Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	Contingencies We are a party to various legal actions and government investigations. The most significant of these are described below. It is not possible to determine the outcome of these matters, and we cannot reasonably estimate the maximum potential exposure or the range of possible loss in excess of amounts accrued for any of these matters; however, we believe that, except as noted below with respect to the Alimta^® patent litigation and administrative proceedings, the resolution of all such matters will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or liquidity, but could possibly be material to our consolidated results of operations in any one accounting period. Litigation accruals, environmental liabilities, and the related estimated insurance recoverables are reflected on a gross basis as liabilities and assets, respectively, on our consolidated balance sheets. With respect to the product liability claims currently asserted against us, we have accrued for our estimated exposures to the extent they are both probable and reasonably estimable based on the information available to us. We accrue for certain product liability claims incurred but not filed to the extent we can formulate a reasonable estimate of their costs. We estimate these expenses based primarily on historical claims experience and data regarding product usage. Legal defense costs expected to be incurred in connection with significant product liability loss contingencies are accrued when both probable and reasonably estimable. Alimta Patent Litigation and Administrative Proceedings A number of generic manufacturers are seeking approvals in the U.S., Japan, and a number of countries in Europe to market generic forms of Alimta prior to the expiration of our vitamin regimen patents, alleging that those patents are invalid, not infringed, or both. We believe our Alimta vitamin regimen patents are valid and enforceable against these generic manufacturers. However, it is not possible to determine the ultimate outcome of the proceedings, and accordingly, we can provide no assurance that we will prevail. An unfavorable outcome could have a material adverse impact on our future consolidated results of operations, liquidity, and financial position. We expect that a loss of exclusivity for Alimta would result in a rapid and severe decline in future revenue for the product in the relevant market. U.S. Patent Litigation and Administrative Proceedings In the U.S., more than 10 Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) seeking approval to market generic versions of Alimta prior to the expiration of our vitamin regimen patent (expiring in 2021 plus pediatric exclusivity expiring in 2022) have been filed by a number of companies, including Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc. (Teva) and APP Pharmaceuticals, LLC (APP) pursuant to procedures set out in the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (the Hatch-Waxman Act). We have received favorable decisions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (affirming the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana’s decisions finding our U.S. vitamin regimen patent valid and infringed) against Teva, APP and two other defendants’ proposed products, and similar favorable judgments have been entered by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against five other companies. The remaining ANDA applicants have agreed to a stay pending the appeal of the inter partes review (IPR) described below. In October 2017, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued written decisions in our favor following IPR of our vitamin regimen patent, finding that the generic company petitioners failed to show that the claims in our patent are unpatentable. A number of these challengers have filed an appeal. We currently have pending lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana alleging infringement against Dr. Reddy's Laboratories (Dr. Reddy), Hospira, Inc. (Hospira), Actavis LLC, and Apotex Inc. in response to their alternative forms of pemetrexed products, and a similar lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for Delaware against Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The trial against Dr. Reddy completed in February 2018 and we expect a decision in mid-2018. The trial against Hospira is scheduled for December 2018. European Patent Litigation and Administrative Proceedings In July 2017, the U.K. Supreme Court ruled that commercialization of certain salt forms of pemetrexed (the active ingredient in Alimta), including pemetrexed products diluted in saline or dextrose, by Actavis Group ehf and other Actavis companies (collectively, Actavis) directly infringe our vitamin regimen patents in the U.K., Italy, France, and Spain. In February 2016, the U.K. High Court ruled that Actavis’ commercialization of a different proposed product diluted in dextrose solution would not infringe the patent in the U.K., Italy, France, and Spain. This case has now been superseded by the U.K. Supreme Court's decision. In June 2016, the German Federal Supreme Court granted our appeal against certain Actavis companies, vacating the prior German Court of Appeal’s ruling that our vitamin regimen patent in Germany would not be infringed by a dipotassium salt form of pemetrexed, and returned the case to the Court of Appeal to reconsider issues relating to infringement. In separate proceedings in May 2016 and June 2016, the German courts confirmed preliminary injunctions against Hexal AG (Hexal), which had stated its intention to launch a generic disodium salt product diluted in saline solution in Germany, and ratiopharm GmbH (ratiopharm), a subsidiary of Teva, which had stated its intention to launch a proposed alternative salt form of pemetrexed product diluted in dextrose solution. The German Court