Litigation	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2015
Loss Contingency, Information about Litigation Matters [Abstract]
LITIGATION	LITIGATION In the course of its business, the Company is subject to a variety of claims and lawsuits, including, but not limited to, litigation relating to product liability and warranty, personal injury, environmental, intellectual property, commercial, contractual and antitrust claims that are inherently subject to many uncertainties regarding the possibility of a loss to the Company. These uncertainties will ultimately be resolved when one or more future events occur or fail to occur confirming the incurrence of a liability or the reduction of a liability. In accordance with the Contingencies Topic of the ASC, the Company accrues for these contingencies by a charge to income when it is both probable that one or more future events will occur confirming the fact of a loss and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. In the event that the Company’s loss contingency is ultimately determined to be significantly higher than currently accrued, the recording of the additional liability may result in a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition for the annual or interim period during which such additional liability is accrued. In those cases where no accrual is recorded because it is not probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of any such loss cannot be reasonably estimated, any potential liability ultimately determined to be attributable to the Company may result in a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition for the annual or interim period during which such liability is accrued. In those cases where no accrual is recorded or exposure to loss exists in excess of the amount accrued, the Contingencies Topic of the ASC requires disclosure of the contingency when there is a reasonable possibility that a loss or additional loss may have been incurred. Lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation. The Company’s past operations included the manufacture and sale of lead pigments and lead-based paints. The Company, along with other companies, is and has been a defendant in a number of legal proceedings, including individual personal injury actions, purported class actions, and actions brought by various counties, cities, school districts and other government-related entities, arising from the manufacture and sale of lead pigments and lead-based paints. The plaintiffs’ claims have been based upon various legal theories, including negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentations and omissions, fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions, concert of action, civil conspiracy, violations of unfair trade practice and consumer protection laws, enterprise liability, market share liability, public nuisance, unjust enrichment and other theories. The plaintiffs seek various damages and relief, including personal injury and property damage, costs relating to the detection and abatement of lead-based paint from buildings, costs associated with a public education campaign, medical monitoring costs and others. The Company has also been a defendant in legal proceedings arising from the manufacture and sale of non-lead-based paints that seek recovery based upon various legal theories, including the failure to adequately warn of potential exposure to lead during surface preparation when using non-lead-based paint on surfaces previously painted with lead-based paint. The Company believes that the litigation brought to date is without merit or subject to meritorious defenses and is vigorously defending such litigation. The Company has not settled any material lead pigment or lead-based paint litigation. The Company expects that additional lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation may be filed against the Company in the future asserting similar or different legal theories and seeking similar or different types of damages and relief. Notwithstanding the Company’s views on the merits, litigation is inherently subject to many uncertainties, and the Company ultimately may not prevail. Adverse court rulings or determinations of liability, among other factors, could affect the lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation against the Company and encourage an increase in the number and nature of future claims and proceedings. In addition, from time to time, various legislation and administrative regulations have been enacted, promulgated or proposed to impose obligations on present and former manufacturers of lead pigments and lead-based paints respecting asserted health concerns associated with such products or to overturn the effect of court decisions in which the Company and other manufacturers have been successful. Due to the uncertainties involved, management is unable to predict the outcome of the lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation, the number or nature of possible future claims and proceedings or the effect that any legislation and/or administrative regulations may have on the litigation or against the Company. In addition, management cannot reasonably determine the scope or amount of the potential costs and liabilities related to such litigation, or resulting from any such legislation and regulations. The Company has not accrued any amounts for such litigation. With respect to such litigation, including the public nuisance litigation, the Company does not believe that it is probable that a loss has occurred, and it is not possible to estimate the range of potential losses as there is no prior history of a loss of this nature and there is no substantive information upon which an estimate could be based. In addition, any potential liability that may result from any changes to legislation and regulations cannot reasonably be estimated. In the event any significant liability is determined to be attributable to the Company relating to such litigation, the recording of the liability may result in a material impact on net income for the annual or interim period during which such liability is accrued. Additionally, due to the uncertainties associated with the amount of any such liability and/or the nature of any other remedy which may be imposed in such litigation, any potential liability determined to be attributable to the Company arising out of such litigation may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. An estimate of the potential impact on the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition cannot be made due to the aforementioned uncertainties. Public nuisance claim litigation. The Company and other companies are or were defendants in legal proceedings seeking recovery based on public nuisance liability theories, among other theories, brought by the State of Rhode Island, the City of St. Louis, Missouri, various cities and counties in the State of New Jersey, various cities in the State of Ohio and the State of Ohio, the City of Chicago, Illinois, the City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin and the County of Santa Clara, California and other public entities in the State of California. Except for the Santa Clara County, California proceeding, all of these legal proceedings have been concluded in favor of the Company and other defendants at various stages in the proceedings. The proceedings initiated by the State of Rhode Island included two jury trials. At the conclusion of the second trial, the jury returned a verdict finding that (i) the cumulative presence of lead pigment in paints and coatings on buildings in the State of Rhode Island constitutes a public nuisance, (ii) the Company, along with two other defendants, caused or substantially contributed to the creation of the public nuisance and (iii) the Company and two other defendants should be ordered to abate the public nuisance. The Company and two other defendants appealed and, on July 1, 2008, the Rhode Island Supreme Court, among other determinations, reversed the judgment of abatement with respect to the Company and two other defendants. The Rhode Island Supreme Court’s decision reversed the public nuisance liability judgment against the Company on the basis that the complaint failed to state a public nuisance claim as a matter of law. The Santa Clara County, California proceeding was initiated in March 2000 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara. In the original complaint, the plaintiffs asserted various claims including fraud and concealment, strict product liability/failure to warn, strict product liability/design defect, negligence, negligent breach of a special duty, public nuisance, private nuisance, and violations of California’s Business and Professions Code. A number of the asserted claims were resolved in favor of the defendants through pre-trial proceedings. The named plaintiffs in the Fourth Amended Complaint, filed on March 16, 2011, are the Counties of Santa Clara, Alameda, Los Angeles, Monterey, San Mateo, Solano and Ventura, the Cities of Oakland and San Diego and the City and County of San Francisco. The Fourth Amended Complaint asserted a sole claim for public nuisance, alleging that the presence of lead pigments for use in paint and coatings in, on and around residences in the plaintiffs’ jurisdictions constitutes a public nuisance. The plaintiffs sought the abatement of the alleged public nuisance that exists within the plaintiffs’ jurisdictions. A trial commenced on July 15, 2013 and ended on August 22, 2013. The court entered final judgment on January 27, 2014, finding in favor of the plaintiffs and against the Company and two other defendants (ConAgra Grocery Products Company and NL Industries, Inc.). The final judgment held the Company jointly and severally liable with the other two defendants to pay $1.15 billion into a fund to abate the public nuisance. The Company strongly disagrees with the judgment. On February 18, 2014, the Company filed a motion for new trial and a motion to vacate the judgment. The court denied these motions on March 24, 2014. On March 28, 2014, the Company filed a notice of appeal to the Sixth District Court of Appeal for the State of California. The filing of the notice of appeal effects an automatic stay of the judgment without the requirement to post a bond. The appeal is fully briefed, and the parties are waiting for the Sixth District Court of Appeal to set a date for oral argument. The date for oral argument is at the discretion of the Sixth District Court of Appeal. The Company expects the Sixth District Court of Appeal to issue its ruling within 90 days following oral argument. The Company believes that the judgment conflicts with established principles of law and is unsupported by the evidence. The Company has had a favorable history with respect to lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation, particularly other public nuisance litigation, and accordingly, the Company believes that it is not probable that a loss has occurred and it is not possible to estimate the range of potential loss with respect to the case. Litigation seeking damages from alleged personal injury. The Company and other companies are defendants in a number of legal proceedings seeking monetary damages and other relief from alleged personal injuries. These proceedings include claims by children allegedly injured from ingestion of lead pigment or lead-containing paint and claims for damages allegedly incurred by the children’s parents or guardians. These proceedings generally seek compensatory and punitive damages, and seek other relief including medical monitoring costs. These proceedings include purported claims by individuals, groups of individuals and class actions. The plaintiff in Thomas v. Lead Industries Association, et al., initiated an action in state court against the Company, other alleged former lead pigment manufacturers and the Lead Industries Association in September 1999. The claims against the Company and the other defendants included strict liability, negligence, negligent misrepresentation and omissions, fraudulent misrepresentation and omissions, concert of action, civil conspiracy and enterprise liability. Implicit within these claims is the theory of “risk contribution” liability (Wisconsin’s theory which is similar to market share liability, except that liability can be joint and several) due to the plaintiff’s inability to identify the manufacturer of any product that allegedly injured the plaintiff. The case ultimately proceeded to trial and, on November 5, 2007, the jury returned a defense verdict, finding that the plaintiff had ingested white lead carbonate, but was not brain damaged or injured as a result. The plaintiff appealed and, on December 16, 2010, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the final judgment in favor of the Company and other defendants. Wisconsin is the only jurisdiction to date to apply a theory of liability with respect to alleged personal injury (i.e., risk contribution/market share liability) that does not require the plaintiff to identify the manufacturer of the product that allegedly injured the plaintiff in the lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation. Although the risk contribution liability theory was applied during the Thomas trial, the constitutionality of this theory as applied to the lead pigment cases has not been judicially determined by the Wisconsin state courts. However, in an unrelated action filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Gibson v. American Cyanamid, et al., on November 15, 2010, the District Court held that Wisconsin’s risk contribution theory as applied in that case violated the defendants’ right to substantive due process and is unconstitutionally retroactive. The District Court's decision in Gibson v. American Cyanamid, et al., was appealed by the plaintiff to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. On July 24, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the judgment and remanded the case back to the District Court for further proceedings. On January 16, 2015, the defendants filed a petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court seeking that Court's review of the Seventh Circuit's decision, and on May 18, 2015, the United States Supreme Court denied the defendants' petition. Also, in Yasmine Clark v. The Sherwin-Williams Company, et al., the Wisconsin Circuit Court, Milwaukee County, on March 25, 2014, held that the application to a pending case of Section 895.046 of the Wisconsin Statutes (which clarifies the application of the risk contribution theory) is unconstitutional as a violation of the plaintiff’s right to due process of law under the Wisconsin Constitution. On April 8, 2014, defendants filed a petition requesting the Wisconsin Court of Appeal to hear the issue as an interlocutory appeal. On August 21, 2014, the Wisconsin Court of Appeal granted defendants' petition. Insurance coverage litigation. The Company and its liability insurers, including certain underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, initiated legal proceedings against each other to primarily determine, among other things, whether the costs and liabilities associated with the abatement of lead pigment are covered under certain insurance policies issued to the Company. The Company’s action, filed on March 3, 2006 in the Common Pleas Court, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, is currently stayed and inactive. The liability insurers’ action, which was filed on February 23, 2006 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, has been dismissed. An ultimate loss in the insurance coverage litigation would mean that insurance proceeds could be unavailable under the policies at issue to mitigate any ultimate abatement related costs and liabilities. The Company has not recorded any assets related to these insurance policies or otherwise assumed that proceeds from these insurance policies would be received in estimating any contingent liability accrual. Therefore, an ultimate loss in the insurance coverage litigation without a determination of liability against the Company in the lead pigment or lead-based paint litigation will have no impact on the Company’s results of operation, liquidity or financial condition. As previously stated, however, the Company has not accrued any amounts for the lead pigment or lead-based paint litigation and any significant liability ultimately determined to be attributable to the Company relating to such litigation may result in a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition for the annual or interim period during which such liability is accrued. Litigation related to Consorcio Comex. As previously disclosed, the Company entered into a definitive Stock Purchase Agreement (as subsequently amended and restated, the “Purchase Agreement”), with Avisep, S.A. de C.V. (“Avisep”) and Bevisep, S.A. de C.V. (“Bevisep”) to, among other things, acquire the Mexico business of Consorcio Comex, S.A. de C.V. (the "Acquisition"). Under the terms of the Purchase Agreement, either the Company or Avisep and Bevisep had the right to terminate the Purchase Agreement in the event that the closing of the Acquisition did not occur on or prior to March 31, 2014 and such party was not in material breach of the Purchase Agreement. On April 3, 2014, the Company sent notice to Avisep and Bevisep that the Company was terminating the Purchase Agreement. On April 3, 2014, the Company filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, requesting the court to declare that the Company had used commercially reasonable efforts as required under the Purchase Agreement and has not breached the Purchase Agreement. On August 7, 2014, the case was removed by Avisep and Bevisep to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On April 11, 2014, