recover compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs; and (ii) enjoin certain activities by Harry Pontone, Scott Pontone, Pontone Casket Company, and Batesville and its employees in the New York metropolitan area.  Although Matthews originally moved for a preliminary injunction, that request was withdrawn.  Discovery has closed.  Batesville has moved for summary judgment on Matthews’ claims.  No trial date has been set.

The Company believes Batesville acted lawfully and intends to defend this matter vigorously.  The Company does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcome of this lawsuit will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or liquidity.  If Matthews prevails at trial, however, the outcome could be materially adverse to the Company’s operating results or cash flows for the particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results or cash flows for such period.

Horstmann Litigation — On March 18, 2013, a joint and several judgment was entered by the Higher Regional Court (OLG) Hamm, Germany, in favor of plaintiff, Jürgen Horstmann, and against defendants, Atlas-Vermögensverwaltungs GmbH, ThyssenKrupp Technologies Beteiligungen (“ThyssenKrupp”), and Hillenbrand subsidiary, Coperion, in the amount of €10.3, plus interest, for a total estimated judgment of €18.5 to €19.6 (the “Horstmann Litigation”).  In the Horstmann Litigation, the plaintiff alleged numerous claims relating to its purchase from ThyssenKrupp of a former ThyssenKrupp business in 1996.  This judgment reversed a ruling on September 1, 2010, by the Court of First Instance that previously dismissed these claims.

Pursuant to a Framework Agreement entered into in 2000 between ThyssenKrupp and Admini Zweiundsiebzig (“Admini”) (predecessor to Coperion), ThyssenKrupp agreed to indemnify Coperion for all liability associated with the Horstmann Litigation.  Additionally, pursuant to the Share Purchase Agreement by which the Company acquired Coperion, the sellers are required to indemnify Hillenbrand in the event ThyssenKrupp does not fulfill its indemnification obligations, subject to the terms and conditions of such Share Purchase Agreement.

On August 22, 2013, the defendants in the Horstmann Litigation filed an appeal with the German Federal Court of Justice of the judgment that was entered on March 18, 2013.  Even if the appeal is unsuccessful and the judgment stands, Hillenbrand believes it will be fully indemnified with respect to the Horstmann Litigation and does not believe that the outcome of this lawsuit will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or liquidity.  Hillenbrand’s balance sheet at September 30, 2013, included a long-term liability of $8.7 and a corresponding indemnification receivable, recorded in other assets, for $8.7.