105 these cases based upon either lack of product identification as to General Cable manufactured asbestos-containing product and/ or lack of exposure to asbestos dust from the use of General Cable product. For cases outside the Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) as of December 31, 2012 , Plaintif fs have asserted monetary damages in 651 cases. In 179 of these cases, plaintif fs allege only damages in excess of some dollar amount (about $151 thousand per plaintif f); in these cases there are no claims for specific dollar amounts requested as to any defendant. In the 138 other cases pending in state and federal district courts (outside the MDL), plaintif fs seek approximately $388 million in damages from as many as 1 10 defendants. In one case, plaintif fs have asserted damages related to General Cable in the amount of $10 million . In addition, in relation to these 651 cases, there are claims of $220 million in punitive damages from all of the defendants. However , many of the plaintif fs in these cases allege non-malignant injuries. At December 31, 2012 and 201 1 , General Cable had accrued, on a gross basis, approximately $5.2 million and $5.1 million , respectively , and had recorded approximately $0.5 million and $0.6 million of insurance recoveries for these lawsuits, respectively . The net amount of $4.7 million and $4.5 million , as of December 31, 2012 and 201 1 , respectively , represents the Company's best estimate in order to cover resolution of current and future asbestos-related claims. The components of the asbestos litigation reserve are current and future asbestos-related claims. The significant assumptions are: (1) the number of cases per state, (2) an estimate of the judgment per case per state, (3) an estimate of the percentage of cases per state that would make it to trial and (4) the estimated total liability percentage, excluding insurance recoveries, per case judgment. Management's estimates are based on the Company's historical experience with asbestos related claims. The Company's current history of asbestos claims does not provide suf ficient and reasonable information to estimate a range of loss for potential future, unasserted asbestos claims because the number and the value of the alleged damages of such claims have not been consistent. As such, the Company does not believe a reasonably possible range can be estimated with respect to asbestos claims that may be filed in the future. Settlement payments are made, and the asbestos reserve is relieved, when the Company receives a fully executed settlement release from the Plaintif f's counsel. As of December 31, 2012 , aggregate settlement costs were $8.6 million . In calendar years 2012 , 201 1 and 2010 , the settlement costs totaled $0.6 million , $0.9 million and $0.4 million , respectively . As of December 31, 2012 , aggregate costs of administering and litigating the asbestos claims were $21.4 million . In calendar years 2012 , 201 1 and 2010 , the costs of administering and litigating asbestos claims totaled $1.7 million , $2.2 million and $1.8 million , respectively . In January 1994, General Cable entered into a settlement agreement with certain principal primary insurers concerning liability for the costs of defense, judgments and settlements, if any , in all of the asbestos litigation described above. Subject to the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement, the insurers are responsible for a substantial portion of the costs and expenses incurred in the defense or resolution of this litigation. In recent years one of the insurers participating in the settlement that was responsible for a significant portion of the contribution under the settlement agreement entered into insurance liquidation proceedings. As a result, the contribution of the insurers has been reduced and the Company has had to bear a lar ger portion of the costs relating to these lawsuits. Moreover , certain of the other insurers may be financially unstable, and if one or more of these insurers enter into insurance liquidation proceedings, General Cable will be required to pay a lar ger portion of the costs incurred in connection with these cases. As part of the acquisition of Silec, SAFRAN SA agreed to indemnify the Company for the full amount of losses arising from, related to or attributable to practices, if any , that are similar to previous practices investigated by the French competition authority for alleged competition law violations related to medium and high voltage cable markets. The Company has asserted a claim under this indemnity against SAFRAN SA related to the European Commission's Statement of Objections to preserve our rights should an unfavorable outcome occur . On July 5, 201 1, the European Commission issued a Statement of Objections in relation to its ongoing competition investigation to a number of wire and cable manufacturers in the submarine and under ground power cables business, including the Company's Spanish af filiate and its subsidiary , Silec. The allegations related to Silec are for the eleven months following its acquisition by the Company's Spanish af filiate, for which the Company has filed a claim for indemnification from Safran to preserve our rights should an unfavorable outcome occur . A Statement of Objections is a procedural document in which the European Commission communicates its preliminary views in regard to possible infringement of European competition law and allows the companies identified in the Statement to present procedural and substantive ar guments in response before a final decision is made. Any unfavorable decision by the European Commission is subject to appeal. The Statement of Objections issued to the Company alleges that two af filiates in Europe engaged in violations of competition law in the under ground power cables businesses for a limited period of time. The Company has responded to the Statement of Objections on October 28, 201 1 and intends to continue to vigorously defend itself against the allegations in the course of future proceedings with the European Commission on the Statement of Objections. The European Commission has significant discretion in assessing fines and the Statement of Objections has only provided limited guidance on how it could potentially assess fines on each of the named wire and cable companies alleged to have violated applicable competition laws. At this time, the Company believes that it has substantial defenses to the allegations contained in the Statement T able of Contents