Litigation And Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2012
Litigation And Contingencies [Abstract]
Litigation And Contingencies	Litigation and Contingencies The Company is involved in legal proceedings in the ordinary course of its business. These proceedings include claims for damages arising out of use of the Company’s products, allegations of infringement of intellectual property, commercial disputes and employment matters, as well as environmental matters. Some of the legal proceedings include claims for punitive as well as compensatory damages, and certain proceedings may purport to be class actions. In the normal course of business and as part of its acquisition and divestiture strategy, the Company may provide certain representations and indemnifications related to legal, environmental, product liability, tax or other types of issues. Based on the nature of these representations and indemnifications, it is not possible to predict the maximum potential payments under all of these agreements due to the conditional nature of the Company’s obligations and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. Historically, payments made by the Company under these agreements did not have a material effect on the Company’s business, financial condition or results of operations. The Company, using current product sales data and historical trends, actuarially calculates the estimate of its exposure for product liability. The Company has product liability reserves of $41.5 million and $39.7 million as of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively. The Company is insured for product liability claims for amounts in excess of established deductibles and accrues for the estimated liability as described up to the limits of the deductibles. All other claims and lawsuits are handled on a case-by-case basis. Legal Matters The Company is currently a party to two purported state class actions and one purported national Canadian class action. The cases include allegations that a certain model car seat sold by an affiliate of the Company did not satisfy all requisite government safety standards. The Company is vigorously defending all three actions. In July 2007, the Company acquired all of the outstanding equity interests of PSI Systems, Inc. (“Endicia”), provider of DYMO\|Endicia Internet Postage. Endicia was party to a lawsuit against it alleging patent infringement which was filed on November 22, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. In this case, Stamps.com sought unspecified damages, attorneys’ fees and injunctive relief in order to prevent Endicia from continuing to engage in activities that are alleged to infringe on Stamps.com’s patents. In 2010, the Court entered judgment in favor of the Company terminating the action on summary judgment, and on June 15, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed that judgment. Stamps.com’s petition for a rehearing before the Federal Circuit panel was denied and Stamps.com has no further right of appeal. A separate case, in which Endicia and Stamps.com each claimed infringement of different patents, was settled during March 2012 without payment by either the Company or Stamps.com. The City of Sao Paulo’s Green and Environmental Office (the “Sao Paulo G&E Office”) is seeking fines of up to approximately $4.0 million related to alleged improper storage of hazardous materials at the Company’s tool manufacturing facility located in Sao Paulo, Brazil. The Company has obtained a stay of enforcement of a notice of fine due October 1, 2009 issued by the Sao Paulo G&E Office. The Company plans to continue to contest the fines. Environmental Matters As of March 31, 2012, the Company was involved in various matters concerning federal and state environmental laws and regulations, including matters in which the Company has been identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("U.S. EPA") and certain state environmental agencies as a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) at contaminated sites under the Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) and equivalent state laws. In assessing its environmental response costs, the Company has considered several factors, including the extent of the Company’s volumetric contribution at each site relative to that of other PRPs; the kind of waste; the terms of existing cost sharing and other applicable agreements; the financial ability of other PRPs to share in the payment of requisite costs; the Company’s prior experience with similar sites; environmental studies and cost estimates available to the Company; the effects of inflation on cost estimates; and the extent to which the Company’s, and other parties’, status as PRPs is disputed. The Company’s estimate of environmental response costs associated with these matters as of March 31, 2012 ranged between $21.6 million and $25.6 million. As of March 31, 2012, the Company had a reserve of $22.2 million for such environmental remediation and response costs in the aggregate, which is included in other accrued liabilities and other noncurrent liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. No insurance recovery was taken into account in determining the Company’s cost estimates or reserve, nor do the Company’s cost estimates or reserves reflect any discounting for present value purposes, except with respect to certain long-term operations and maintenance CERCLA matters, which are estimated at their present value of $18.7 million by applying a 5% discount rate to undiscounted obligations of $26.7 million. Two of the Company's subsidiaries, Goody Products, Inc. and Berol Corporation (the “Company Parties”), are among over 300 entities named by Maxus Energy Corporation (“Maxus”) and Tierra Solutions, Inc. (“Tierra”) as third-party defendants in New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, et al. (collectively “DEP”) v. Occidental Chemical Corporation, et al., pending in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division - Essex County. Through the third-party complaint, Maxus and Tierra allege that releases from two facilities formerly operated by the Company Parties contributed to contamination in the Passaic River and other bodies of water and seek contribution for certain clean-up and removal costs, as well as other damages for which they may be found liable to DEP. In addition, U.S. EPA has issued General Notice Letters (“GNLs”) to over 100 entities, including the Company and Berol Corporation, alleging that they are PRPs at the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, which includes a 17-mile stretch of the Lower Passaic River and its tributaries. 72 of the GNL recipients, including the Company on behalf of itself and the Company Parties, have taken over the performance of the remedial investigation and feasibility study (“RI/FS”) for the Lower Passaic River. U.S. EPA continues to evaluate remedial options, the scope and cost of which have yet to be determined. U.S. EPA has also indicated that it will seek to have the PRPs fund the remedy. The site is also subject to a Natural Resource Damage Assessment. Given the uncertainties pertaining to this matter-including that the litigation and RI/FS are ongoing, the ultimate remediation has not yet been determined, the parties have not agreed upon a final allocation for the investigation and any remediation, and the extent to which the Company Parties may be held liable or responsible is not yet known-it is not possible for the Company to estimate its ultimate liability related to this matter. Based on currently known facts and circumstances, the Company does not believe that this matter is reasonably likely to have a material impact on the Company's results of operations because the Company Parties' facilities are not alleged to have discharged the contaminants which are of the greatest concern in the river sediments, and because there are numerous other parties who will likely share in any costs of remediation and/or damages. However, in the event of one or more adverse determinations related to this matter, it is possible that the ultimate liability resulting from this matter and the impact on the Company's results of operations could be material. Because of the uncertainties associated with environmental investigations and response activities, the possibility that the Company could be identified as a PRP at sites identified in the future that require the incurrence of environmental response costs and the possibility that sites acquired in business combinations may require environmental response costs, actual costs to be incurred by the Company may vary from the Company’s estimates. Although management of the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of these proceedings with certainty, except as otherwise may be described above, it believes that the ultimate resolution of the Company’s proceedings, including any amounts it may be required to pay in excess of amounts reserved, will not have a material effect on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements.

