Commitments and contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jul. 04, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and contingencies [Text Block]	Commitments and Contingencies We are party to a number of lawsuits, threatened lawsuits and other claims arising out of the normal course of business. On a quarterly basis, we assess our liabilities and contingencies in connection with outstanding legal proceedings utilizing the latest information available. Where it is probable that we will incur a loss and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated, we record a liability in our consolidated financial statements. These accruals may be increased or decreased to reflect any relevant developments on a quarterly basis. Where a loss is not probable or the amount of the loss is not estimable, we do not record an accrual, consistent with applicable accounting guidance. Based on information currently available to us, advice of counsel, and available insurance coverage, we believe that our established accruals are adequate and the liabilities arising from the legal proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition. We note, however, that in light of the inherent uncertainty in legal proceedings, there can be no assurance that the ultimate resolution of a matter will not exceed established accruals. As a result, the outcome of a particular matter or a combination of matters may be material to our results of operations for a particular period, depending upon the size of the loss or our income for that particular period. Georgia Wrongful Death Suits In November 2017, a wrongful death lawsuit was filed in Savannah, Georgia in the State Court of Chatham County (“State Court”) against Davey Tree, its subsidiary, Wolf Tree, Inc. (“Wolf Tree”), a former Davey Tree employee, a Wolf Tree employee, and two former Wolf Tree employees. That complaint, as subsequently amended, alleged various acts of negligence and sought compensatory damages for the wrongful death of the plaintiff’s husband, a Wolf Tree employee, who was shot and killed in August 2017. In July 2018, the decedent’s estate filed a survival action in Savannah, Georgia in the State Court against the same defendants as the wrongful death action. The complaint in the survival action, which arises out of the same essential alleged facts and circumstances as the wrongful death action, includes three Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) claims under Georgia law, among other claims, and seeks compensatory damages, treble damages, and punitive damages. On August 2, 2018, the survival action was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Savannah Division (“Federal Court”). On December 6, 2018, a former Wolf Tree employee pled guilty to conspiracy to conceal, harbor, and shield illegal aliens. In December 2018, the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed motions to stay both civil actions on the grounds that on December 7, 2018, an indictment was issued charging two former Wolf Tree employees and another individual with various crimes, including for their roles in a conspiracy to murder the decedent. The two civil actions were then stayed for several years during the pendency of the federal criminal cases against the three individuals. By November 2022, all three of the individually charged defendants had either been convicted at trial or pled guilty to Federal criminal charges in the Federal Court related to their involvement with the murder and other illegal activities. All three individuals were sentenced. Previously, on December 17, 2018, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Georgia (“United States Attorney”) had informed the Company and Wolf Tree that they also were under investigation for potential civil or other violations of immigration and other laws relating to the subject matter of the criminal investigation referenced above. The Company and Wolf Tree fully cooperated with the investigation. On July 12, 2023, the Company and Wolf Tree entered into a non-prosecution and settlement agreement (the “settlement agreement”) with the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Georgia and the United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), resolving the investigation for potential violations of immigration and other laws by the Company and Wolf Tree. The United States Attorney recognized that, since August 2017, both the Company and Wolf Tree had fully cooperated with the criminal and civil investigation and, in entering into the settlement agreement, the United States Attorney took into consideration the Company’s and Wolf Tree’s implementation of a significant compliance program. The Company and Wolf Tree paid $3,984 as part of the settlement agreement, including civil penalties, forfeiture and restitution. The United States Attorney agreed that it would not bring any criminal charges against the Company or Wolf Tree concerning the subject matter of the investigation and released the Company and Wolf Tree from civil liability concerning immigration code provisions, and DHS also agreed to release the Company and Wolf Tree from administrative liability relating to the subject matter of the investigation, all of which are subject to standard reservations of rights and certain reserved claims. The settlement agreement closed the investigation by the United States Attorney and DHS. The settlement is not an admission of liability by the Company or Wolf Tree. The wrongful death lawsuit was tried before a jury in June 2025. By the time of the trial, Davey Tree was the sole remaining defendant. On June 11, 2025, the jury rendered its verdict. Specifically, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Company and awarded damages for the wrongful death of the Plaintiff in the amount of $3,100, along with expenses of litigation pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11 for bad faith in the amount of $2,351. The jury also apportioned fault between the Company and the Plaintiff, apportioning 90% of the fault to the Company and 10% of the fault to the Plaintiff’s decedent. On June 23, 2025, the State Court entered judgment against the Company in the amount of $4,906, with post-judgment interest at the legal rate, plus costs of court. On July 9, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a Combined Motion to Set Aside Judgment, Motion for New Trial and Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict. On July 23, 2025, the Company filed a Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict. On February 24, 2026, the State Court denied the Company’s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict and Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside Judgment and Motion for New Trial but partially granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict. Specifically, the State Court found that there was no evidence presented at trial to support the jury’s apportionment of 10% fault to the Plaintiff’s decedent. An amended judgment was entered on February 24, 2026 against Davey Tree in the amount of $5,451, with post-judgment interest to accrue at the legal rate, plus costs of court, which the Company had fully accrued for as of July 4, 2026. The Company has filed a Notice of Appeal, and the Plaintiff has filed a Notice of Cross-Appeal to the Georgia Court of Appeals. On April 14, 2026, the State Court granted the Plaintiff’s Motion for Supersedeas Bond and ordered Davey Tree to post a supersedeas bond in the amount of $6,024 within 30 days. After the stay was lifted in 2023, the federal survival action proceeded in Federal Court for several years. On March 25, 2026, the Federal Court granted the Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion to Remand on the basis that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action and remanded the survival action back to the State Court. On May 26, 2026, the State Court officially reopened the remanded Federal Court action with a newly named estate representative. On June 3, 2026, plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the Federal Court’s prior order dismissing a portion of plaintiff’s claims. Briefing is ongoing regarding Plaintiff’s motion to set aside. No trial date has been set in the newly remanded action. The Company and Wolf Tree have denied all liability and