Contingent Liabilities	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2014
Text Block [Abstract]
Contingent Liabilities	Note 19 - Contingent Liabilities Litigation *Products Liability 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. The fact that the Company is a defendant in products liability lawsuits is not surprising given the current litigation climate, which is largely confined to the United States. However, the fact that the Company is subject to claims does not indicate that there is a quality issue with the Company’s tires. The Company sells approximately 30 to 35 million passenger, light truck, SUV, radial medium truck and motorcycle tires per year in North America. The Company estimates that approximately 300 million Company-produced tires – made up of thousands of different specifications – are still on the road in North America. While tire disablements do occur, it is the Company’s and the tire industry’s experience that the vast majority of tire failures relate to service-related conditions, which are entirely out of the Company’s control – such as failure to maintain proper tire pressure, improper maintenance, road hazard and excessive speed. The Company accrues costs for products liability at the time a loss is probable and the amount of loss can be estimated. The Company believes the probability of loss can be established and the amount of loss can be estimated only after certain minimum information is available, including verification that Company-produced products were involved in the incident giving rise to the claim, the condition of the product purported to be involved in the claim, the nature of the incident giving rise to the claim and the extent of the purported injury or damages. In cases where such information is known, each products liability claim is evaluated based on its specific facts and circumstances. A judgment is then made to determine the requirement for establishment or revision of an accrual for any potential liability. The liability often cannot be determined with precision until the claim is resolved. 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. During 2013, the Company increased its products liability reserve by $60,091. The addition of another year of self-insured incidents accounted for $50,436 of this increase. The Company revised its estimates of future settlements for unasserted and premature claims. These revisions increased the reserve by $8,298. Finally, changes in the amount of reserves for cases where sufficient information is known to estimate a liability increased by $1,357. During 2014, the Company increased its products liability reserve by $47,609. The addition of another year of self-insured incidents accounted for $49,324 of this increase. The Company revised its estimates of future settlements for unasserted and premature claims. These revisions decreased the reserve by $179. Finally, changes in the amount of reserves for cases where sufficient information is known to estimate a liability decreased by $1,536. 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 2013, the Company paid $76,927 to resolve cases and claims. The Company’s products liability reserve balance at December 31, 2013 totaled $189,513 (current portion of $70,472). During 2014, the Company paid $58,231 to resolve cases and claims. The Company’s products liability reserve balance at December 31, 2014 totaled $178,891 (current portion of $69,892). Products liability expenses totaled $103,610, $89,044 and $78,143 in 2012, 2013 and 2014, respectively. Products liability expenses are included in cost of goods sold in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income. *Certain Litigation Related to the Apollo Merger* Following the announcement of the proposed acquisition of the Company by wholly owned subsidiaries of Apollo Tyres Ltd. (the “Apollo entities”) in June 2013, alleged stockholders of the Company filed putative class action lawsuits in state courts in Delaware and Ohio. These lawsuits, captioned In re Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. Stockholders Litigation, No. 9658 VCL and Auld v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., et al., No. 2013 CV 293, alleged that the directors of the Company breached their fiduciary duties to the Company’s stockholders by agreeing to enter into the proposed transaction for an allegedly unfair price and as the result of an allegedly unfair process. The lawsuits sought, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief. On December 30, 2013, the Company terminated the merger agreement with the Apollo entities. Following the termination of the merger agreement, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the Delaware and Ohio lawsuits in April 2014. On October 4, 2013, the Company filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Cooper Tire Co. v. Apollo (Mauritius) Holdings Pvt. Ltd., et al., No. 8980- VCG, asking that the Apollo entities be required to use their reasonable efforts to close the then pending merger transaction as expeditiously as possible and also seeking, among other things, declaratory relief and damages. On October 14, 2013, the Apollo entities filed counterclaims against the Company seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. On October 31, 2014, the court granted Apollo’s motion for declaratory judgment that the conditions to closing the then pending transaction were not satisfied before the November 2013 trial. On November 26, 2014, the Company appealed the Chancery Court’s decision to the Delaware Supreme Court. On December 3, 2014, the parties reached an agreement to dismiss the appeal and the underlying action, acknowledge the termination of the Merger Agreement, and to release all claims relating to the Merger Agreement, subject to the dismissal of the action. On December 17, 2014, the Company dismissed the appeal and the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal of the underlying action. *Federal Securities Litigation* On January 17, 2014, alleged stockholders of the Company filed a putative class-action lawsuit against the Company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware relating to the terminated Apollo transaction. That lawsuit, captioned OFI Risk Arbitrages, et al. v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., et al., No. 1:14-cv-00068-LPS, generally alleges that the Company and certain officers violated the federal securities laws by issuing allegedly misleading disclosures in connection with the terminated transaction and seeks, among other things, damages. The Company and its officers believe that the allegations against them lack merit and intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. The Company regularly reviews the probable outcome of such legal proceedings, the expenses expected to be incurred, the availability and limits of the insurance coverage, and accrues for these proceedings at the time a loss is probable and the amount of the loss can be estimated. The outcome of these pending proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty and an estimate of any such loss cannot be made at this time. The Company believes that based upon information currently available, any liabilities that may result from these proceedings are not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s liquidity, financial condition or results of operations. *Stockholder Derivative Litigation* On February 24, March 6, and April 17, 2014, purported stockholders of the Company filed derivative actions on behalf of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio and the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against certain current officers and employees and the then current members of the Company’s board of directors. The lawsuits have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and consolidated under the caption Fitzgerald v. Armes, et al., No. 1:14-cv-479 (D. Del.). The Company is named as a nominal defendant in the lawsuits, and the lawsuits seek recovery for the benefit of the Company. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by issuing allegedly misleading disclosures in connection with the terminated merger transaction and that the defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by means of the same allegedly misleading disclosures. The plaintiffs also assert claims for waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, “gross mismanagement” and “abuse of control.” The complaints seek, among other things, unspecified money damages from the defendants, injunctive relief and an award of attorney’s fees. A purported shareholder of the Company has also submitted a demand to the Company’s board of directors that it cause the Company to bring claims against certain of the Company’s officers and directors for the matters alleged in the shareholder derivative lawsuits. The Company regularly reviews the probable outcome of such legal proceedings, the expenses expected to be incurred, the availability and limits of the insurance coverage, and accrues for such legal proceedings at the time a loss is probable and the amount of the loss can be estimated. These cases do not assert claims against the Company. The outcome of these pending proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty and an estimate of any loss cannot be made at this time. The Company believes that based upon information currently available, any liabilities that may result from these proceedings are not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s liquidity, financial condition or results of operations. *Other Litigation* In addition to the proceedings described above, the Company is involved in various other legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company regularly reviews the probable outcome of these proceedings, the expenses expected to be incurred, the availability and limits of the insurance coverage, and accrues for these proceedings at the time a loss is probable and the amount of the loss can be estimated. Although the outcome of these pending proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty and an estimate of any such loss cannot be made, the Company believes that any liabilities that may result from these proceedings are not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s liquidity, financial condition or results of operations. 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, 2014, approximately 38% 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 $77,781 at December 31, 2014.