of Appeal affirmed the preliminary injunction against ratiopharm in May 2017. The preliminary injunction against Hexal was not appealed. The preliminary injunctions against both Hexal and ratiopharm will remain in place pending the outcome of the cases on the merits. In late 2016, the German courts issued preliminary injunctions against two other companies that had stated their intentions to launch a proposed alternative salt form of pemetrexed product diluted in dextrose solution. Hexal, Stada Arzneimittel AG and ratiopharm have separately challenged the validity of our vitamin regimen patent before the German Federal Patent court. The hearing will take place in mid-2018. We do not anticipate any generic entry into the German market at least until either the Court of Appeal considers the issues remanded by the German Federal Supreme Court in the proceedings against Actavis, or if the injunctions are lifted. Additional legal proceedings are ongoing in various national courts of other European countries. We are aware that generic competitors have received approval to market generic versions of pemetrexed in major European markets, and that a generic product is currently on the market in France. In the light of the U.K. Supreme Court judgment finding infringement in the U.K., France, Italy and Spain, Actavis has withdrawn its previously launched-at-risk generic products from these markets. We will continue to seek to remove any generic pemetrexed products launched at risk in European markets and defend the patent against validity challenges. Japanese Administrative Proceedings Three separate sets of demands for invalidation of our two vitamin regimen patents, involving several companies, have been filed with the Japanese Patent Office (JPO). In February 2017, the Japan Intellectual Property High Court confirmed the decisions of the JPO upholding the validity of both our vitamin regime patents in the challenge initiated by Sawai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and joined by three other companies. This decision is now final. In May 2017, the JPO resumed one of the two remaining sets of demands, brought by Nipro Corporation (Nipro). A decision from the JPO on the Nipro demand for invalidation is expected mid-2018. The other set of demands, brought by Hospira USA and Hospira Inc., remains suspended. If upheld through all challenges, these patents provide intellectual property protection for Alimta until June 2021. Notwithstanding our patents, generic versions of Alimta were approved in Japan starting in February 2016. We do not currently anticipate that generic versions of Alimta will proceed to pricing approval. Effient Patent Litigation and Administrative Proceedings We, along with Daiichi Sankyo, Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., and Ube Industries (Ube) are engaged in U.S. patent litigation involving Effient brought pursuant to procedures set out in the Hatch-Waxman Act. More than 10 different companies have submitted ANDAs seeking approval to market generic versions of Effient prior to the expiration of Daiichi Sankyo’s and Ube’s patents (expiring in 2023) covering methods of using Effient with aspirin, and alleging the patents are invalid. Beginning in March 2014, we filed lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against these companies, seeking a ruling that the patents are valid and infringed. We entered into a settlement related to the compound patent challenge and following which settlement, generic products launched in the U.S. in the third quarter of 2017. The remaining cases have been consolidated and stayed. The entry of generic competition has caused a rapid and severe decline in revenue for the product. In 2015, several generic pharmaceutical companies filed petitions with the USPTO, requesting IPR of the method-of-use patents. In September 2016, the USPTO determined that the method-of-use patents are invalid. In December 2017, the U.S. court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the USPTO’s decisions. Daiichi Sankyo and Ube filed a request for reconsideration. The consolidated lawsuit is currently stayed with respect to all parties pending the outcome of this appeal. We believe the Effient method-of-use patents are valid and enforceable against these generic manufacturers. However, it is not possible to determine the outcome of the proceedings, and accordingly, we can provide no assurance that we will prevail. Actos^® Product Liability Litigation We were named along with Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd. and Takeda affiliates (collectively, Takeda) as a defendant in approximately 6,700 product liability cases in the U.S. related to the diabetes medication Actos, which we co-promoted with Takeda in the U.S. from 1999 until 2006. In general, plaintiffs in these actions alleged that Actos caused or contributed to their bladder cancer. Almost all of these cases were included as part of a resolution program announced by Takeda in April 2015 in which Takeda has paid approximately $2.4 billion to resolve the vast majority of the U.S. product liability lawsuits involving Actos. Although the vast majority of U.S. product liability lawsuits involving Actos are included in the resolution program, there may be additional cases pending against Takeda and us following completion of the resolution program. We are also named along with Takeda as a defendant in three purported product liability class actions in Canada related to Actos, including one in Ontario (Casseres et al. v. Takeda Pharmaceutical North America, Inc., et al. and Carrier et al. v. Eli Lilly et al.), one in Quebec (Whyte et al. v. Eli Lilly et al.), and one in Alberta (Epp v. Takeda Canada et al.). We promoted Actos in Canada until 2009. We believe these lawsuits are without merit, and we and Takeda are prepared to defend against them vigorously. Cymbalta^® Product