will continue to vigorously defend against all allegations and claims in the remanded action. Northern California Wildfire Cases Five lawsuits were filed that name contractors for PG&E Corporation and its subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (together, “PG&E”), including Davey Tree, with respect to claims arising from a wildfire event that occurred in Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s service territory in northern California beginning on October 8, 2017. An action was brought on August 8, 2019 in Napa County Superior Court, entitled Walker, et al. v. Davey Tree Surgery Company, et al., Case No. 19CV001194. An action was brought on October 8, 2019 in San Francisco County Superior Court, entitled Abram, et al. v. ACRT, Inc., et. al, Case No. CGC-19-579861. An action was brought on October 7, 2019 in San Francisco Superior Court, entitled Adams, et al. v. Davey Resource Group, Inc., et al., Case No. CGC-19-579828. An action was brought on October 8, 2019 in Sacramento Superior Court, entitled Antone, et al. v. ACRT, Inc. et al., Case No. 34-2019-00266662. An action was brought on October 7, 2019 in Sacramento Superior Court, entitled Bennett, et al. v. ACRT, Inc. et al., Case No. 2019-00266501. Three additional actions were brought on January 28, 2021 in San Francisco County Superior Court, by fire victims represented by a trust (“Plaintiffs’ Trust”), which was assigned contractual rights in the PG&E bankruptcy proceedings. These cases are entitled John K. Trotter, Trustee of the PG&E Fire Victim Trust v. Davey Resource Group, Inc., et al., Case No. CGC-21-589438; John K. Trotter, Trustee of the PG&E Fire Victim Trust v. Davey Resource Group, Inc., et al., Case No. CGC-21-589439; and John K. Trotter, Trustee of the PG&E Fire Victim Trust v. ACRT Pacific, LLC, et al., Case No. CGC-21-589441. On September 22, 2021, the Court granted Davey Tree’s petition to coordinate all cases as a California Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding, In Re North Bay Fire Cases, JCCP No. 4955. As a result of the coordination order, all of the actions were stayed in their home jurisdictions, subject to further court order. In November 2022, Davey Tree filed a cross-complaint against the Plaintiffs’ Trust and PG&E related to the contractual obligations of limitation of liability and hold harmless. Since that time, Davey Tree has dismissed the cross-complaint against PG&E without prejudice. The Plaintiffs’ Trust filed a demurrer which challenged Davey Tree’s claim that the hold harmless provisions in its contracts with PG&E are an obligation of the Plaintiffs’ Trust. In response to the demurrer, Davey Tree filed an amended cross-complaint against the Plaintiffs’ Trust on April 13, 2023. The Plaintiffs’ Trust has since filed another demurrer seeking to dismiss the cross complaint by Davey Tree, and Davey Tree has filed a response. The Plaintiffs’ Trust filed a motion for summary adjudication which challenged the limitation of liability as set forth in the assigned contracts. The Court denied the motion for summary adjudication in an order entered April 12, 2023. At a case management conference in JCCP No. 4955 on February 24, 2022, the Court ordered that Davey Tree and the plaintiffs participate in a mediation. The mediation commenced on October 17, 2022. At a case management conference on September 26, 2023, the parties reported to the Court that they had reached a settlement in principle and needed additional time to work on a long form settlement agreement. The parties jointly requested that the Court continue trial dates and other proceedings while the parties attempt to reach final terms on a global resolution. The Court originally set a trial date for October 2, 2023 involving the claim of the Plaintiffs’ Trust as to the Atlas burn location. On July 26, 2023, based on a joint request by the parties, the Court vacated the October 2, 2023 Atlas trial date and reset the Atlas trial for February 26, 2024, which has been vacated. On November 10, 2022, the Court authorized the plaintiffs to contact Napa County Superior Court for the purpose of setting a trial date in the Walker case for claims related to the Partrick burn location. On December 15, 2022, the Court in the Walker case set a trial date of March 4, 2024. Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, that trial date was continued to August 19, 2024. On April 30, 2024 the parties filed a joint stipulation to continue the trial date for 90 days. The trial was later set for December 4, 2024. On October 9, 2024, the parties filed a joint stipulation mutually requesting that the trial and all related dates be continued approximately 45 days after the December 4, 2024 trial date, or thereafter, as convenient to the court. The Walker trial date was later set for February 18, 2025. The Walker trial date was then continued to July 14, 2025 and later reset for October 6, 2025. On July 28, 2025, the Court vacated the trial date and set a status conference date for April 17, 2026. At the hearing on April 17, 2026, the court set a further status conference for July 17, 2026. On September 22, 2025, the Court in JCCP No. 4955 set a trial date in all of the coordinated actions for June 8, 2026 and reserved the month of June for the trial. The parties entered into a Settlement Agreement in the amount of $208,000 on November 25, 2025. Davey Tree filed a motion for a good faith settlement determination and a determination that plaintiffs’ counsel were authorized to enter into the settlement under California law. On March 2, 2026, the court granted Davey Tree’s motion and made the requested determinations concerning the settlement. The parties continue to resolve any remaining outstanding procedures needed for final resolution of claims pursuant to the settlement agreement and California law requirements. Davey Tree has responded to all claims asserted by the plaintiffs in these actions, denying all liability, and is vigorously defending against plaintiffs' alleged claims. However, we believe that a range of losses is probable and we have accrued our best estimate within this range which is also equal to our total coverage limits under our self-insurance and third party insurance providers for the 2017-2018 policy year of $208,000. We believe that any losses would be recovered through our self-insurance and third party insurance providers and have accrued a corresponding insurance receivable within our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of July 4, 2026. On June 26, 2026, the Court in the JCCP entered an order finding that all necessary approvals had been obtained for all remaining plaintiffs, which will allow this case to come to its conclusion. Subsequent to July 4, 2026, the Company funded $2,890 to a qualified settlement fund in connection with the settlement of the remaining claims. The Company’s total settlement obligation under the agreement is $5,500. Vehicle Accident Lawsuit In January 2023, a wrongful death lawsuit was brought against Davey Tree and a Davey Tree employee in the Circuit Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Citrus County, Florida related to a vehicle accident that occurred on January 7, 2022. The vehicle accident occurred when, in an attempt to avoid a rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle, the Davey Tree driver swerved to the left over the centerline into oncoming traffic and struck Decedent’s oncoming vehicle. The Decedent sustained severe injuries and ultimately passed away. Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of Decedent’s Estate, brought suit against Davey Tree and its driver for wrongful death. The case was tried before a jury commencing on December 1, 2025. The jury returned a verdict on December 9, 2025, finding that the Davey Tree driver’s negligence caused Plaintiff’s Decedent’s death, and that Plaintiff’s Decedent was not negligent. The jury awarded total damages of $54,128 to Plaintiff. Following the verdict, the parties engaged in post-trial motions and ultimately settled all claims for $44,500 to Plaintiff without appeal.  On April 20, 2026, the Company paid the remaining $10,000 of its $11,000 self-insurance limit, and this payment fully extinguished the Company’s liability, with the remaining settlement amount paid by third‑party insurance providers.

