Litigation And Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2013
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 $34.5 million and $33.0 million as of September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, 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 was previously a party to two purported state class actions and one purported national Canadian class action alleging that a certain model car seat sold by an affiliate of the Company did not satisfy all requisite government safety standards. Each of these actions was resolved in the third quarter on terms favorable to the Company. 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 September 30, 2013, 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 September 30, 2013 ranged between $20.5 million and $23.4 million. As of September 30, 2013, the Company had a reserve of $21.0 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 reserves, 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 $16.9 million by applying a 5% discount rate to undiscounted obligations of $25.1 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 March 2013, the Company Parties, along with approximately 250 additional third-party defendants executed a proposed Consent Judgment with DEP. The public comment period for the proposed Consent Judgment is now closed; the Consent Judgment remains subject to court approval. 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, 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, except as otherwise described above.

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 $34.5 million and $33.0 million as of September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, 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 was previously a party to two purported state class actions and one purported national Canadian class action alleging that a certain model car seat sold by an affiliate of the Company did not satisfy all requisite government safety standards. Each of these actions was resolved in the third quarter on terms favorable to the Company.

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 September 30, 2013, 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 September 30, 2013 ranged between $20.5 million and $23.4 million. As of September 30, 2013, the Company had a reserve of $21.0 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 reserves, 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 $16.9 million by applying a 5% discount rate to undiscounted obligations of $25.1 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 March 2013, the Company Parties, along with approximately 250 additional third-party defendants executed a proposed Consent Judgment with DEP. The public comment period for the proposed Consent Judgment is now closed; the Consent Judgment remains subject to court approval.

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, 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, except as otherwise described above.