Note 19 - Contingent Liabilities

Litigation

Products Liability 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.

The fact that the Company is a defendant in products liability lawsuits is not surprising given the current litigation climate, which is largely confined to the United States. However, the fact that the Company is subject to claims does not indicate that there is a quality issue with the Company’s tires. The Company sells approximately 30 to 35 million passenger, light truck, SUV, radial medium truck and motorcycle tires per year in North America. The Company estimates that approximately 300 million Company-produced tires – made up of thousands of different specifications – are still on the road in North America. While tire disablements do occur, it is the Company’s and the tire industry’s experience that the vast majority of tire failures relate to service-related conditions, which are entirely out of the Company’s control – such as failure to maintain proper tire pressure, improper maintenance, road hazard and excessive speed.

The Company accrues costs for products liability at the time a loss is probable and the amount of loss can be estimated. The Company believes the probability of loss can be established and the amount of loss can be estimated only after certain minimum information is available, including verification that Company-produced products were involved in the incident giving rise to the claim, the condition of the product purported to be involved in the claim, the nature of the incident giving rise to the claim and the extent of the purported injury or damages. In cases where such information is known, each products liability claim is evaluated based on its specific facts and circumstances. A judgment is then made to determine the requirement for establishment or revision of an accrual for any potential liability. The liability often cannot be determined with precision until the claim is resolved.

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.

During 2013, the Company increased its products liability reserve by $60,091. The addition of another year of self-insured incidents accounted for $50,436 of this increase. The Company revised its estimates of future settlements for unasserted and premature claims. These revisions increased the reserve by $8,298. Finally, changes in the amount of reserves for cases where sufficient information is known to estimate a liability increased by $1,357.

During 2014, the Company increased its products liability reserve by $47,609. The addition of another year of self-insured incidents accounted for $49,324 of this increase. The Company revised its estimates of future settlements for unasserted and premature claims. These revisions decreased the reserve by $179. Finally, changes in the amount of reserves for cases where sufficient information is known to estimate a liability decreased by $1,536.

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 2013, the Company paid $76,927 to resolve cases and claims. The Company’s products liability reserve balance at December 31, 2013 totaled $189,513 (current portion of $70,472).

During 2014, the Company paid $58,231 to resolve cases and claims. The Company’s products liability reserve balance at December 31, 2014 totaled $178,891 (current portion of $69,892).