Litigation and Contingencies

The Company is involved in legal proceedings in the ordinary course of its business. These proceedings include claims for damages arising out of use of the Company’s products, allegations of infringement of intellectual property, commercial disputes and employment matters, as well as environmental matters. Some of the legal proceedings include claims for punitive as well as compensatory damages, and certain proceedings may purport to be class actions.

In the normal course of business and as part of its acquisition and divestiture strategy, the Company may provide certain representations and indemnifications related to legal, environmental, product liability, tax or other types of issues. Based on the nature of these representations and indemnifications, it is not possible to predict the maximum potential payments under all of these agreements due to the conditional nature of the Company’s obligations and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. Historically, payments made by the Company under these agreements did not have a material effect on the Company’s business, financial condition or results of operations.

The Company, using current product sales data and historical trends, actuarially calculates the estimate of its exposure for product liability. The Company has product liability reserves of $41.5 million and $39.7 million as of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively. The Company is insured for product liability claims for amounts in excess of established deductibles and accrues for the estimated liability as described up to the limits of the deductibles. All other claims and lawsuits are handled on a case-by-case basis.

Legal Matters

The Company is currently a party to two purported state class actions and one purported national Canadian class action. The cases include allegations that a certain model car seat sold by an affiliate of the Company did not satisfy all requisite government safety standards. The Company is vigorously defending all three actions.

In July 2007, the Company acquired all of the outstanding equity interests of PSI Systems, Inc. (“Endicia”), provider of DYMO|Endicia Internet Postage. Endicia was party to a lawsuit against it alleging patent infringement which was filed on November 22, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. In this case, Stamps.com sought unspecified damages, attorneys’ fees and injunctive relief in order to prevent Endicia from continuing to engage in activities that are alleged to infringe on Stamps.com’s patents. In 2010, the Court entered judgment in favor of the Company terminating the action on summary judgment, and on June 15, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed that judgment. Stamps.com’s petition for a rehearing before the Federal Circuit panel was denied and Stamps.com has no further right of appeal. A separate case, in which Endicia and Stamps.com each claimed infringement of different patents, was settled during March 2012 without payment by either the Company or Stamps.com.