Liability Litigation We were named as a defendant in a purported class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (now called Strafford et al. v. Eli Lilly and Company) involving Cymbalta. The plaintiffs, purporting to represent a class of all persons within the U.S. who purchased and/or paid for Cymbalta, asserted claims under the consumer protection statutes of four states, California, Massachusetts, Missouri, and New York, and sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief for various alleged economic injuries arising from discontinuing treatment with Cymbalta. In December 2014, the district court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Plaintiffs filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit requesting permission to file an interlocutory appeal of the denial of class certification, which was denied. Plaintiffs filed a second motion for certification under the consumer protection acts of New York and Massachusetts. The district court denied that motion for class certification in July 2015. The district court dismissed the suits and plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In June 2017, we moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction based on the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Microsoft v. Baker. In November 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed the suit. Plaintiffs continue to contest the dismissal. We are named in approximately 140 lawsuits involving approximately 1,470 plaintiffs filed in various federal and state courts alleging injuries arising from discontinuation of treatment with Cymbalta. These include approximately 40 individual and multi-plaintiff cases filed in California state court, centralized in a California Judicial Counsel Coordination Proceeding pending in Los Angeles. The first individual product liability cases were tried in August 2015 and resulted in defense verdicts against four plaintiffs. We believe all these Cymbalta lawsuits and claims are without merit. We have reached a settlement framework that provides for a comprehensive resolution of nearly all of these personal injury claims, filed or unfiled, alleging injuries from discontinuing treatment with Cymbalta. There can be no assurances, however, that a final settlement will be reached. Brazil–Employee Litigation Our subsidiary in Brazil, Eli Lilly do Brasil Limitada (Lilly Brasil), is named in a lawsuit brought by the Labor Attorney for 15th Region in the Labor Court of Paulinia, State of Sao Paulo, Brazil, alleging possible harm to employees and former employees caused by exposure to heavy metals at a former Lilly manufacturing facility in Cosmopolis, Brazil, operated by the company between 1977 and 2003. The plaintiffs allege that some employees at the facility were exposed to benzene and heavy metals; however, Lilly Brasil maintains that these alleged contaminants were never used in the facility. In May 2014, the labor court judge ruled against Lilly Brasil. The judge's ruling orders Lilly Brasil to undertake several actions of unspecified financial impact, including paying lifetime medical insurance for the employees and contractors who worked at the Cosmopolis facility more than six months during the affected years and their children born during and after this period. While we cannot currently estimate the range of reasonably possible financial losses that could arise in the event we do not ultimately prevail in the litigation, the judge has estimated the total financial impact of the ruling to be approximately 1.0 billion Brazilian real (approximately $300 million as of December 31, 2017) plus interest. We strongly disagree with the decision and filed an appeal in May 2014. We expect ruling on this appeal before the end of 2018. We are also named in approximately 30 lawsuits filed in the same court by individual former employees making similar claims. Lilly Brasil and Elanco Quimica Ltda. have been named in a lawsuit involving approximately 305 individuals alleging that the companies failed to provide warnings regarding exposure to heavy metals or proper equipment at the former Cosmopolis facility, and that this alleged failure could result in possible harm to employees, former employees, and their dependents. In June 2017, the court denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction. In September 2017, the court dismissed the claims brought by all but the first named plaintiff. The plaintiffs are appealing that decision. Lilly Brasil and Elanco Quimica Ltda. have also been named in a separate lawsuit involving approximately 105 individuals alleging that the companies failed to provide warnings regarding exposure to heavy metals or proper equipment at the former Cosmopolis facility, and that this alleged failure could result in possible harm to contractors and suppliers, and their dependents. In November 2017, the court dismissed the claims brought by all but the first named plaintiff. We believe all of these lawsuits are without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously. Agri Stats, Inc. Agri Stats, Inc., our subsidiary, has been named as a co-defendant in four antitrust suits, including one putative class-action, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiffs consist of private direct and indirect purchasers of broiler chickens who allege that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to limit U.S. chicken production and inflate prices. We believe these claims are without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously. Product Liability Insurance Because of the nature of pharmaceutical products, it is possible that we could become subject to large numbers of product liability and related claims in the future. Due to a very restrictive market for product liability insurance, we are self-insured for product liability losses for all our currently marketed products.