We are party to a number of lawsuits, threatened lawsuits and other claims arising out of the normal course of business. On a quarterly basis, we assess our liabilities and contingencies in connection with outstanding legal proceedings utilizing the latest information available. Where it is probable that we will incur a loss and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated, we record a liability in our consolidated financial statements. These accruals may be increased or decreased to reflect any relevant developments on a quarterly basis. Where a loss is not probable or the amount of the loss is not estimable, we do not record an accrual, consistent with applicable accounting guidance. Based on information currently available to us, advice of counsel, and available insurance coverage, we believe that our established accruals are adequate and the liabilities arising from the legal proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition. We note, however, that in light of the inherent uncertainty in legal proceedings, there can be no assurance that the ultimate resolution of a matter will not exceed established accruals. As a result, the outcome of a particular matter or a combination of matters may be material to our results of operations for a particular period, depending upon the size of the loss or our income for that particular period.

In November 2017, a wrongful death lawsuit was filed in Savannah, Georgia in the State Court of Chatham County (“State Court”) against Davey Tree, its subsidiary, Wolf Tree, Inc. (“Wolf Tree”), a former Davey Tree employee, a Wolf Tree employee, and two former Wolf Tree employees. That complaint, as subsequently amended, alleged various acts of negligence and sought compensatory damages for the wrongful death of the plaintiff’s husband, a Wolf Tree employee, who was shot and killed in August 2017.

