Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies [Text Block]	Commitments and Contingencies Asbestos personal injury liabilities — As part of our reorganization in 2008, assets and liabilities associated with personal injury asbestos claims were retained in Dana Corporation which was then merged into Dana Companies, LLC (DCLLC), a consolidated wholly-owned limited liability company. The assets of DCLLC include insurance rights relating to coverage against these liabilities, marketable securities and other assets which are considered sufficient to satisfy its liabilities. DCLLC had approximately 25,000 active pending asbestos personal injury liability claims at both September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015. DCLLC had accrued $73 for indemnity and defense costs for settled, pending and future claims at September 30, 2016, compared to $78 at December 31, 2015. A fifteen-year time horizon was used to estimate the value of this liability. In addition to claims and litigation experience, we consider additional qualitative and quantitative factors such as changes in legislation, the legal environment, our strategy in managing claims and obtaining insurance, including our defense strategy, and health related trends in the overall population of individuals potentially exposed to asbestos in determining whether a change in the estimate of its liability for pending and future claims and defense costs or insurance assets is warranted. At September 30, 2016, DCLLC had recorded $48 as an asset for probable recovery from insurers for the pending and projected asbestos personal injury liability claims, compared to $51 recorded at December 31, 2015. The recorded asset represents our assessment of the capacity of our current insurance agreements to provide for the payment of anticipated defense and indemnity costs for pending claims and projected future demands. The recognition of these recoveries is based on our assessment of our right to recover under the respective contracts and on the financial strength of the insurers. DCLLC has coverage agreements in place with insurers confirming substantially all of the related coverage and payments are being received on a timely basis. The financial strength of these insurers is reviewed at least annually with the assistance of a third party. The recorded asset does not represent the limits of the insurance coverage, but rather the amount DCLLC would expect to recover if the accrued indemnity and defense costs were paid in full. DCLLC continues to process asbestos personal injury claims in the normal course of business, is separately managed and has an independent board member. The independent board member is required to approve certain transactions including dividends or other transfers of $1 or more of value to Dana. Dana Incorporated has no obligation to increase its investment in or otherwise support DCLLC. Other product liabilities — We had accrued $4 and $1 for non-asbestos product liability costs at September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015 and a $4 expected recovery from third parties at September 30, 2016. The increases in the liability and recoverable amounts at September 30, 2016 reflect the recognition of the estimated cost, net of payments made, and the expected recovery of an insured matter. We estimate these liabilities based on assumptions about the value of the claims and about the likelihood of recoveries against us derived from our historical experience and current information. Environmental liabilities — Accrued environmental liabilities were $9 at September 30, 2016 and $11 at December 31, 2015. We consider the most probable method of remediation, current laws and regulations and existing technology in estimating our environmental liabilities. Guarantee of lease obligations — In connection with the divestiture of our Structural Products business in 2010, leases covering three U.S. facilities were assigned to a U.S. affiliate of Metalsa. Under the terms of the sale agreement, we will guarantee the affiliate’s performance under the leases, which run through June 2025, including approximately $6 of annual payments. In the event of a required payment by Dana as guarantor, we are entitled to pursue full recovery from Metalsa of the amounts paid under the guarantee and to take possession of the leased property. Other legal matters — We are subject to various pending or threatened legal proceedings arising out of the normal course of business or operations. In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of such matters, we cannot state what the eventual outcome of these matters will be. However, based on current knowledge and after consultation with legal counsel, we believe that any liabilities that may result from these proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on our liquidity, financial condition or results of operations. In November 2013, we received an arbitration notice from Sypris Solutions, Inc. (Sypris), formerly our largest supplier, alleging damage claims under the long-term supply agreement that expired on December 31, 2014. The arbitration proceedings related to these claims concluded in the second quarter of 2015 with Sypris being awarded immaterial damages. Sypris also alleged that Dana and Sypris entered into a new binding long-term supply agreement in July 2013. Dana filed suit against Sypris requesting declaratory judgment that the parties did not enter into a new supply agreement. During the first quarter of 2015, the court granted summary judgment in Dana’s favor, rejecting Sypris’ position that a new contract was formed in July 2013. The Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals upheld the summary judgment ruling in December 2015 and that decision is no longer subject to appeal. We have been advised that Sypris will not pursue its claim that Dana failed to negotiate in good faith under the 2007 agreement. On September 25, 2015, the Brazilian antitrust authority (“CADE”) announced an investigation of an alleged cartel involving a former Dana business in Brazil and various competitors related to sales of shock absorbers between 2000 and 2014. We divested this business as a part of the sale of our aftermarket business in 2004. The investigation of Dana's involvement in this matter concluded in the second quarter of 2016 without a material impact on Dana.