Products liability expenses totaled $103,610, $89,044 and $78,143 in 2012, 2013 and 2014, respectively.

Products liability expenses are included in cost of goods sold in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income.

Certain Litigation Related to the Apollo Merger

Following the announcement of the proposed acquisition of the Company by wholly owned subsidiaries of Apollo Tyres Ltd. (the “Apollo entities”) in June 2013, alleged stockholders of the Company filed putative class action lawsuits in state courts in Delaware and Ohio. These lawsuits, captioned In re Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. Stockholders Litigation, No. 9658 VCL and Auld v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., et al., No. 2013 CV 293, alleged that the directors of the Company breached their fiduciary duties to the Company’s stockholders by agreeing to enter into the proposed transaction for an allegedly unfair price and as the result of an allegedly unfair process. The lawsuits sought, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief. On December 30, 2013, the Company terminated the merger agreement with the Apollo entities. Following the termination of the merger agreement, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the Delaware and Ohio lawsuits in April 2014.

On October 4, 2013, the Company filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Cooper Tire Co. v. Apollo (Mauritius) Holdings Pvt. Ltd., et al., No. 8980- VCG, asking that the Apollo entities be required to use their reasonable efforts to close the then pending merger transaction as expeditiously as possible and also seeking, among other things, declaratory relief and damages. On October 14, 2013, the Apollo entities filed counterclaims against the Company seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.

On October 31, 2014, the court granted Apollo’s motion for declaratory judgment that the conditions to closing the then pending transaction were not satisfied before the November 2013 trial. On November 26, 2014, the Company appealed the Chancery Court’s decision to the Delaware Supreme Court. On December 3, 2014, the parties reached an agreement to dismiss the appeal and the underlying action, acknowledge the termination of the Merger Agreement, and to release all claims relating to the Merger Agreement, subject to the dismissal of the action. On December 17, 2014, the Company dismissed the appeal and the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal of the underlying action.

Federal Securities Litigation

On January 17, 2014, alleged stockholders of the Company filed a putative class-action lawsuit against the Company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware relating to the terminated Apollo transaction. That lawsuit, captioned OFI Risk Arbitrages, et al. v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., et al., No. 1:14-cv-00068-LPS, generally alleges that the Company and certain officers violated the federal securities laws by issuing allegedly misleading disclosures in connection with the terminated transaction and seeks, among other things, damages. The Company and its officers believe that the allegations against them lack merit and intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

The Company regularly reviews the probable outcome of such legal proceedings, the expenses expected to be incurred, the availability and limits of the insurance coverage, and accrues for these proceedings at the time a loss is probable and the amount of the loss can be estimated.

The outcome of these pending proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty and an estimate of any such loss cannot be made at this time. The Company believes that based upon information currently available, any liabilities that may result from these proceedings are not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s liquidity, financial condition or results of operations.

Stockholder Derivative Litigation

On February 24, March 6, and April 17, 2014, purported stockholders of the Company filed derivative actions on behalf of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio and the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against certain current officers and employees and the then current members of the Company’s board of directors. The lawsuits have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and consolidated under the caption Fitzgerald v. Armes, et al., No. 1:14-cv-479 (D. Del.). The Company is named as a nominal defendant in the lawsuits, and the lawsuits seek recovery for the benefit of the Company. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by issuing allegedly misleading disclosures in connection with the terminated merger transaction and that the defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by means of the same allegedly misleading disclosures. The plaintiffs also assert claims for waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, “gross mismanagement” and “abuse of control.” The complaints seek, among other things, unspecified money damages from the defendants, injunctive relief and an award of attorney’s fees. A purported shareholder of the Company has also submitted a demand to the Company’s board of directors that it cause the Company to bring claims against certain of the Company’s officers and directors for the matters alleged in the shareholder derivative lawsuits.

The Company regularly reviews the probable outcome of such legal proceedings, the expenses expected to be incurred, the availability and limits of the insurance coverage, and accrues for such legal proceedings at the time a loss is probable and the amount of the loss can be estimated.

These cases do not assert claims against the Company. The outcome of these pending proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty and an estimate of any loss cannot be made at this time. The Company believes that based upon information currently available, any liabilities that may result from these proceedings are not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s liquidity, financial condition or results of operations.

Other Litigation

In addition to the proceedings described above, the Company is involved in various other legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company regularly reviews the probable outcome of these proceedings, the expenses expected to be incurred, the availability and limits of the insurance coverage, and accrues for these proceedings at the time a loss is probable and the amount of the loss can be estimated. Although the outcome of these pending proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty and an estimate of any such loss cannot be made, the Company believes that any liabilities that may result from these proceedings are not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s liquidity, financial condition or results of operations.

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, 2014, approximately 38% 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 $77,781 at December 31, 2014.