In July 2018, the decedent’s estate filed a survival action in Savannah, Georgia in the State Court against the same defendants as the wrongful death action. The complaint in the survival action, which arises out of the same essential alleged facts and circumstances as the wrongful death action, includes three Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) claims under Georgia law, among other claims, and seeks compensatory damages, treble damages, and punitive damages. On August 2, 2018, the survival action was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Savannah Division (“Federal Court”).

On December 6, 2018, a former Wolf Tree employee pled guilty to conspiracy to conceal, harbor, and shield illegal aliens. In December 2018, the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed motions to stay both civil actions on the grounds that on December 7, 2018, an indictment was issued charging two former Wolf Tree employees and another individual with various crimes, including for their roles in a conspiracy to murder the decedent. The two civil actions were then stayed for several years during the pendency of the federal criminal cases against the three individuals.

Previously, on December 17, 2018, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Georgia (“United States Attorney”) had informed the Company and Wolf Tree that they also were under investigation for potential civil or other violations of immigration and other laws relating to the subject matter of the criminal investigation referenced above. The Company and Wolf Tree fully cooperated with the investigation.

On July 12, 2023, the Company and Wolf Tree entered into a non-prosecution and settlement agreement (the “settlement agreement”) with the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Georgia and the United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), resolving the investigation for potential violations of immigration and other laws by the Company and Wolf Tree.

The United States Attorney recognized that, since August 2017, both the Company and Wolf Tree had fully cooperated with the criminal and civil investigation and, in entering into the settlement agreement, the United States Attorney took into consideration the Company’s and Wolf Tree’s implementation of a significant compliance program.