The City of Sao Paulo’s Green and Environmental Office (the “Sao Paulo G&E Office”) is seeking fines of up to approximately $4.0 million related to alleged improper storage of hazardous materials at the Company’s tool manufacturing facility located in Sao Paulo, Brazil. The Company has obtained a stay of enforcement of a notice of fine due October 1, 2009 issued by the Sao Paulo G&E Office. The Company plans to continue to contest the fines.

Environmental Matters

As of March 31, 2012, the Company was involved in various matters concerning federal and state environmental laws and regulations, including matters in which the Company has been identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("U.S. EPA") and certain state environmental agencies as a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) at contaminated sites under the Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) and equivalent state laws.

In assessing its environmental response costs, the Company has considered several factors, including the extent of the Company’s volumetric contribution at each site relative to that of other PRPs; the kind of waste; the terms of existing cost sharing and other applicable agreements; the financial ability of other PRPs to share in the payment of requisite costs; the Company’s prior experience with similar sites; environmental studies and cost estimates available to the Company; the effects of inflation on cost estimates; and the extent to which the Company’s, and other parties’, status as PRPs is disputed.

The Company’s estimate of environmental response costs associated with these matters as of March 31, 2012 ranged between $21.6 million and $25.6 million. As of March 31, 2012, the Company had a reserve of $22.2 million for such environmental remediation and response costs in the aggregate, which is included in other accrued liabilities and other noncurrent liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. No insurance recovery was taken into account in determining the Company’s cost estimates or reserve, nor do the Company’s cost estimates or reserves reflect any discounting for present value purposes, except with respect to certain long-term operations and maintenance CERCLA matters, which are estimated at their present value of $18.7 million by applying a 5% discount rate to undiscounted obligations of $26.7 million.

Two of the Company's subsidiaries, Goody Products, Inc. and Berol Corporation (the “Company Parties”), are among over 300 entities named by Maxus Energy Corporation (“Maxus”) and Tierra Solutions, Inc. (“Tierra”) as third-party defendants in New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, et al. (collectively “DEP”) v. Occidental Chemical Corporation, et al., pending in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division - Essex County. Through the third-party complaint, Maxus and Tierra allege that releases from two facilities formerly operated by the Company Parties contributed to contamination in the Passaic River and other bodies of water and seek contribution for certain clean-up and removal costs, as well as other damages for which they may be found liable to DEP.

In addition, U.S. EPA has issued General Notice Letters (“GNLs”) to over 100 entities, including the Company and Berol Corporation, alleging that they are PRPs at the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, which includes a 17-mile stretch of the Lower Passaic River and its tributaries. 72 of the GNL recipients, including the Company on behalf of itself and the Company Parties, have taken over the performance of the remedial investigation and feasibility study (“RI/FS”) for the Lower Passaic River. U.S. EPA continues to evaluate remedial options, the scope and cost of which have yet to be determined. U.S. EPA has also indicated that it will seek to have the PRPs fund the remedy. The site is also subject to a Natural Resource Damage Assessment.

Given the uncertainties pertaining to this matter-including that the litigation and RI/FS are ongoing, the ultimate remediation has not yet been determined, the parties have not agreed upon a final allocation for the investigation and any remediation, and the extent to which the Company Parties may be held liable or responsible is not yet known-it is not possible for the Company to estimate its ultimate liability related to this matter. Based on currently known facts and circumstances, the Company does not believe that this matter is reasonably likely to have a material impact on the Company's results of operations because the Company Parties' facilities are not alleged to have discharged the contaminants which are of the greatest concern in the river sediments, and because there are numerous other parties who will likely share in any costs of remediation and/or damages. However, in the event of one or more adverse determinations related to this matter, it is possible that the ultimate liability resulting from this matter and the impact on the Company's results of operations could be material.

Because of the uncertainties associated with environmental investigations and response activities, the possibility that the Company could be identified as a PRP at sites identified in the future that require the incurrence of environmental response costs and the possibility that sites acquired in business combinations may require environmental response costs, actual costs to be incurred by the Company may vary from the Company’s estimates.

Although management of the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of these proceedings with certainty, except as otherwise may be described above, it believes that the ultimate resolution of the Company’s proceedings, including any amounts it may be required to pay in excess of amounts reserved, will not have a material effect on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements.