Contingent Liabilities	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2011
Lease Commitments & Contingent Liabilities [Abstract]
Contingent Liabilities	Note 19—Contingent Liabilities Litigation The Company is a defendant in various products liability claims brought in numerous jurisdictions in which individuals seek damages resulting from motor vehicle accidents allegedly caused by defective tires manufactured by the Company. Each of the products liability claims faced by the Company generally involve different types of tires, models and lines, different circumstances surrounding the accident such as different applications, vehicles, speeds, road conditions, weather conditions, driver error, tire repair and maintenance practices, service life conditions, as well as different jurisdictions and different injuries. In addition, in many of the Company’s products liability lawsuits the plaintiff alleges that his or her harm was caused by one or more co-defendants who acted independently of the Company. Accordingly, both the claims asserted and the resolutions of those claims have an enormous amount of variability. The aggregate amount of damages asserted at any point in time is not determinable since often times when claims are filed, the plaintiffs do not specify the amount of damages. Even when there is an amount alleged, at times the amount is wildly inflated and has no rational basis. Pursuant to applicable accounting rules, the Company accrues the minimum liability for each known claim when the estimated outcome is a range of possible loss and no one amount within that range is more likely than another. The Company uses a range of losses because an average cost would not be meaningful since the products liability claims faced by the Company are unique and widely variable, and accordingly, the resolutions of those claims have an enormous amount of variability. The costs have ranged from zero dollars to $33 million in one case with no “average” that is meaningful. No specific accrual is made for individual unasserted claims or for premature claims, asserted claims where the minimum information needed to evaluate the probability of a liability is not yet known. However, an accrual for such claims based, in part, on management’s expectations for future litigation activity and the settled claims history is maintained. Because of the speculative nature of litigation in the U.S., the Company does not believe a meaningful aggregate range of potential loss for asserted and unasserted claims can be determined. The Company’s experience has demonstrated that its estimates have been reasonably accurate and, on average, cases are settled at amounts close to the reserves established. However, it is possible an individual claim from time to time may result in an aberration from the norm and could have a material impact. The Company determines its reserves using the number of incidents expected during a year. During 2010, the Company increased its products liability reserve by $85,271. The addition of another year of self-insured incidents accounted for $39,560 of this increase. The Company revised its estimates of future settlements for unasserted and premature claims. These revisions increased the reserve by $2,270. Finally, changes in the amount of reserves for cases where sufficient information is known to estimate a liability increased by $43,441. Of this amount, $21,800 was the result of the Company increasing its self-insured portion of a jury verdict in one case during the first quarter of 2010. The Company considered the impact of this case when evaluating the assumptions used in establishing reserve balances and did not adjust its assumptions based solely on this case. During 2011, the Company increased its products liability reserve by $66,788. The addition of another year of self-insured incidents accounted for $42,277 of this increase. The Company revised its estimates of future settlements for unasserted and premature claims. These revisions increased the reserve by $13,131. Finally, changes in the amount of reserves for cases where sufficient information is known to estimate a liability increased by $11,380. The time frame for the payment of a products liability claim is too variable to be meaningful. From the time a claim is filed to its ultimate disposition depends on the unique nature of the case, how it is resolved – claim dismissed, negotiated settlement, trial verdict and appeals process – and is highly dependent on jurisdiction, specific facts, the plaintiff’s attorney, the court’s docket and other factors. Given that some claims may be resolved in weeks and others may take five years or more, it is impossible to predict with any reasonable reliability the time frame over which the accrued amounts may be paid. During 2010, the Company paid $45,659 and during 2011, the Company paid $50,468 to resolve cases and claims. The Company’s products liability reserve balance at December 31, 2010 totaled $191,033 (current portion of $41,892). At December 31, 2011, the products liability reserve balance totaled $207,353 (current portion of $58,476). Products liability costs totaled $81,475, 110,103 and $97,504 in 2009, 2010 and 2011, respectively, and include recoveries of legal fees of $2,486 and $5,629 in 2009 and 2010, respectively. Insurance policies applicable to claims occurring on April 1, 2003, and thereafter, do not provide for recovery of legal fees. Retiree Medical Case On February 2, 2010 in the case of Cates, et al. v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio entered an order approving the settlement agreement negotiated by the parties in April 2009, in its entirety, as being fair, reasonable and adequate and dismissed, with prejudice, the case and a related lawsuit, Johnson, et al. v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Company. The settlement agreement provided for 1) a cash payment of $7,000 to the Plaintiffs for reimbursement of costs; and 2) modification to the Company’s approach and costs of providing future health care to specified current retiree groups which resulted in an amendment to the Company’s retiree medical plan. A group of the Company’s union retirees and surviving spouses filed the Cates lawsuit on behalf of a purported class claiming that the Company was not entitled to impose any contribution requirement for the cost of their health care coverage pursuant to a series of letter agreements entered into by the Company and the United Steelworkers and that Plaintiffs were promised lifetime benefits, at no cost, after retirement. As a result of settlement discussions, the related Johnson case was filed with the Court on behalf of a different, smaller group of hourly union-represented retirees. As a consequence of the settlement agreement, the Company recorded $7,000 of expense during the first quarter of 2009 relating to the specified cash payments. The estimated present value of the plan amendment has been reflected in the accrual for Other Post-employment Benefits with an offset to the Cumulative other comprehensive loss component of Parent stockholders’ equity and will be amortized as a charge to operations over the remaining life expectancy of the affected plan participants. Cooper Chengshan Acquisition Effective February 4, 2006, the Company acquired a 51 percent ownership position in Cooper Chengshan (Shandong) Passenger Tire Company, Ltd. and Cooper Chengshan (Shandong) Tire Company, Ltd. (“Cooper Chengshan”). The new companies, which were formed upon governmental approval of the transaction, together were known as Shandong Chengshan Tire Company, Ltd. (“Chengshan”) of Shandong, PRC. The two companies were formed by transferring specified assets and obligations to newly formed entities and the Company acquired a 51 percent interest in each thereafter. In connection with this acquisition, beginning January 1, 2009 and continuing through December 31, 2011, the noncontrolling shareholders had the right to sell and, if exercised, the Company had the obligation to purchase, the remaining 49 percent noncontrolling share at a minimum price of $63,000. In 2009, the Company received notification from a noncontrolling shareholder of its intention to exercise a portion of its put option and in 2010, after receiving governmental approvals; the Company purchased the 14 percent share for $18,000. The remaining noncontrolling shareholder had the right to sell its 35 percent share to the Company at a minimum price of $45,000. At December 31, 2011, this right expired without being exercised. Accordingly, as of December 31, 2011, the Company recorded the $82,933 of noncontrolling shareholders’ interests associated with Cooper Chengshan in the equity section of its Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31, 2011. Employment Contracts and Agreements The Company has an employment agreement with Mr. Armes. No other executives have employment agreements. The other Named Executive Officers are covered by the Cooper Tire & Rubber Company Change in Control Severance Pay Plan. At December 31, 2011, approximately 24% of the Company’s workforce was represented by collective bargaining units. Unconditional Purchase Orders Noncancelable purchase order commitments for capital expenditures and raw materials, principally natural rubber, made in the ordinary course of business were $161,830 at December 31, 2011. Labor Issues The USW and its Local 207L have filed unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB against the Company. The Union asserts that the unfair labor practices arose during negotiations for a new labor contract at the Company’s Findlay, Ohio facility. The Company also filed unfair labor practice charges against the Union. The Company believes none of the charges by the Union have merit, but that facts support the Company’s charges against the Union.