The Company and Wolf Tree paid $3,984 as part of the settlement agreement, including civil penalties, forfeiture and restitution. The United States Attorney agreed that it would not bring any criminal charges against the Company or Wolf Tree concerning the subject matter of the investigation and released the Company and Wolf Tree from civil liability concerning immigration code provisions, and DHS also agreed to release the Company and Wolf Tree from administrative liability relating to the subject matter of the investigation, all of which are subject to standard reservations of rights and certain reserved claims. The settlement agreement closed the investigation by the United States Attorney and DHS. The settlement is not an admission of liability by the Company or Wolf Tree.

The wrongful death lawsuit was tried before a jury in June 2025. By the time of the trial, Davey Tree was the sole remaining defendant. On June 11, 2025, the jury rendered its verdict. Specifically, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Company and awarded damages for the wrongful death of the Plaintiff in the amount of $3,100, along with expenses of litigation pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11 for bad faith in the amount of $2,351. The jury also apportioned fault between the Company and the Plaintiff, apportioning 90% of the fault to the Company and 10% of the fault to the Plaintiff’s decedent. On June 23, 2025, the State Court entered judgment against the Company in the amount of $4,906, with post-judgment interest at the legal rate, plus costs of court. On July 9, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a Combined Motion to Set Aside Judgment, Motion for New Trial and Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict. On July 23, 2025, the Company filed a Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict. On February 24, 2026, the State Court denied the Company’s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict and Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside Judgment and Motion for New Trial but partially granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict. Specifically, the State Court found that there was no evidence presented at trial to support the jury’s apportionment of 10% fault to the Plaintiff’s decedent. An amended judgment was entered on

February 24, 2026 against Davey Tree in the amount of $5,451, with post-judgment interest to accrue at the legal rate, plus costs of court, which the Company had fully accrued for as of July 4, 2026. The Company has filed a Notice of Appeal, and the Plaintiff has filed a Notice of Cross-Appeal to the Georgia Court of Appeals. On April 14, 2026, the State Court granted the Plaintiff’s Motion for Supersedeas Bond and ordered Davey Tree to post a supersedeas bond in the amount of $6,024 within 30 days.

After the stay was lifted in 2023, the federal survival action proceeded in Federal Court for several years. On March 25, 2026, the Federal Court granted the Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion to Remand on the basis that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action and remanded the survival action back to the State Court. On May 26, 2026, the State Court officially reopened the remanded Federal Court action with a newly named estate representative. On June 3, 2026, plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the Federal Court’s prior order dismissing a portion of plaintiff’s claims. Briefing is ongoing regarding Plaintiff’s motion to set aside. No trial date has been set in the newly remanded action. The Company and Wolf Tree have denied all liability and will continue to vigorously defend against all allegations and claims in the remanded action.

Five lawsuits were filed that name contractors for PG&E Corporation and its subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (together, “PG&E”), including Davey Tree, with respect to claims arising from a wildfire event that occurred in Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s service territory in northern California beginning on October 8, 2017. An action was brought on August 8, 2019 in Napa County Superior Court, entitled Walker, et al. v. Davey Tree Surgery Company, et al., Case No. 19CV001194. An action was brought on October 8, 2019 in San Francisco County Superior Court, entitled Abram, et al. v. ACRT, Inc., et. al, Case No. CGC-19-579861. An action was brought on October 7, 2019 in San Francisco Superior Court, entitled Adams, et al. v. Davey Resource Group, Inc., et al., Case No. CGC-19-579828. An action was brought on October 8, 2019 in Sacramento Superior Court, entitled Antone, et al. v. ACRT, Inc. et al., Case No. 34-2019-00266662. An action was brought on October 7, 2019 in Sacramento Superior Court, entitled Bennett, et al. v. ACRT, Inc. et al., Case No. 2019-00266501.

