Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 28, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Certain present and former operating sites, or portions thereof, currently or previously owned or leased by current or former operating units are the subject of investigations, monitoring or remediation under the United States Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund), the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act or comparable state statutes or agreements with third parties. These proceedings are in various stages ranging from initial investigations to active settlement negotiations to implementation of the cleanup or remediation of sites. Certain present and former operating units in the United States have been named as potentially responsible parties (PRPs) at several off-site disposal sites under CERCLA or comparable state statutes in federal court proceedings. In each of these matters, the operating unit is working with the governmental agencies involved and other PRPs to address environmental claims in a responsible and appropriate manner. At September 28, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the Company had an accrued liability of approximately $1.8 million and $1.9 million, respectively, for various environmental-related liabilities to the extent costs are known or can be reasonably estimated as its liability. American Premier Underwriters Inc., a former parent of the Company, agreed to indemnify the Company against all environmental-related liabilities arising out of the Company’s or its predecessors’ ownership or operation of the Indiana Steel & Wire Company and Marathon Manufacturing Holdings, Inc. businesses (which were divested by the Company), without limitation as to time or amount. While it is difficult to estimate future environmental-related liabilities accurately, the Company does not currently anticipate any material adverse impact on its results of operations, financial position or cash flows as a result of compliance with federal, state, local or foreign environmental laws or regulations or cleanup costs of the sites discussed above. General Cable has also agreed to indemnify Southwire Company against certain environmental liabilities arising out of the operation of the business it sold to Southwire prior to its sale. The indemnity is for a ten year period from the closing of the sale, which ended in the fourth quarter of 2011, and is subject to an overall limit of $20 million. At this time, there are no claims outstanding under this indemnity. As part of the acquisition of Silec Cable, S.A.S (“Silec”), which was acquired in December 2005, SAFRAN SA agreed to indemnify General Cable against environmental losses arising from breach of representations and warranties on environmental law compliance and against losses arising from costs General Cable could incur to remediate property acquired based on a directive of the French authorities to rehabilitate property in regard to soil, water and other underground contamination arising before the closing date of the purchase. These indemnities were for a six-year period ended in 2011 while General Cable operated the businesses subject to sharing of certain losses (with SAFRAN covering 100% of losses in year one, 75% in years two and three, 50% in year four, and 25% in years five and six). The indemnities were subject to an overall limit of 4.0 million euros. As of September 28, 2012 and December 31, 2011, there were no claims outstanding under this indemnity. In addition, SAFRAN SA agreed to indemnify the Company for the full amount of losses arising from, related to or attributable to practices, if any, that are similar to previous practices investigated by the French competition authority for alleged competition law violations related to medium and high voltage cable markets. The Company has asserted a claim under this indemnity against SAFRAN SA related to the European Commission’s Statement of Objections, which is described in more detail below, to preserve its rights should an unfavorable outcome occur. In 2007, the Company acquired the worldwide wire and cable business of Freeport-McMoRan Copper and Gold Inc., which operates as PDIC. As part of this acquisition, the seller agreed to indemnify the Company for certain environmental liabilities existing on the purchase closing. The seller’s obligation to indemnify the Company for these particular liabilities generally survived four years from the date the parties executed the definitive purchase agreement unless the Company has properly notified the seller before the expiry of the four year period. The seller also made certain representations and warranties related to environmental matters and the acquired business and agreed to indemnify the Company for breaches of those representation and warranties for a period of four years from the closing date. No indemnification claims for breach of representations and warranties were made during the indemnity period for the transaction. In addition, Company subsidiaries have been named as defendants in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos in products manufactured by the Company. As of September 28, 2012, the Company was a defendant in approximately 29,062 cases brought in Federal District Courts throughout the United States. As of September 28, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the Company had accrued, on a gross basis, approximately $5.1 million, and as of September 28, 2012 and December 31, 2011, had recovered approximately $0.5 million and $0.6 million of insurance recoveries for these lawsuits, respectively. The net amount of $4.7 million and $4.5 million, as of September 28, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively, represents the Company's best estimate in order to cover resolution of current and future asbestos-related claims. The components of the asbestos litigation reserve are current and future asbestos-related claims. The significant assumptions are: (1) the number of cases per state, (2) an estimate of the judgment per case per state, (3) an estimate of the percentage of cases per state that would make it to trial and (4) the estimated total liability percentage, excluding insurance recoveries, per case judgment. Management's estimates are based on the Company's historical experience with asbestos related claims. The Company's current history of asbestos claims does not provide sufficient and reasonable information to estimate a range of loss for potential future, unasserted asbestos claims because the number and the value of the alleged damages of such claims have not been consistent. As such, the Company does not believe a reasonably possible range can be estimated with respect to asbestos claims that may be filed in the future. Settlement payments are made, and the asbestos reserve is relieved, when the Company receives a fully executed settlement release from the Plantiff's counsel. As of September 28, 2012 and September 30, 2011, aggregate settlement costs were $8.4 million and $7.7 million respectively. For the nine months ended September 28, 2012 and September 30, 2011, settlement costs totaled $0.5 million and $0.7 million, respectively. As of September 28, 2012 and September 30, 2011, aggregate litigation costs were $20.9 million and $19.1 million, respectively. For the nine months ended September 28, 2012 and September 30, 2011, litigation costs were $1.2 million and $1.7 million, respectively. On