Litigation And Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2015
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 $41.2 million and $33.6 million as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, 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. The Company recorded $15.0 million of costs during 2014 for the cost of the recalls. There have been no reported injuries associated with the recalled harness buckles used on these toddler or infant car seats. In December 2014, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) announced an investigation into the timeliness of the recall, and in March 2015, the investigation concluded with Graco entering into a consent order with NHTSA pursuant to which Graco committed to spend $7.0 million in total over a five-year period to enhance child passenger safety and make a $3.0 million payment to NHTSA, which was paid in the second quarter of 2015. With respect to the $7.0 million required to be spent over five years, the Company has spent approximately $0.9 million to date. The Company recorded the $10.0 million of costs associated with the consent order in the first quarter of 2015. Legal Matters A putative class action lawsuit (Vincent A. Hirsch v. James E. Lillie, Martin E. Franklin, Ian G.H. Ashken, Michael S. Gross, Robert L. Wood, Irwin D. Simon, William P. Lauder, Ros L’esperance, Peter A. Hochfelder, Newell Rubbermaid Inc., NCPF Acquisition Corp. I and NCPF Acquisition Corp. II, Case No. 9:16-CV-80258 (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida)) was filed on February 24, 2016, purportedly on behalf of Jarden Corporation shareholders against the individually named director defendants, who are directors of Jarden Corporation. Newell Rubbermaid Inc. and its subsidiaries, NCPF Acquisition Corp. I and NCPF Acquisition Corp. II, are also named as defendants. The Complaint alleges claims under § 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; SEC Rule 14a-9 against all defendants; and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act against the individual director defendants. Plaintiff alleges that the joint proxy/prospectus of Newell Rubbermaid and Jarden concerning the proposed merger contemplated by the Merger Agreement omitted certain information. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the proposed merger, rescission in the event the merger is consummated, and the award of attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company denies the allegations and intends to vigorously defend the action. 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 December 31, 2015 ranged between $22.9 million and $28.8 million. As of December 31, 2015, the Company had a reserve of $23.5 million for such environmental remediation and response costs in the aggregate, which is included in other accrued liabilities and other noncurrent liabilities in the 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 $16.8 million by applying a 5% discount rate to undiscounted obligations of $24.2 million. U.S. EPA has issued General Notice Letters (“GNLs”) to over 100 entities, including the Company and Berol Corporation, a subsidiary of the Company, 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 its subsidiaries, Goody Products, Inc. and Berol Corporation (the “Company Parties”), have taken over the performance of the remedial investigation (“RI”) and feasibility study (“FS”) for the Lower Passaic River. On April 11, 2014, while work on the RI/FS remained underway, 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, and the U.S. EPA is expected to issue its final Record of Decision in 2016. In February 2015, the participating parties submitted to the U.S. EPA a draft RI, followed by submission of a draft FS in April 2015. The draft FS sets forth various alternatives for remediating the lower 17 miles of the Passaic River, ranging from a “no action” alternative, to targeted remediation of locations along the entire lower 17 mile stretch of the river, to remedial actions consistent with the U.S. EPA’s preferred alternative as set forth in the FFS for the lower 8 miles coupled with monitored natural recovery and targeted remediation in the upper 9 miles. The estimated cost estimates for these alternatives range from approximately $28 million to $2.7 billion, including related operation maintenance and monitoring costs. 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 U.S. EPA is still reviewing the draft RI and FS, that the ultimate remediation has not yet been determined, that the parties have not agreed upon a final allocation for the investigation and any ultimate remediation, and that there exists the potential for further litigation regarding costs and cost sharing, 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, including, among other factors, because the Company Parties’ facilities are not even 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. Other Matters 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. 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. As of December 31, 2015, the Company had $32.9 million in standby letters of credit primarily related to the Company’s self-insurance programs, including workers’ compensation, product liability and medical.

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 $41.2 million and $33.6 million as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, 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. The Company recorded $15.0 million of costs during 2014 for the cost of the recalls. There have been no reported injuries associated with the recalled harness buckles used on these toddler or infant car seats.

In December 2014, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) announced an investigation into the timeliness of the recall, and in March 2015, the investigation concluded with Graco entering into a consent order with NHTSA pursuant to which Graco committed to spend $7.0 million in total over a five-year period to enhance child passenger safety and make a $3.0 million payment to NHTSA, which was paid in the second quarter of 2015. With respect to the $7.0 million required to be spent over five years, the Company has spent approximately $0.9 million to date. The Company recorded the $10.0 million of costs associated with the consent order in the first quarter of 2015.

Legal Matters

A putative class action lawsuit (Vincent A. Hirsch v. James E. Lillie, Martin E. Franklin, Ian G.H. Ashken, Michael S. Gross, Robert L. Wood, Irwin D. Simon, William P. Lauder, Ros L’esperance, Peter A. Hochfelder, Newell Rubbermaid Inc., NCPF Acquisition Corp. I and NCPF Acquisition Corp. II, Case No. 9:16-CV-80258 (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida)) was filed on February 24, 2016, purportedly on behalf of Jarden Corporation shareholders against the individually named director defendants, who are directors of Jarden Corporation. Newell Rubbermaid Inc. and its subsidiaries, NCPF Acquisition Corp. I and NCPF Acquisition Corp. II, are also named as defendants. The Complaint alleges claims under § 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; SEC Rule 14a-9 against all defendants; and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act against the individual director defendants. Plaintiff alleges that the joint proxy/prospectus of Newell Rubbermaid and Jarden concerning the proposed merger contemplated by the Merger Agreement omitted certain information. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the proposed merger, rescission in the event the merger is consummated, and the award of attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company denies the allegations and intends to vigorously defend the action.

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 December 31, 2015 ranged between $22.9 million and $28.8 million. As of December 31, 2015, the Company had a reserve of $23.5 million for such environmental remediation and response costs in the aggregate, which is included in other accrued liabilities and other noncurrent liabilities in the 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 $16.8 million by applying a 5% discount rate to undiscounted obligations of $24.2 million.

U.S. EPA has issued General Notice Letters (“GNLs”) to over 100 entities, including the Company and Berol Corporation, a subsidiary of the Company, 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 its subsidiaries, Goody Products, Inc. and Berol Corporation (the “Company Parties”), have taken over the performance of the remedial investigation (“RI”) and feasibility study (“FS”) for the Lower Passaic River. On April 11, 2014, while work on the RI/FS remained underway, 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, and the U.S. EPA is expected to issue its final Record of Decision in 2016. In February 2015, the participating parties submitted to the U.S. EPA a draft RI, followed by submission of a draft FS in April 2015. The draft FS sets forth various alternatives for remediating the lower 17 miles of the Passaic River, ranging from a “no action” alternative, to targeted remediation of locations along the entire lower 17 mile stretch of the river, to remedial actions consistent with the U.S. EPA’s preferred alternative as set forth in the FFS for the lower 8 miles coupled with monitored natural recovery and targeted remediation in the upper 9 miles. The estimated cost estimates for these alternatives range from approximately $28 million to $2.7 billion, including related operation maintenance and monitoring costs. 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 U.S. EPA is still reviewing the draft RI and FS, that the ultimate remediation has not yet been determined, that the parties have not agreed upon a final allocation for the investigation and any ultimate remediation, and that there exists the potential for further litigation regarding costs and cost sharing, 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, including, among other factors, because the Company Parties’ facilities are not even 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.

Other Matters

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.

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.

As of December 31, 2015, the Company had $32.9 million in standby letters of credit primarily related to the Company’s self-insurance programs, including workers’ compensation, product liability and medical.