Contingent Liabilities

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2011

Lease Commitments & Contingent Liabilities [Abstract]

Note 19—Contingent Liabilities

Litigation

The Company is a defendant in various products liability claims brought in numerous jurisdictions in which individuals seek damages resulting from motor vehicle accidents allegedly caused by defective tires manufactured by the Company. Each of the products liability claims faced by the Company generally involve different types of tires, models and lines, different circumstances surrounding the accident such as different applications, vehicles, speeds, road conditions, weather conditions, driver error, tire repair and maintenance practices, service life conditions, as well as different jurisdictions and different injuries. In addition, in many of the Company’s products liability lawsuits the plaintiff alleges that his or her harm was caused by one or more co-defendants who acted independently of the Company. Accordingly, both the claims asserted and the resolutions of those claims have an enormous amount of variability. The aggregate amount of damages asserted at any point in time is not determinable since often times when claims are filed, the plaintiffs do not specify the amount of damages. Even when there is an amount alleged, at times the amount is wildly inflated and has no rational basis.

Pursuant to applicable accounting rules, the Company accrues the minimum liability for each known claim when the estimated outcome is a range of possible loss and no one amount within that range is more likely than another. The Company uses a range of losses because an average cost would not be meaningful since the products liability claims faced by the Company are unique and widely variable, and accordingly, the resolutions of those claims have an enormous amount of variability. The costs have ranged from zero dollars to $33 million in one case with no “average” that is meaningful. No specific accrual is made for individual unasserted claims or for premature claims, asserted claims where the minimum information needed to evaluate the probability of a liability is not yet known. However, an accrual for such claims based, in part, on management’s expectations for future litigation activity and the settled claims history is maintained. Because of the speculative nature of litigation in the U.S., the Company does not believe a meaningful aggregate range of potential loss for asserted and unasserted claims can be determined. The Company’s experience has demonstrated that its estimates have been reasonably accurate and, on average, cases are settled at amounts close to the reserves established. However, it is possible an individual claim from time to time may result in an aberration from the norm and could have a material impact.

The Company determines its reserves using the number of incidents expected during a year. During 2010, the Company increased its products liability reserve by $85,271. The addition of another year of self-insured incidents accounted for $39,560 of this increase. The Company revised its estimates of future settlements for unasserted and premature claims. These revisions increased the reserve by $2,270. Finally, changes in the amount of reserves for cases where sufficient information is known to estimate a liability increased by $43,441. Of this amount, $21,800 was the result of the Company increasing its self-insured portion of a jury verdict in one case during the first quarter of 2010. The Company considered the impact of this case when evaluating the assumptions used in establishing reserve balances and did not adjust its assumptions based solely on this case.