July 5, 2011, the European Commission issued a Statement of Objections in relation to its ongoing competition investigation to a number of wire and cable manufacturers in the submarine and underground power cables business, including the Company's Spanish affiliate and its subsidiary, Silec. The allegations related to Silec are for the eleven months following its acquisition by the Company's Spanish affiliate, for which the Company has filed a claim for indemnification from SAFRAN SA to preserve its rights should an unfavorable outcome occur. A Statement of Objections is a procedural document in which the European Commission communicates its preliminary views in regard to possible infringement of European competition law and allows the companies identified in the Statement of Objections to present procedural and substantive arguments in response before a final decision is made. Any unfavorable decision by the European Commission is subject to appeal. The Statement of Objections issued to the Company alleges that two affiliates in Europe engaged in violations of competition law in the underground power cables businesses for a limited period of time. The Company responded to the Statement of Objections on October 28, 2011 and intends to continue to vigorously defend itself against the allegations in the course of future proceedings with the European Commission on the Statement of Objections. The European Commission has significant discretion in assessing fines and the Statement of Objections has only provided limited guidance on how it could potentially assess fines on each of the named wire and cable companies alleged to have violated applicable competition laws. At this time, the Company believes that it has substantial defenses to the allegations contained in the Statement of Objections. However, if the Company's defenses are ultimately not successful, the Company could be assessed fines, which if imposed, could be substantial and may have a material impact on its consolidated financial results. While the Company continues to incur legal and associated costs in this matter, it is unable, at this time, to estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result as an outcome of these proceedings. During the fourth quarter of 2011, the Company became aware of a potential claim involving multiple parties regarding the failure of a newly installed transformer in France, which was manufactured and installed by an independent third party, at a customer's hydroelectric plant. The Company supplied and installed cables and terminations to the transformer, which failed as it was being energized. The transformer was significantly damaged and the customer is alleging losses consisting of damage to the transformer and consequential damages due to its inability to operate the facility. The customer retained a court appointed technical expert to review the evidence to determine the root cause of the transformer failure and to allocate liability to the parties found responsible for such losses. The investigation is ongoing at this time and the Company believes it has substantial defenses to potential liability in regard to the transformer failure. At this time, the Company is unable to predict with any certainty an estimated range of damages or whether it will have liability, if any, attributable to the transformer failure. In March 2012, the Company received formal notice of a claim for damages arising from a transformer fire that occurred in December 2010 allegedly resulting in loss of equipment and some consequential damages at a metal processing facility in Iceland. The Company supplied and installed cables and terminations to the transformer, which was manufactured and installed by an independent third party, during 2006 and the first quarter of 2007. The Company's work was inspected and accepted by the customer in March 2007. In August 2012, the customer initiated arbitration proceedings before the ICC Tribunal with a request to arbitrate in Pennsylvania. In September, the Company initiated litigation in Pennsylvania state courts seeking a declaration that it is not liable for any damages associated with the alleged loss resulting from the transformer fire and seeking to enjoin the ICC arbitration proceedings. The Company believes it has substantial defenses to potential liability in regard to the transformer fire and claimed loss. At this time, the Company is unable to predict with any certainty an estimated range of damages or whether it will have any liability, if any, attributable to the transformer fire. One of the Company's Brazilian subsidiaries is involved in an administrative proceeding with a state treasury office regarding whether tax incentives granted to the Company by one Brazilian state are applicable to goods sold in another Brazilian state from September 2008 to December 31, 2009. The Company believes it correctly relied on the tax incentives granted and that it has substantial defenses to their disallowance by the Brazilian state claimant. The principal amount claimed to be due during the contested period is approximately $8 million which does not include penalties and interest which could be substantial. In September 2012, the 1^st Chamber of the Administrative Court found that the Company was not liable for any incentive tax payments claimed by the state treasury office. The decision is subject to appeal and the Company anticipates the state treasury office will do so. The Company is also involved in various routine legal proceedings and administrative actions. Such proceedings and actions should not, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on its result of operations, cash flows or financial position. In Europe and Mediterranean as it relates to the 2005 purchase of shares of Silec, the Company has pledged to the bank the following: Silec shares, segment assets such as land and buildings and certain General Cable entities in Spain and Portugal, which have been designated as guarantors. The Company has entered into various operating lease agreements related principally to certain administrative, manufacturing and distribution facilities and transportation equipment. At September 28, 2012, future minimum rental payments required under non-cancelable lease agreements during the twelve month periods beginning September 28, 2012 through September 29, 2017 are $38.3 million, $31.7 million, $28.9 million, $26.1 million and $21.0 million, respectively, and $13.7 million thereafter. As of September 28, 2012, the Company had $52.2 million in letters of credit, $280.7 million in various performance bonds and $194.3 million in other guarantees. Other guarantees include bank guarantees and advance payment bonds. These letters of credit, performance bonds and guarantees are periodically renewed and are generally related to risk associated with self-insurance claims, defined benefit plan obligations, contract performance, quality and other various bank and financing guarantees. Advance payment bonds are often required by customers when the Company obtains advance payments to secure the production of cable for long term contracts. The advance payment bonds provide the customer protection on their deposit in the event that the Company does not perform under the contract. See “Liquidity and Capital Resources” within Item 2. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations for excess availability under the Company’s various credit borrowings.