Three additional actions were brought on January 28, 2021 in San Francisco County Superior Court, by fire victims represented by a trust (“Plaintiffs’ Trust”), which was assigned contractual rights in the PG&E bankruptcy proceedings. These cases are entitled John K. Trotter, Trustee of the PG&E Fire Victim Trust v. Davey Resource Group, Inc., et al., Case No. CGC-21-589438; John K. Trotter, Trustee of the PG&E Fire Victim Trust v. Davey Resource Group, Inc., et al., Case No. CGC-21-589439; and John K. Trotter, Trustee of the PG&E Fire Victim Trust v. ACRT Pacific, LLC, et al., Case No. CGC-21-589441. On September 22, 2021, the Court granted Davey Tree’s petition to coordinate all cases as a California Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding, In Re North Bay Fire Cases, JCCP No. 4955. As a result of the coordination order, all of the actions were stayed in their home jurisdictions, subject to further court order.

In November 2022, Davey Tree filed a cross-complaint against the Plaintiffs’ Trust and PG&E related to the contractual obligations of limitation of liability and hold harmless. Since that time, Davey Tree has dismissed the cross-complaint against PG&E without prejudice. The Plaintiffs’ Trust filed a demurrer which challenged Davey Tree’s claim that the hold harmless provisions in its contracts with PG&E are an obligation of the Plaintiffs’ Trust. In response to the demurrer, Davey Tree filed an amended cross-complaint against the Plaintiffs’ Trust on April 13, 2023. The Plaintiffs’ Trust has since filed another demurrer seeking to dismiss the cross complaint by Davey Tree, and

At a case management conference in JCCP No. 4955 on February 24, 2022, the Court ordered that Davey Tree and the plaintiffs participate in a mediation. The mediation commenced on October 17, 2022. At a case management conference on September 26, 2023, the parties reported to the Court that they had reached a settlement in principle and needed additional time to work on a long form settlement agreement. The parties jointly requested that the Court continue trial dates and other proceedings while the parties attempt to reach final terms on a global resolution. The Court originally set a trial date for October 2, 2023 involving the claim of the Plaintiffs’ Trust as to the Atlas burn location. On July 26, 2023, based on a joint request by the parties, the Court vacated the October 2, 2023 Atlas trial date and reset the Atlas trial for February 26, 2024, which has been vacated.

On November 10, 2022, the Court authorized the plaintiffs to contact Napa County Superior Court for the purpose of setting a trial date in the Walker case for claims related to the Partrick burn location. On December 15, 2022, the Court in the Walker case set a trial date of March 4, 2024. Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, that trial date was continued to August 19, 2024. On April 30, 2024 the parties filed a joint stipulation to continue the trial date for 90 days. The trial was later set for December 4, 2024. On October 9, 2024, the parties filed a joint stipulation mutually requesting that the trial and all related dates be continued approximately 45 days after the December 4, 2024 trial date, or thereafter, as convenient to the court. The Walker trial date was later set for February 18, 2025. The Walker trial date was then continued to July 14, 2025 and later reset for October 6, 2025. On July 28, 2025, the Court vacated the trial date and set a status conference date for April 17, 2026. At the hearing on April 17, 2026, the court set a further status conference for July 17, 2026.

On September 22, 2025, the Court in JCCP No. 4955 set a trial date in all of the coordinated actions for June 8, 2026 and reserved the month of June for the trial. The parties entered into a Settlement Agreement in the amount of $208,000 on November 25, 2025. Davey Tree filed a motion for a good faith settlement determination and a determination that plaintiffs’ counsel were authorized to enter into the settlement under California law. On March 2, 2026, the court granted Davey Tree’s motion and made the requested determinations concerning the settlement. The parties continue to resolve any remaining outstanding procedures needed for final resolution of claims pursuant to the settlement agreement and California law requirements.

Davey Tree has responded to all claims asserted by the plaintiffs in these actions, denying all liability, and is vigorously defending against plaintiffs' alleged claims. However, we believe that a range of losses is probable and we have accrued our best estimate within this range which is also equal to our total coverage limits under our self-insurance and third party insurance providers for the 2017-2018 policy year of $208,000. We believe that any losses would be recovered through our self-insurance and third party insurance providers and have accrued a corresponding insurance receivable within our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of July 4, 2026. On June 26, 2026, the Court in the JCCP entered an order finding that all necessary approvals had been obtained for all remaining plaintiffs, which will allow this case to come to its conclusion.