Contingencies

We are a party to various legal actions and government investigations. The most significant of these are described below. It is not possible to determine the outcome of these matters, and we cannot reasonably estimate the maximum potential exposure or the range of possible loss in excess of amounts accrued for any of these matters; however, we believe that, except as noted below with respect to the Alimta^® patent litigation and administrative proceedings, the resolution of all such matters will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or liquidity, but could possibly be material to our consolidated results of operations in any one accounting period.

Litigation accruals, environmental liabilities, and the related estimated insurance recoverables are reflected on a gross basis as liabilities and assets, respectively, on our consolidated balance sheets. With respect to the product liability claims currently asserted against us, we have accrued for our estimated exposures to the extent they are both probable and reasonably estimable based on the information available to us. We accrue for certain product liability claims incurred but not filed to the extent we can formulate a reasonable estimate of their costs. We estimate these expenses based primarily on historical claims experience and data regarding product usage. Legal defense costs expected to be incurred in connection with significant product liability loss contingencies are accrued when both probable and reasonably estimable.

Alimta Patent Litigation and Administrative Proceedings

A number of generic manufacturers are seeking approvals in the U.S., Japan, and a number of countries in Europe to market generic forms of Alimta prior to the expiration of our vitamin regimen patents, alleging that those patents are invalid, not infringed, or both. We believe our Alimta vitamin regimen patents are valid and enforceable against these generic manufacturers. However, it is not possible to determine the ultimate outcome of the proceedings, and accordingly, we can provide no assurance that we will prevail. An unfavorable outcome could have a material adverse impact on our future consolidated results of operations, liquidity, and financial position. We expect that a loss of exclusivity for Alimta would result in a rapid and severe decline in future revenue for the product in the relevant market.

U.S. Patent Litigation and Administrative Proceedings

In the U.S., more than 10 Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) seeking approval to market generic versions of Alimta prior to the expiration of our vitamin regimen patent (expiring in 2021 plus pediatric exclusivity expiring in 2022) have been filed by a number of companies, including Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc. (Teva) and APP Pharmaceuticals, LLC (APP) pursuant to procedures set out in the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (the Hatch-Waxman Act). We have received favorable decisions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (affirming the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana’s decisions finding our U.S. vitamin regimen patent valid and infringed) against Teva, APP and two other defendants’ proposed products, and similar favorable judgments have been entered by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against five other companies. The remaining ANDA applicants have agreed to a stay pending the appeal of the inter partes review (IPR) described below. In October 2017, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued written decisions in our favor following IPR of our vitamin regimen patent, finding that the generic company petitioners failed to show that the claims in our patent are unpatentable. A number of these challengers have filed an appeal.

We currently have pending lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana alleging infringement against Dr. Reddy's Laboratories (Dr. Reddy), Hospira, Inc. (Hospira), Actavis LLC, and Apotex Inc. in response to their alternative forms of pemetrexed products, and a similar lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for Delaware against Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The trial against Dr. Reddy completed in February 2018 and we expect a decision in mid-2018. The trial against Hospira is scheduled for December 2018.

European Patent Litigation and Administrative Proceedings

In July 2017, the U.K. Supreme Court ruled that commercialization of certain salt forms of pemetrexed (the active ingredient in Alimta), including pemetrexed products diluted in saline or dextrose, by Actavis Group ehf and other Actavis companies (collectively, Actavis) directly infringe our vitamin regimen patents in the U.K., Italy, France, and Spain. In February 2016, the U.K. High Court ruled that Actavis’ commercialization of a different proposed product diluted in dextrose solution would not infringe the patent in the U.K., Italy, France, and Spain. This case has now been superseded by the U.K. Supreme Court's decision.

In June 2016, the German Federal Supreme Court granted our appeal against certain Actavis companies, vacating the prior German Court of Appeal’s ruling that our vitamin regimen patent in Germany would not be infringed by a dipotassium salt form of pemetrexed, and returned the case to the Court of Appeal to reconsider issues relating to infringement.

In separate proceedings in May 2016 and June 2016, the German courts confirmed preliminary injunctions against Hexal AG (Hexal), which had stated its intention to launch a generic disodium salt product diluted in saline solution in Germany, and ratiopharm GmbH (ratiopharm), a subsidiary of Teva, which had stated its intention to launch a proposed alternative salt form of pemetrexed product diluted in dextrose solution. The German Court of Appeal affirmed the preliminary injunction against ratiopharm in May 2017. The preliminary injunction against Hexal was not appealed. The preliminary injunctions against both Hexal and ratiopharm will remain in place pending the outcome of the cases on the merits. In late 2016, the German courts issued preliminary injunctions against two other companies that had stated their intentions to launch a proposed alternative salt form of pemetrexed product diluted in dextrose solution. Hexal, Stada Arzneimittel AG and ratiopharm have separately challenged the validity of our vitamin regimen patent before the German Federal Patent court. The hearing will take place in mid-2018. We do not anticipate any generic entry into the German market at least until either the Court of Appeal considers the issues remanded by the German Federal Supreme Court in the proceedings against Actavis, or if the injunctions are lifted.

Additional legal proceedings are ongoing in various national courts of other European countries. We are aware that generic competitors have received approval to market generic versions of pemetrexed in major European markets, and that a generic product is currently on the market in France. In the light of the U.K. Supreme Court judgment finding infringement in the U.K., France, Italy and Spain, Actavis has withdrawn its previously launched-at-risk generic products from these markets. We will continue to seek to remove any generic pemetrexed products launched at risk in European markets and defend the patent against validity challenges.

Japanese Administrative Proceedings

Three separate sets of demands for invalidation of our two vitamin regimen patents, involving several companies, have been filed with the Japanese Patent Office (JPO). In February 2017, the Japan Intellectual Property High Court confirmed the decisions of the JPO upholding the validity of both our vitamin regime patents in the challenge initiated by Sawai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and joined by three other companies. This decision is now final. In May 2017, the JPO resumed one of the two remaining sets of demands, brought by Nipro Corporation (Nipro). A decision from the JPO on the Nipro demand for invalidation is expected mid-2018. The other set of demands, brought by Hospira USA and Hospira Inc., remains suspended. If upheld through all challenges, these patents provide intellectual property protection for Alimta until June 2021. Notwithstanding our patents, generic versions of Alimta were approved in Japan starting in February 2016. We do not currently anticipate that generic versions of Alimta will proceed to pricing approval.

Effient Patent Litigation and Administrative Proceedings

We, along with Daiichi Sankyo, Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., and Ube Industries (Ube) are engaged in U.S. patent litigation involving Effient brought pursuant to procedures set out in the Hatch-Waxman Act. More than 10 different companies have submitted ANDAs seeking approval to market generic versions of Effient prior to the expiration of Daiichi Sankyo’s and Ube’s patents (expiring in 2023) covering methods of using Effient with aspirin, and alleging the patents are invalid. Beginning in March 2014, we filed lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against these companies, seeking a ruling that the patents are valid and infringed. We entered into a settlement related to the compound patent challenge and following which settlement, generic products launched in the U.S. in the third quarter of 2017. The remaining cases have been consolidated and stayed. The entry of generic competition has caused a rapid and severe decline in revenue for the product.

In 2015, several generic pharmaceutical companies filed petitions with the USPTO, requesting IPR of the method-of-use patents. In September 2016, the USPTO determined that the method-of-use patents are invalid. In December 2017, the U.S. court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the USPTO’s decisions. Daiichi Sankyo and Ube filed a request for reconsideration. The consolidated lawsuit is currently stayed with respect to all parties pending the outcome of this appeal.

We believe the Effient method-of-use patents are valid and enforceable against these generic manufacturers. However, it is not possible to determine the outcome of the proceedings, and accordingly, we can provide no assurance that we will prevail.

Actos^® Product Liability Litigation

We were named along with Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd. and Takeda affiliates (collectively, Takeda) as a defendant in approximately 6,700 product liability cases in the U.S. related to the diabetes medication Actos, which we co-promoted with Takeda in the U.S. from 1999 until 2006. In general, plaintiffs in these actions alleged that Actos caused or contributed to their bladder cancer. Almost all of these cases were included as part of a resolution program announced by Takeda in April 2015 in which Takeda has paid approximately $2.4 billion to resolve the vast majority of the U.S. product liability lawsuits involving Actos. Although the vast majority of U.S. product liability lawsuits involving Actos are included in the resolution program, there may be additional cases pending against Takeda and us following completion of the resolution program.

We are also named along with Takeda as a defendant in three purported product liability class actions in Canada related to Actos, including one in Ontario (Casseres et al. v. Takeda Pharmaceutical North America, Inc., et al. and Carrier et al. v. Eli Lilly et al.), one in Quebec (Whyte et al. v. Eli Lilly et al.), and one in Alberta (Epp v. Takeda Canada et al.). We promoted Actos in Canada until 2009.