Commitments and Contingencies

Certain present and former operating sites, or portions thereof, currently or previously owned or leased by current or former operating units are the subject of investigations, monitoring or remediation under the United States Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund), the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act or comparable state statutes or agreements with third parties. These proceedings are in various stages ranging from initial investigations to active settlement negotiations to implementation of the cleanup or remediation of sites.

Certain present and former operating units in the United States have been named as potentially responsible parties (PRPs) at several off-site disposal sites under CERCLA or comparable state statutes in federal court proceedings. In each of these matters, the operating unit is working with the governmental agencies involved and other PRPs to address environmental claims in a responsible and appropriate manner.

At September 28, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the Company had an accrued liability of approximately $1.8 million and $1.9 million, respectively, for various environmental-related liabilities to the extent costs are known or can be reasonably estimated as its liability. American Premier Underwriters Inc., a former parent of the Company, agreed to indemnify the Company against all environmental-related liabilities arising out of the Company’s or its predecessors’ ownership or operation of the Indiana Steel & Wire Company and Marathon Manufacturing Holdings, Inc. businesses (which were divested by the Company), without limitation as to time or amount. While it is difficult to estimate future environmental-related liabilities accurately, the Company does not currently anticipate any material adverse impact on its results of operations, financial position or cash flows as a result of compliance with federal, state, local or foreign environmental laws or regulations or cleanup costs of the sites discussed above.

General Cable has also agreed to indemnify Southwire Company against certain environmental liabilities arising out of the operation of the business it sold to Southwire prior to its sale. The indemnity is for a ten year period from the closing of the sale, which ended in the fourth quarter of 2011, and is subject to an overall limit of $20 million. At this time, there are no claims outstanding under this indemnity.

