Item 2. Properties
ITEM 2. Properties.
Our principal properties include manufacturing and assembly facilities, distribution centers, warehouses, sales or administrative offices, and testing, prototype, and operations space.
We own substantially all of our U.S. manufacturing and assembly facilities. Our facilities are situated in various sections of the country and include assembly plants, engine plants, casting plants, metal stamping plants, transmission plants, and other component plants. Most of our distribution centers are leased, though some of the larger locations are owned (we own approximately 37% of the total square footage and lease the balance). The majority of the warehouses that we operate are leased, though some of the larger warehouses are owned and many of our manufacturing and assembly facilities contain some warehousing space. Substantially all of our sales offices are leased space. Approximately 84% of the total square footage of our testing, prototype, and operations space is owned by us.
In addition, we maintain and operate manufacturing plants, assembly facilities, parts distribution centers, and engineering centers outside of the United States. We own substantially all of our non-U.S. manufacturing plants, assembly facilities, and engineering centers. The majority of our parts distribution centers outside of the United States are either leased or provided by vendors under service contracts.
We and the entities that we consolidated as of December 31, 2025 use over 409 operations facilities globally, including testing and prototype, across 27 countries, and 42 manufacturing and assembly plants, which includes plants that are operated by us or our consolidated joint venture that support our Ford Blue, Ford Model e, and Ford Pro segments.
We have one consolidated joint venture with manufacturing operations, which is in our Ford Blue segment:
• Ford Vietnam Limited — a joint venture between Ford (75%) and Diesel Song Cong One Member Limited Liability Company (a subsidiary of the Vietnam Engine and Agricultural Machinery Corporation, which, in turn, is majority owned (87.43%) by the State of Vietnam represented by the Ministry of Industry and Trade) (25%). Ford Vietnam Limited assembles and distributes a variety of Ford passenger and commercial vehicle models. The joint venture operates one plant in Vietnam.
In addition to the plants that we operate directly or that are operated by our consolidated joint venture, additional plants that support our Ford Blue, Ford Model e, and Ford Pro segments are operated by unconsolidated joint ventures of which we are a partner. The most significant of those unconsolidated joint ventures are as follows:
• AutoAlliance (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (“AAT”) — a 50/50 joint venture between Ford and Mazda that owns and operates a manufacturing plant in Rayong, Thailand. AAT produces Ford and Mazda products for domestic and export sales.
• BlueOval SK, LLC (“BOSK”) — a 50/50 joint venture among Ford, SK On Co., Ltd. (“SK On”), and SK Battery America, Inc. (“SKBA,” a wholly owned subsidiary of SK On) formed to build and operate an EV battery plant in Tennessee and two EV battery plants in Kentucky to supply batteries to Ford and Ford affiliates. On December 9, 2025, Ford, SK On, SKBA and BOSK entered into a Joint Venture Disposition Agreement, pursuant to which Ford’s membership interest in BOSK will be redeemed and a Ford subsidiary will receive the two BOSK plants and related assets in Kentucky and will assume the related liabilities. Closing on the transactions contemplated by the Joint Venture Disposition Agreement is expected in the first half of 2026.
• Changan Ford Automobile Corporation, Ltd. (“CAF”) — a 50/50 joint venture between Ford and Chongqing Changan Automobile Co., Ltd. (“Changan”). CAF operates four assembly plants, an engine plant, and a transmission plant in China where it produces and distributes a variety of Ford and Lincoln brand passenger vehicle models.
• Ford Otomotiv Sanayi Anonim Sirketi (“Ford Otosan”) — a joint venture in Türkiye among Ford (41%), the Koc Group of Türkiye (41%), and public investors (18%) that is the sole supplier to us of the Transit, Transit Custom, and Transit Courier commercial vehicles and the Puma for Europe and the sole distributor of Ford vehicles in Türkiye. Ford Otosan also manufactures Ford heavy trucks for global distribution, except for markets in the Americas, China, and Taiwan. The joint venture owns three plants, a parts distribution depot, and a research and development center in Türkiye, and a combined vehicle and engine plant in Romania.
35
Item 2. Properties (Continued)
• JMC — a publicly-traded company in China with Ford (32%) and Nanchang Jiangling Investment Co., Ltd. (41%) as its controlling shareholders. Nanchang Jiangling Investment Co., Ltd. is a 50/50 joint venture between Changan and Jiangling Motors Company Group. The public investors in JMC own 27% of its total outstanding shares. JMC assembles Ford Transit, Ford Ranger, a series of Ford SUVs, Ford engines, and non-Ford vehicles and engines for distribution in China and, for certain products, other export markets. JMC operates two assembly plants and one engine plant in Nanchang.
The facilities described above are, in the opinion of management, suitable and adequate for the manufacture and assembly of our and our joint ventures’ products.
The furniture, equipment, and other physical property owned by our Ford Credit operations are not material in relation to the operations’ total assets.
ITEM 3. Legal Proceedings.
The litigation process is subject to many uncertainties, and the outcome of individual matters is not predictable with assurance. See Note 24 of the Notes to the Financial Statements for a discussion of loss contingencies. Following is a discussion of our significant pending legal proceedings:
PRODUCT LIABILITY MATTERS
We are a defendant in numerous actions in state and federal courts within and outside of the United States alleging damages from injuries resulting from (or aggravated by) alleged defects in our vehicles. In many actions, no monetary amount of damages is specified or the specific amount alleged is the jurisdictional minimum. Our experience with litigation alleging a specific amount of damages suggests that such amounts, on average, bear little relation to the actual amount of damages, if any, that we will pay in resolving such matters.