Commitments and Contingencies

Asbestos personal injury liabilities — As part of our reorganization in 2008, assets and liabilities associated with personal injury asbestos claims were retained in Dana Corporation which was then merged into Dana Companies, LLC (DCLLC), a consolidated wholly-owned limited liability company. The assets of DCLLC include insurance rights relating to coverage against these liabilities, marketable securities and other assets which are considered sufficient to satisfy its liabilities. DCLLC had approximately 25,000 active pending asbestos personal injury liability claims at both September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015. DCLLC had accrued $73 for indemnity and defense costs for settled, pending and future claims at September 30, 2016, compared to $78 at December 31, 2015. A fifteen-year time horizon was used to estimate the value of this liability. In addition to claims and litigation experience, we consider additional qualitative and quantitative factors such as changes in legislation, the legal environment, our strategy in managing claims and obtaining insurance, including our defense strategy, and health related trends in the overall population of individuals potentially exposed to asbestos in determining whether a change in the estimate of its liability for pending and future claims and defense costs or insurance assets is warranted.

At September 30, 2016, DCLLC had recorded $48 as an asset for probable recovery from insurers for the pending and projected asbestos personal injury liability claims, compared to $51 recorded at December 31, 2015. The recorded asset represents our assessment of the capacity of our current insurance agreements to provide for the payment of anticipated defense and indemnity costs for pending claims and projected future demands. The recognition of these recoveries is based on our assessment of our right to recover under the respective contracts and on the financial strength of the insurers. DCLLC has coverage agreements in place with insurers confirming substantially all of the related coverage and payments are being received on a timely basis. The financial strength of these insurers is reviewed at least annually with the assistance of a third party. The recorded asset does not represent the limits of the insurance coverage, but rather the amount DCLLC would expect to recover if the accrued indemnity and defense costs were paid in full.

DCLLC continues to process asbestos personal injury claims in the normal course of business, is separately managed and has an independent board member. The independent board member is required to approve certain transactions including dividends or other transfers of $1 or more of value to Dana. Dana Incorporated has no obligation to increase its investment in or otherwise support DCLLC.

Other product liabilities — We had accrued $4 and $1 for non-asbestos product liability costs at September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015 and a $4 expected recovery from third parties at September 30, 2016. The increases in the liability and recoverable amounts at September 30, 2016 reflect the recognition of the estimated cost, net of payments made, and the expected recovery of an insured matter. We estimate these liabilities based on assumptions about the value of the claims and about the likelihood of recoveries against us derived from our historical experience and current information.

Environmental liabilities — Accrued environmental liabilities were $9 at September 30, 2016 and $11 at December 31, 2015. We consider the most probable method of remediation, current laws and regulations and existing technology in estimating our environmental liabilities.

Guarantee of lease obligations — In connection with the divestiture of our Structural Products business in 2010, leases covering three U.S. facilities were assigned to a U.S. affiliate of Metalsa. Under the terms of the sale agreement, we will guarantee the affiliate’s performance under the leases, which run through June 2025, including approximately $6 of annual payments. In the event of a required payment by Dana as guarantor, we are entitled to pursue full recovery from Metalsa of the amounts paid under the guarantee and to take possession of the leased property.

Other legal matters — We are subject to various pending or threatened legal proceedings arising out of the normal course of business or operations. In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of such matters, we cannot state what the eventual outcome of these matters will be. However, based on current knowledge and after consultation with legal counsel, we believe that any liabilities that may result from these proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on our liquidity, financial condition or results of operations.

In November 2013, we received an arbitration notice from Sypris Solutions, Inc. (Sypris), formerly our largest supplier, alleging damage claims under the long-term supply agreement that expired on December 31, 2014. The arbitration proceedings related to these claims concluded in the second quarter of 2015 with Sypris being awarded immaterial damages. Sypris also alleged that Dana and Sypris entered into a new binding long-term supply agreement in July 2013. Dana filed suit against Sypris requesting declaratory judgment that the parties did not enter into a new supply agreement. During the first quarter of 2015, the court granted summary judgment in Dana’s favor, rejecting Sypris’ position that a new contract was formed in July 2013. The Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals upheld the summary judgment ruling in December 2015 and that decision is no longer subject to appeal. We have been advised that Sypris will not pursue its claim that Dana failed to negotiate in good faith under the 2007 agreement.

On September 25, 2015, the Brazilian antitrust authority (“CADE”) announced an investigation of an alleged cartel involving a former Dana business in Brazil and various competitors related to sales of shock absorbers between 2000 and 2014. We divested this business as a part of the sale of our aftermarket business in 2004. The investigation of Dana's involvement in this matter concluded in the second quarter of 2016 without a material impact on Dana.