As part of the acquisition of Silec Cable, S.A.S (“Silec”), which was acquired in December 2005, SAFRAN SA agreed to indemnify General Cable against environmental losses arising from breach of representations and warranties on environmental law compliance and against losses arising from costs General Cable could incur to remediate property acquired based on a directive of the French authorities to rehabilitate property in regard to soil, water and other underground contamination arising before the closing date of the purchase. These indemnities were for a six-year period ended in 2011 while General Cable operated the businesses subject to sharing of certain losses (with SAFRAN covering 100% of losses in year one, 75% in years two and three, 50% in year four, and 25% in years five and six). The indemnities were subject to an overall limit of 4.0 million euros. As of September 28, 2012 and December 31, 2011, there were no claims outstanding under this indemnity. In addition, SAFRAN SA agreed to indemnify the Company for the full amount of losses arising from, related to or attributable to practices, if any, that are similar to previous practices investigated by the French competition authority for alleged competition law violations related to medium and high voltage cable markets. The Company has asserted a claim under this indemnity against SAFRAN SA related to the European Commission’s Statement of Objections, which is described in more detail below, to preserve its rights should an unfavorable outcome occur.

In 2007, the Company acquired the worldwide wire and cable business of Freeport-McMoRan Copper and Gold Inc., which operates as PDIC. As part of this acquisition, the seller agreed to indemnify the Company for certain environmental liabilities existing on the purchase closing. The seller’s obligation to indemnify the Company for these particular liabilities generally survived four years from the date the parties executed the definitive purchase agreement unless the Company has properly notified the seller before the expiry of the four year period. The seller also made certain representations and warranties related to environmental matters and the acquired business and agreed to indemnify the Company for breaches of those representation and warranties for a period of four years from the closing date. No indemnification claims for breach of representations and warranties were made during the indemnity period for the transaction.

In addition, Company subsidiaries have been named as defendants in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos in products manufactured by the Company. As of September 28, 2012, the Company was a defendant in approximately 29,062 cases brought in Federal District Courts throughout the United States. As of September 28, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the Company had accrued, on a gross basis, approximately $5.1 million, and as of September 28, 2012 and December 31, 2011, had recovered approximately $0.5 million and $0.6 million of insurance recoveries for these lawsuits, respectively. The net amount of $4.7 million and $4.5 million, as of September 28, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively, represents the Company's best estimate in order to cover resolution of current and future asbestos-related claims.

The components of the asbestos litigation reserve are current and future asbestos-related claims. The significant assumptions are: (1) the number of cases per state, (2) an estimate of the judgment per case per state, (3) an estimate of the percentage of cases per state that would make it to trial and (4) the estimated total liability percentage, excluding insurance recoveries, per case judgment. Management's estimates are based on the Company's historical experience with asbestos related claims. The Company's current history of asbestos claims does not provide sufficient and reasonable information to estimate a range of loss for potential future, unasserted asbestos claims because the number and the value of the alleged damages of such claims have not been consistent. As such, the Company does not believe a reasonably possible range can be estimated with respect to asbestos claims that may be filed in the future.

Settlement payments are made, and the asbestos reserve is relieved, when the Company receives a fully executed settlement release from the Plantiff's counsel. As of September 28, 2012 and September 30, 2011, aggregate settlement costs were $8.4 million and $7.7 million respectively. For the nine months ended September 28, 2012 and September 30, 2011, settlement costs totaled $0.5 million and $0.7 million, respectively. As of September 28, 2012 and September 30, 2011, aggregate litigation costs were $20.9 million and $19.1 million, respectively. For the nine months ended September 28, 2012 and September 30, 2011, litigation costs were $1.2 million and $1.7 million, respectively.

On July 5, 2011, the European Commission issued a Statement of Objections in relation to its ongoing competition investigation to a number of wire and cable manufacturers in the submarine and underground power cables business, including the Company's Spanish affiliate and its subsidiary, Silec. The allegations related to Silec are for the eleven months following its acquisition by the Company's Spanish affiliate, for which the Company has filed a claim for indemnification from SAFRAN SA to preserve its rights should an unfavorable outcome occur. A Statement of Objections is a procedural document in which the European Commission communicates its preliminary views in regard to possible infringement of European competition law and allows the companies identified in the Statement of Objections to present procedural and substantive arguments in response before a final decision is made. Any unfavorable decision by the European Commission is subject to appeal. The Statement of Objections issued to the Company alleges that two affiliates in Europe engaged in violations of competition law in the underground power cables businesses for a limited period of time. The Company responded to the Statement of Objections on October 28, 2011 and intends to continue to vigorously defend itself against the allegations in the course of future proceedings with the European Commission on the Statement of Objections.

