Number of litigation cases (more than)

  
exclude the Company’s legal fees to defend the asbestos claims, which are expensed as incurred. In addition, the Company has recorded insurance recovery receivables for probable asbestos-related recoveries.   
UTC Equity Awards Conversion LitigationOn August 12, 2020, several former employees of UTC or its subsidiaries filed a putative class action complaint (the "Complaint") in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against Raytheon Technologies Corporation, Carrier, Otis, the former members of the UTC Board of Directors and the members of the Carrier and Otis Boards of Directors (Geraud Darnis, et al. v. Raytheon Technologies Corporation, et al.). The Complaint challenges the method by which UTC equity awards were converted to UTC, Carrier and Otis equity awards following the Separation and the Distribution. Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint. Plaintiffs amended their Complaint on September 13, 2021 (the "Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint, now with Raytheon, Carrier and Otis as the only defendants, asserts that the defendants are liable for breach of certain equity compensation plans and for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Amended Complaint also seeks specific performance. Carrier believes that the claims against the Company are without merit. Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint on October 13, 2021. The motion to dismiss was fully briefed as of December 3, 2021 and the court held oral argument on the motion on July 14, 2022. On September 30, 2022, the court dismissed the complaint against all defendants, with prejudice. The court entered judgment for the defendants on October 4, 2022. The deadline for seeking appellate review of the ruling is November 3, 2022.  
Aqueous Film Forming Foam LitigationAs of September 30, 2022, the Company has been named as a defendant in more than 2,800 lawsuits filed by individuals in or removed to the federal courts of the United States alleging that the historic use of Aqueous Film Forming Foam ("AFFF") caused personal injuries and/or property damage. The Company has also been named as a defendant in more than 250 lawsuits filed by several U.S. states, municipalities and water utilities in or removed to U.S. federal courts alleging that the historic use of AFFF caused contamination of property and water supplies. In December 2018, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred and consolidated all AFFF cases pending in the U.S. federal courts against the Company and others to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina ("MDL Court") for pre-trial proceedings ("MDL Proceedings"). The individual plaintiffs in the MDL Proceedings generally seek damages for alleged personal injuries, medical monitoring and diminution in property value and injunctive relief to remediate alleged contamination of water supplies. The U.S. state, municipal and water utility plaintiffs in the MDL Proceedings generally seek damages and costs related to the remediation of public property and water supplies.  
AFFF is a firefighting foam, developed beginning in the late 1960s pursuant to U.S. military specification, used to extinguish certain types of hydrocarbon-fueled fires primarily at military bases and airports. AFFF was manufactured by several companies, including National Foam and Angus Fire. UTC first entered the AFFF business with the acquisition of National Foam and Angus Fire in 2005 as part of the acquisition of Kidde. In 2013, Kidde divested the National Foam and Angus Fire businesses to a third party. The Company acquired Kidde as part of its separation from UTC in April 2020. During the eight-year period of its operation by Kidde, National Foam manufactured AFFF for sale to government (including the U.S. federal government) and non-government customers in the U.S. at a single facility located in West Chester, Pennsylvania ("Pennsylvania Site"). During the same period, Angus Fire manufactured AFFF for sale outside the United States at a single facility located in Bentham, England.   
The key components of AFFF that contribute to its fire-extinguishing capabilities are known as fluorosurfactants. National Foam and Angus Fire did not manufacture fluorosurfactants but instead purchased these substances from unrelated third parties. Plaintiffs in the MDL Proceedings allege that the fluorosurfactants used by various manufacturers in producing AFFF contained, or over time degraded into, compounds known as perflourooctane sulfonate ("PFOS") and/or perflourooctane acid ("PFOA"). Plaintiffs further allege that, as a result of the use of AFFF, PFOS and PFOA were released into the environment and, in some instances, ultimately reached drinking water supplies.   
Plaintiffs in the MDL Proceedings allege that PFOS and PFOA contamination has resulted from the use of AFFF manufactured using a process known as ECF, and that this process was used exclusively by 3M. They also allege that PFOA contamination has resulted from the use of AFFF manufactured using a different process, known as telomerization, and that this process was used exclusively by the other AFFF manufacturers (including National Foam and Angus Fire). Compounds containing PFOS and PFOA (as well as many other per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances known collectively as "PFAS") have also been used for decades by many third parties in a number of different industries to manufacture firefighters’ protective outerwear, carpets, clothing, fabrics, cookware, food packaging, personal care products, cleaning products, paints, varnishes and other consumer and industrial products.   
27