We believe these lawsuits are without merit, and we and Takeda are prepared to defend against them vigorously.

Cymbalta^® Product Liability Litigation

We were named as a defendant in a purported class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (now called Strafford et al. v. Eli Lilly and Company) involving Cymbalta. The plaintiffs, purporting to represent a class of all persons within the U.S. who purchased and/or paid for Cymbalta, asserted claims under the consumer protection statutes of four states, California, Massachusetts, Missouri, and New York, and sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief for various alleged economic injuries arising from discontinuing treatment with Cymbalta. In December 2014, the district court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Plaintiffs filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit requesting permission to file an interlocutory appeal of the denial of class certification, which was denied. Plaintiffs filed a second motion for certification under the consumer protection acts of New York and Massachusetts. The district court denied that motion for class certification in July 2015. The district court dismissed the suits and plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In June 2017, we moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction based on the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Microsoft v. Baker. In November 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed the suit. Plaintiffs continue to contest the dismissal.

We are named in approximately 140 lawsuits involving approximately 1,470 plaintiffs filed in various federal and state courts alleging injuries arising from discontinuation of treatment with Cymbalta. These include approximately 40 individual and multi-plaintiff cases filed in California state court, centralized in a California Judicial Counsel Coordination Proceeding pending in Los Angeles. The first individual product liability cases were tried in August 2015 and resulted in defense verdicts against four plaintiffs. We believe all these Cymbalta lawsuits and claims are without merit. We have reached a settlement framework that provides for a comprehensive resolution of nearly all of these personal injury claims, filed or unfiled, alleging injuries from discontinuing treatment with Cymbalta. There can be no assurances, however, that a final settlement will be reached.

Brazil–Employee Litigation

Our subsidiary in Brazil, Eli Lilly do Brasil Limitada (Lilly Brasil), is named in a lawsuit brought by the Labor Attorney for 15th Region in the Labor Court of Paulinia, State of Sao Paulo, Brazil, alleging possible harm to employees and former employees caused by exposure to heavy metals at a former Lilly manufacturing facility in Cosmopolis, Brazil, operated by the company between 1977 and 2003. The plaintiffs allege that some employees at the facility were exposed to benzene and heavy metals; however, Lilly Brasil maintains that these alleged contaminants were never used in the facility. In May 2014, the labor court judge ruled against Lilly Brasil. The judge's ruling orders Lilly Brasil to undertake several actions of unspecified financial impact, including paying lifetime medical insurance for the employees and contractors who worked at the Cosmopolis facility more than six months during the affected years and their children born during and after this period. While we cannot currently estimate the range of reasonably possible financial losses that could arise in the event we do not ultimately prevail in the litigation, the judge has estimated the total financial impact of the ruling to be approximately 1.0 billion Brazilian real (approximately $300 million as of December 31, 2017) plus interest. We strongly disagree with the decision and filed an appeal in May 2014. We expect ruling on this appeal before the end of 2018.

We are also named in approximately 30 lawsuits filed in the same court by individual former employees making similar claims.

Lilly Brasil and Elanco Quimica Ltda. have been named in a lawsuit involving approximately 305 individuals alleging that the companies failed to provide warnings regarding exposure to heavy metals or proper equipment at the former Cosmopolis facility, and that this alleged failure could result in possible harm to employees, former employees, and their dependents. In June 2017, the court denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction. In September 2017, the court dismissed the claims brought by all but the first named plaintiff. The plaintiffs are appealing that decision.

Lilly Brasil and Elanco Quimica Ltda. have also been named in a separate lawsuit involving approximately 105 individuals alleging that the companies failed to provide warnings regarding exposure to heavy metals or proper equipment at the former Cosmopolis facility, and that this alleged failure could result in possible harm to contractors and suppliers, and their dependents. In November 2017, the court dismissed the claims brought by all but the first named plaintiff.

We believe all of these lawsuits are without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously.

Agri Stats, Inc.

Agri Stats, Inc., our subsidiary, has been named as a co-defendant in four antitrust suits, including one putative class-action, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiffs consist of private direct and indirect purchasers of broiler chickens who allege that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to limit U.S. chicken production and inflate prices. We believe these claims are without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously.

Product Liability Insurance

Because of the nature of pharmaceutical products, it is possible that we could become subject to large numbers of product liability and related claims in the future. Due to a very restrictive market for product liability insurance, we are self-insured for product liability losses for all our currently marketed products.