The European Commission has significant discretion in assessing fines and the Statement of Objections has only provided limited guidance on how it could potentially assess fines on each of the named wire and cable companies alleged to have violated applicable competition laws. At this time, the Company believes that it has substantial defenses to the allegations contained in the Statement of Objections. However, if the Company's defenses are ultimately not successful, the Company could be assessed fines, which if imposed, could be substantial and may have a material impact on its consolidated financial results. While the Company continues to incur legal and associated costs in this matter, it is unable, at this time, to estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result as an outcome of these proceedings.

During the fourth quarter of 2011, the Company became aware of a potential claim involving multiple parties regarding the failure of a newly installed transformer in France, which was manufactured and installed by an independent third party, at a customer's hydroelectric plant. The Company supplied and installed cables and terminations to the transformer, which failed as it was being energized. The transformer was significantly damaged and the customer is alleging losses consisting of damage to the transformer and consequential damages due to its inability to operate the facility. The customer retained a court appointed technical expert to review the evidence to determine the root cause of the transformer failure and to allocate liability to the parties found responsible for such losses. The investigation is ongoing at this time and the Company believes it has substantial defenses to potential liability in regard to the transformer failure. At this time, the Company is unable to predict with any certainty an estimated range of damages or whether it will have liability, if any, attributable to the transformer failure.

In March 2012, the Company received formal notice of a claim for damages arising from a transformer fire that occurred in December 2010 allegedly resulting in loss of equipment and some consequential damages at a metal processing facility in Iceland. The Company supplied and installed cables and terminations to the transformer, which was manufactured and installed by an independent third party, during 2006 and the first quarter of 2007. The Company's work was inspected and accepted by the customer in March 2007. In August 2012, the customer initiated arbitration proceedings before the ICC Tribunal with a request to arbitrate in Pennsylvania. In September, the Company initiated litigation in Pennsylvania state courts seeking a declaration that it is not liable for any damages associated with the alleged loss resulting from the transformer fire and seeking to enjoin the ICC arbitration proceedings. The Company believes it has substantial defenses to potential liability in regard to the transformer fire and claimed loss. At this time, the Company is unable to predict with any certainty an estimated range of damages or whether it will have any liability, if any, attributable to the transformer fire.

One of the Company's Brazilian subsidiaries is involved in an administrative proceeding with a state treasury office regarding whether tax incentives granted to the Company by one Brazilian state are applicable to goods sold in another Brazilian state from September 2008 to December 31, 2009. The Company believes it correctly relied on the tax incentives granted and that it has substantial defenses to their disallowance by the Brazilian state claimant. The principal amount claimed to be due during the contested period is approximately $8 million which does not include penalties and interest which could be substantial. In September 2012, the 1^st Chamber of the Administrative Court found that the Company was not liable for any incentive tax payments claimed by the state treasury office. The decision is subject to appeal and the Company anticipates the state treasury office will do so.

The Company is also involved in various routine legal proceedings and administrative actions. Such proceedings and actions should not, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on its result of operations, cash flows or financial position.

In Europe and Mediterranean as it relates to the 2005 purchase of shares of Silec, the Company has pledged to the bank the following: Silec shares, segment assets such as land and buildings and certain General Cable entities in Spain and Portugal, which have been designated as guarantors.

The Company has entered into various operating lease agreements related principally to certain administrative, manufacturing and distribution facilities and transportation equipment. At September 28, 2012, future minimum rental payments required under non-cancelable lease agreements during the twelve month periods beginning September 28, 2012 through September 29, 2017 are $38.3 million, $31.7 million, $28.9 million, $26.1 million and $21.0 million, respectively, and $13.7 million thereafter.

As of September 28, 2012, the Company had $52.2 million in letters of credit, $280.7 million in various performance bonds and $194.3 million in other guarantees. Other guarantees include bank guarantees and advance payment bonds. These letters of credit, performance bonds and guarantees are periodically renewed and are generally related to risk associated with self-insurance claims, defined benefit plan obligations, contract performance, quality and other various bank and financing guarantees. Advance payment bonds are often required by customers when the Company obtains advance payments to secure the production of cable for long term contracts. The advance payment bonds provide the customer protection on their deposit in the event that the Company does not perform under the contract. See “Liquidity and Capital Resources” within Item 2. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations for excess availability under the Company’s various credit borrowings.