During 2011, the Company increased its products liability reserve by $66,788. The addition of another year of self-insured incidents accounted for $42,277 of this increase. The Company revised its estimates of future settlements for unasserted and premature claims. These revisions increased the reserve by $13,131. Finally, changes in the amount of reserves for cases where sufficient information is known to estimate a liability increased by $11,380.

The time frame for the payment of a products liability claim is too variable to be meaningful. From the time a claim is filed to its ultimate disposition depends on the unique nature of the case, how it is resolved – claim dismissed, negotiated settlement, trial verdict and appeals process – and is highly dependent on jurisdiction, specific facts, the plaintiff’s attorney, the court’s docket and other factors. Given that some claims may be resolved in weeks and others may take five years or more, it is impossible to predict with any reasonable reliability the time frame over which the accrued amounts may be paid.

During 2010, the Company paid $45,659 and during 2011, the Company paid $50,468 to resolve cases and claims. The Company’s products liability reserve balance at December 31, 2010 totaled $191,033 (current portion of $41,892). At December 31, 2011, the products liability reserve balance totaled $207,353 (current portion of $58,476).

Products liability costs totaled $81,475, 110,103 and $97,504 in 2009, 2010 and 2011, respectively, and include recoveries of legal fees of $2,486 and $5,629 in 2009 and 2010, respectively. Insurance policies applicable to claims occurring on April 1, 2003, and thereafter, do not provide for recovery of legal fees.

Retiree Medical Case

On February 2, 2010 in the case of Cates, et al. v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio entered an order approving the settlement agreement negotiated by the parties in April 2009, in its entirety, as being fair, reasonable and adequate and dismissed, with prejudice, the case and a related lawsuit, Johnson, et al. v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Company. The settlement agreement provided for 1) a cash payment of $7,000 to the Plaintiffs for reimbursement of costs; and 2) modification to the Company’s approach and costs of providing future health care to specified current retiree groups which resulted in an amendment to the Company’s retiree medical plan.

A group of the Company’s union retirees and surviving spouses filed the Cates lawsuit on behalf of a purported class claiming that the Company was not entitled to impose any contribution requirement for the cost of their health care coverage pursuant to a series of letter agreements entered into by the Company and the United Steelworkers and that Plaintiffs were promised lifetime benefits, at no cost, after retirement. As a result of settlement discussions, the related Johnson case was filed with the Court on behalf of a different, smaller group of hourly union-represented retirees.

As a consequence of the settlement agreement, the Company recorded $7,000 of expense during the first quarter of 2009 relating to the specified cash payments. The estimated present value of the plan amendment has been reflected in the accrual for Other Post-employment Benefits with an offset to the Cumulative other comprehensive loss component of Parent stockholders’ equity and will be amortized as a charge to operations over the remaining life expectancy of the affected plan participants.

Cooper Chengshan Acquisition

Effective February 4, 2006, the Company acquired a 51 percent ownership position in Cooper Chengshan (Shandong) Passenger Tire Company, Ltd. and Cooper Chengshan (Shandong) Tire Company, Ltd. (“Cooper Chengshan”). The new companies, which were formed upon governmental approval of the transaction, together were known as Shandong Chengshan Tire Company, Ltd. (“Chengshan”) of Shandong, PRC. The two companies were formed by transferring specified assets and obligations to newly formed entities and the Company acquired a 51 percent interest in each thereafter.

In connection with this acquisition, beginning January 1, 2009 and continuing through December 31, 2011, the noncontrolling shareholders had the right to sell and, if exercised, the Company had the obligation to purchase, the remaining 49 percent noncontrolling share at a minimum price of $63,000. In 2009, the Company received notification from a noncontrolling shareholder of its intention to exercise a portion of its put option and in 2010, after receiving governmental approvals; the Company purchased the 14 percent share for $18,000. The remaining noncontrolling shareholder had the right to sell its 35 percent share to the Company at a minimum price of $45,000. At December 31, 2011, this right expired without being exercised. Accordingly, as of December 31, 2011, the Company recorded the $82,933 of noncontrolling shareholders’ interests associated with Cooper Chengshan in the equity section of its Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31, 2011.

Employment Contracts and Agreements

The Company has an employment agreement with Mr. Armes. No other executives have employment agreements. The other Named Executive Officers are covered by the Cooper Tire & Rubber Company Change in Control Severance Pay Plan.

At December 31, 2011, approximately 24% of the Company’s workforce was represented by collective bargaining units.

Unconditional Purchase Orders

Noncancelable purchase order commitments for capital expenditures and raw materials, principally natural rubber, made in the ordinary course of business were $161,830 at December 31, 2011.

Labor Issues

The USW and its Local 207L have filed unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB against the Company. The Union asserts that the unfair labor practices arose during negotiations for a new labor contract at the Company’s Findlay, Ohio facility. The Company also filed unfair labor practice charges against the Union. The Company believes none of the charges by the Union have merit, but that facts support the Company’s charges against the Union.