In addition to pending actions, we assess the likelihood of incidents that likely have occurred but not yet been reported to us. We also take into consideration specific matters that have been raised as claims but have not yet proceeded to litigation. Individual product liability matters that have more than a remote risk of loss and such loss would likely be significant if the matter is resolved unfavorably to us would be described herein. Currently, there is one such matter to report:
Hetsler v. Ford. Plaintiff, Robert Hetsler, filed this product liability action against Ford in the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County, Florida on April 24, 2020 alleging that a 2016 Roush Mustang had a manufacturing defect in an unidentified component of the engine compartment that resulted in a fire. After a trial in February 2024, a jury found Ford liable and awarded plaintiff $103 million in damages. On August 22, 2024, Ford appealed the judgment to the Fifth District Court of Appeal. Ford believes a new trial is warranted based on the trial court’s improper instructions to the jury and the trial court’s improper admission of undisclosed expert opinions. On November 18, 2025, the Fifth District Court of Appeal issued a per curiam affirmance with no written opinion. On December 3, 2025, Ford filed a Motion for Issuance of a Written Opinion, Including a Certification to the Florida Supreme Court, or in the Alternative, for Rehearing En Banc. The Fifth District Court of Appeal has not ruled on Ford’s motion.
ASBESTOS MATTERS
Asbestos was used in some brakes, clutches, and other automotive components from the early 1900s. Along with other vehicle manufacturers, we have been the target of asbestos litigation and, as a result, are a defendant in various actions for injuries claimed to have resulted from alleged exposure to Ford parts and other products containing asbestos. Plaintiffs in these personal injury cases allege various health problems as a result of asbestos exposure, either from component parts found in older vehicles, insulation or other asbestos products in our facilities, or asbestos aboard our former maritime fleet. We believe that we are targeted more aggressively in asbestos suits because many previously targeted companies have filed for bankruptcy or emerged from bankruptcy relieved of liability for such claims.
36
Item 3. Legal Proceedings (Continued)
Most of the asbestos litigation we face involves individuals who claim to have worked on the brakes of our vehicles. We are prepared to defend these cases and believe that the scientific evidence confirms our long-standing position that there is no increased risk of asbestos-related disease as a result of exposure to the type of asbestos formerly used in the brakes on our vehicles. The extent of our financial exposure to asbestos litigation remains very difficult to estimate and could include both compensatory and punitive damage awards. The majority of our asbestos cases do not specify a dollar amount for damages; in many of the other cases the dollar amount specified is the jurisdictional minimum, and the vast majority of these cases involve multiple defendants. Some of these cases may also involve multiple plaintiffs, and we may be unable to tell from the pleadings which plaintiffs are making claims against us (as opposed to other defendants). Annual payout and defense costs may become significant in the future. Our accrual for asbestos matters includes probable losses for both asserted and unasserted claims.
CONSUMER MATTERS
We provide warranties on the vehicles we sell. Warranties are offered for specific periods of time and/or mileage and vary depending upon the type of product and the geographic location of its sale. Pursuant to these warranties, we will repair, replace, or adjust parts on a vehicle that are defective in factory-supplied materials or workmanship during the specified warranty period. Software updates are increasingly a component of vehicle service and may be performed during warranty coverage repairs, through field service actions, or through over-the-air updates. We are a defendant in numerous actions in state and federal courts alleging breach of warranty and claiming damages based on state and federal consumer protection laws. Remedies under these statutes may include vehicle repurchase, civil penalties, and payment by Ford of the plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees. In some cases, plaintiffs also include an allegation of fraud. Remedies for a fraud claim may include contract rescission, vehicle repurchase, and punitive damages. Annual payout and defense costs may become significant in the future.
The cost of these litigation matters is included in our warranty costs. We accrue obligations for warranty costs at the time of sale using a patterned estimation model that includes historical information regarding the nature, frequency, and average cost of claims for each vehicle line by model year. We reevaluate the adequacy of our accruals on a regular basis.
We are currently a defendant in a significant number of litigation matters relating to the performance of vehicles, including those equipped with DPS6 transmissions.
ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS
We have received notices under various federal and state environmental laws that we (along with others) are or may be a potentially responsible party for the costs associated with remediating numerous hazardous substance storage, recycling, or disposal sites in many states and, in some instances, for natural resource damages. We also may have been a generator of hazardous substances at a number of other sites. The amount of any such costs or damages for which we may be held responsible could be significant. Any legal proceeding arising under any federal, state, or local provisions that have been enacted or adopted regulating the discharge of materials into the environment or primarily for the purpose of protecting the environment, in which (i) a governmental authority is a party, and (ii) we believe there is the possibility of monetary sanctions (exclusive of interest and costs) in excess of $1,000,000 is described herein.
On June 16, 2022, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”) filed a complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey (Bergen County) seeking natural resource damages and other claims related to the Ringwood Mines/Landfill Site located in Ringwood, New Jersey. On February 21, 2023, the court denied our motion to dismiss. We continue to defend against the NJDEP’s allegations.
CLASS ACTIONS
In light of the fact that few of the purported class actions filed against us in the past have been certified by the courts as class actions, in general we list those actions that (i) have been certified as a class action by a court of competent jurisdiction (and any additional purported class actions that raise allegations substantially similar to an existing and certified class), and (ii) have more than a remote risk of loss, and such loss would likely be significant if the action is resolved unfavorably to us. At this time, we have no such class actions filed against us.
37