Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2011
Contingencies [Abstract]
Contingencies	23. Contingencies The following matters relate to certain claims and legal actions involving ICG and/or its subsidiaries. Allegheny Energy Supply ("Allegheny"), the sole customer of coal produced at the Company's subsidiary Wolf Run Mining Company's ("Wolf Run") Sycamore No. 2 mine, filed a lawsuit against Wolf Run, Hunter Ridge Holdings, Inc. ("Hunter Ridge"), and ICG in state court in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania on December 28, 2006, and amended its complaint on April 23, 2007. Allegheny claimed that Wolf Run breached a coal supply contract when it declared force majeure under the contract upon idling the Sycamore No. 2 mine in the third quarter of 2006, and that Wolf Run continued to breach the contract by failing to ship in volumes referenced in the contract. The Sycamore No. 2 mine was idled after encountering adverse geologic conditions and abandoned gas wells that were previously unidentified and unmapped. After extensive searching for gas wells and rehabilitation of the mine, it was re-opened in 2007, but with notice to Allegheny that it would necessarily operate at reduced volumes in order to safely and effectively avoid the many gas wells within the reserve. The amended complaint also alleged that the production stoppages constitute a breach of the guarantee agreement by Hunter Ridge and breach of certain representations made upon entering into the contract in early 2005. Allegheny voluntarily dropped the breach of representation claims later. Allegheny claimed that it would incur costs in excess of $100 million to purchase replacement coal over the life of the contract. ICG, Wolf Run and Hunter Ridge answered the amended complaint on August 13, 2007, disputing all of the remaining claims. On November 3, 2008, ICG, Wolf Run and Hunter Ridge filed an amended answer and counterclaim against the plaintiffs seeking to void the coal supply agreement due to, among other things, fraudulent inducement and conspiracy. On September 23, 2009, Allegheny filed a second amended complaint alleging several alternative theories of liability in its effort to extend contractual liability to ICG, which was not a party to the original contract and did not exist at the time Wolf Run and Allegheny entered into the contract. No new substantive claims were asserted. ICG answered the second amended complaint on October 13, 2009, denying all of the new claims. ICG's counterclaim was dismissed on motion for summary judgment entered on May 11, 2010. Allegheny's claims against ICG were also dismissed by summary judgment, but the claims against Wolf Run and Hunter Ridge were not. The court conducted a non-jury trial of this matter beginning on January 10, 2011 and concluding on February 1, 2011. At the trial, Allegheny presented its evidence for breach of contract and claimed that it is entitled to past and future damages in the aggregate of between $228.0 million and $377.0 million. Wolf Run and Hunter Ridge presented their defense of the claims, including evidence with respect to the existence of force majeure conditions and excuse under the contract and applicable law. Wolf Run and Hunter Ridge presented evidence that Allegheny's damages calculations were significantly inflated because it did not seek to determine damages as of the time of the breach and in some instances artificially assumed future non-delivery or did not take into account the apparent requirement to supply coal in the future. On May 2, 2011, the trial court entered a Memorandum and Verdict determining that Wolf Run had breached the coal supply contract and that the performance shortfall was not excused by force majeure. ICG and Allegheny filed post-verdict motions in the trial court and on August 23, 2011, the court denied the parties' motions. The court entered a final judgment on August 25, 2011, in the amount of $104.1 million, which included pre-judgment interest. The parties appealed the lower court's decision to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Wolf Run and Hunter Ridge have filed an appeal bond in the amount of $124.9 million. Briefing is scheduled to begin on October 24, 2011, to be completed in early 2012. As of December 31, 2011, the Company has accrued $108.3 million for this lawsuit, including $3.4 million of interest recognized post-acquisition. The ultimate resolution of this matter could result in an outcome which may be materially different than what the Company has accrued. In addition, the Company is a party to numerous claims and lawsuits with respect to various matters. The Company provides for costs related to contingencies when a loss is probable and the amount is reasonably determinable. After conferring with counsel, it is the opinion of management that the ultimate resolution of pending claims, other than as noted above, will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition, results of operations or liquidity of the Company.

23. Contingencies

The following matters relate to certain claims and legal actions involving ICG and/or its subsidiaries.

Allegheny Energy Supply ("Allegheny"), the sole customer of coal produced at the Company's subsidiary Wolf Run Mining Company's ("Wolf Run") Sycamore No. 2 mine, filed a lawsuit against Wolf Run, Hunter Ridge Holdings, Inc. ("Hunter Ridge"), and ICG in state court in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania on December 28, 2006, and amended its complaint on April 23, 2007. Allegheny claimed that Wolf Run breached a coal supply contract when it declared force majeure under the contract upon idling the Sycamore No. 2 mine in the third quarter of 2006, and that Wolf Run continued to breach the contract by failing to ship in volumes referenced in the contract. The Sycamore No. 2 mine was idled after encountering adverse geologic conditions and abandoned gas wells that were previously unidentified and unmapped. After extensive searching for gas wells and rehabilitation of the mine, it was re-opened in 2007, but with notice to Allegheny that it would necessarily operate at reduced volumes in order to safely and effectively avoid the many gas wells within the reserve. The amended complaint also alleged that the production stoppages constitute a breach of the guarantee agreement by Hunter Ridge and breach of certain representations made upon entering into the contract in early 2005. Allegheny voluntarily dropped the breach of representation claims later. Allegheny claimed that it would incur costs in excess of $100 million to purchase replacement coal over the life of the contract. ICG, Wolf Run and Hunter Ridge answered the amended complaint on August 13, 2007, disputing all of the remaining claims.

On November 3, 2008, ICG, Wolf Run and Hunter Ridge filed an amended answer and counterclaim against the plaintiffs seeking to void the coal supply agreement due to, among other things, fraudulent inducement and conspiracy. On September 23, 2009, Allegheny filed a second amended complaint alleging several alternative theories of liability in its effort to extend contractual liability to ICG, which was not a party to the original contract and did not exist at the time Wolf Run and Allegheny entered into the contract. No new substantive claims were asserted. ICG answered the second amended complaint on October 13, 2009, denying all of the new claims. ICG's counterclaim was dismissed on motion for summary judgment entered on May 11, 2010. Allegheny's claims against ICG were also dismissed by summary judgment, but the claims against Wolf Run and Hunter Ridge were not. The court conducted a non-jury trial of this matter beginning on January 10, 2011 and concluding on February 1, 2011. At the trial, Allegheny presented its evidence for breach of contract and claimed that it is entitled to past and future damages in the aggregate of between $228.0 million and $377.0 million. Wolf Run and Hunter Ridge presented their defense of the claims, including evidence with respect to the existence of force majeure conditions and excuse under the contract and applicable law. Wolf Run and Hunter Ridge presented evidence that Allegheny's damages calculations were significantly inflated because it did not seek to determine damages as of the time of the breach and in some instances artificially assumed future non-delivery or did not take into account the apparent requirement to supply coal in the future. On May 2, 2011, the trial court entered a Memorandum and Verdict determining that Wolf Run had breached the coal supply contract and that the performance shortfall was not excused by force majeure. ICG and Allegheny filed post-verdict motions in the trial court and on August 23, 2011, the court denied the parties' motions. The court entered a final judgment on August 25, 2011, in the amount of $104.1 million, which included pre-judgment interest. The parties appealed the lower court's decision to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Wolf Run and Hunter Ridge have filed an appeal bond in the amount of $124.9 million. Briefing is scheduled to begin on October 24, 2011, to be completed in early 2012.

As of December 31, 2011, the Company has accrued $108.3 million for this lawsuit, including $3.4 million of interest recognized post-acquisition. The ultimate resolution of this matter could result in an outcome which may be materially different than what the Company has accrued.

In addition, the Company is a party to numerous claims and lawsuits with respect to various matters. The Company provides for costs related to contingencies when a loss is probable and the amount is reasonably determinable. After conferring with counsel, it is the opinion of management that the ultimate resolution of pending claims, other than as noted above, will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition, results of operations or liquidity of the Company.