Litigation And Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2014
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. The Company, using current product sales data and historical trends, actuarially calculates the estimate of its exposure for product liability. The Company had product liability reserves of $34.0 million and $34.4 million as of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, 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. Recall of Harness Buckles on Select Car Seats In February 2014, Graco, a subsidiary of the Company, announced a voluntary recall in the U.S. of harness buckles used on approximately 4 million toddler car seats manufactured between 2006 and 2013. As a result of the recall, substantially all affected car seats which were at retail locations or in customer warehouses have been reworked in the field or returned to the Company for rework. In July 2014, Graco announced that it had agreed to expand the recall to include certain infant car seats manufactured between July 2010 and May 2013. There have been no reported injuries associated with the recalled harness buckles used on these toddler or infant car seats. The Company recorded $13.8 million of costs during the nine months ended September 30, 2014 for the cost of the above recalls. The Company believes that any additional costs of executing the recall will not be significant. However, the amount recorded does not include any fines or penalties that may result from any governmental investigation into the circumstances related to the recalls. Environmental Matters The Company is 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, 2014 ranged between $23.0 million and $28.2 million. As of September 30, 2014, the Company had a reserve of $23.4 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 $16.6 million by applying a 5% discount rate to undiscounted obligations of $24.0 million. Two of the Company’s subsidiaries, Goody Products, Inc. and Berol Corporation (the “Company Parties”), were 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. In the third-party complaint, Maxus and Tierra alleged 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. The Company Parties and other third-party defendants as well as all of the direct defendants with the exception of Occidental Chemical Corporation (“OCC”), have completed settlements with the state, which are final and no longer subject to appeal. These settlements resulted in dismissal of all third-party defendants and all of the state’s claims against the direct defendants, with the exception of its claims against OCC and OCC’s cross-claims against the other direct defendants. The finalized settlements further resulted in the state’s recovery of all of its past costs, as well as some funding for natural resources restoration and redevelopment, subject to certain reopeners. A third, separate Settlement Agreement with OCC is pending public comment and court approval; if approved the OCC settlement will resolve the state’s claims against OCC. 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. The RI/FS work remains underway and is scheduled for completion within months. Regardless, on April 11, 2014, U.S. EPA issued a Source Control Early Action Focused Feasibility Study (“FFS”), which proposes four alternatives for remediation of the lower 8 miles of the Lower Passaic River. U.S. EPA’s cost estimates for its cleanup alternatives range from $315 million to approximately $3.2 billion in capital costs plus from $0.5 million to $1.8 million in annual maintenance costs for 30 years, with its preferred alternative carrying an estimated cost of approximately $1.7 billion plus an additional $1.6 million in annual maintenance costs for 30 years. The public comment period concluded August 2014; U.S. EPA is expected to issue its final Record of Decision in 2015. U.S. EPA has indicated that it will seek to have the parties fund the cleanup, but at this time, it is unclear how the cost of any cleanup would be allocated among any of the parties, including the Company Parties, or any other entities. 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 ultimate remediation, the extent to which the Company Parties may be held liable or responsible is not yet known. Accordingly, it is not possible at this time 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 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.

The Company, using current product sales data and historical trends, actuarially calculates the estimate of its exposure for product liability. The Company had product liability reserves of $34.0 million and $34.4 million as of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, 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.

Recall of Harness Buckles on Select Car Seats

In February 2014, Graco, a subsidiary of the Company, announced a voluntary recall in the U.S. of harness buckles used on approximately 4 million toddler car seats manufactured between 2006 and 2013. As a result of the recall, substantially all affected car seats which were at retail locations or in customer warehouses have been reworked in the field or returned to the Company for rework. In July 2014, Graco announced that it had agreed to expand the recall to include certain infant car seats manufactured between July 2010 and May 2013. There have been no reported injuries associated with the recalled harness buckles used on these toddler or infant car seats.

The Company recorded $13.8 million of costs during the nine months ended September 30, 2014 for the cost of the above recalls. The Company believes that any additional costs of executing the recall will not be significant. However, the amount recorded does not include any fines or penalties that may result from any governmental investigation into the circumstances related to the recalls.

Environmental Matters

The Company is 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, 2014 ranged between $23.0 million and $28.2 million. As of September 30, 2014, the Company had a reserve of $23.4 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 $16.6 million by applying a 5% discount rate to undiscounted obligations of $24.0 million.

Two of the Company’s subsidiaries, Goody Products, Inc. and Berol Corporation (the “Company Parties”), were 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. In the third-party complaint, Maxus and Tierra alleged 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. The Company Parties and other third-party defendants as well as all of the direct defendants with the exception of Occidental Chemical Corporation (“OCC”), have completed settlements with the state, which are final and no longer subject to appeal. These settlements resulted in dismissal of all third-party defendants and all of the state’s claims against the direct defendants, with the exception of its claims against OCC and OCC’s cross-claims against the other direct defendants. The finalized settlements further resulted in the state’s recovery of all of its past costs, as well as some funding for natural resources restoration and redevelopment, subject to certain reopeners. A third, separate Settlement Agreement with OCC is pending public comment and court approval; if approved the OCC settlement will resolve the state’s claims against OCC.

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. The RI/FS work remains underway and is scheduled for completion within months. Regardless, on April 11, 2014, U.S. EPA issued a Source Control Early Action Focused Feasibility Study (“FFS”), which proposes four alternatives for remediation of the lower 8 miles of the Lower Passaic River. U.S. EPA’s cost estimates for its cleanup alternatives range from $315 million to approximately $3.2 billion in capital costs plus from $0.5 million to $1.8 million in annual maintenance costs for 30 years, with its preferred alternative carrying an estimated cost of approximately $1.7 billion plus an additional $1.6 million in annual maintenance costs for 30 years. The public comment period concluded August 2014; U.S. EPA is expected to issue its final Record of Decision in 2015. U.S. EPA has indicated that it will seek to have the parties fund the cleanup, but at this time, it is unclear how the cost of any cleanup would be allocated among any of the parties, including the Company Parties, or any other entities. 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 ultimate remediation, the extent to which the Company Parties may be held liable or responsible is not yet known. Accordingly, it is not possible at this time 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 consolidated financial statements, except as otherwise described above.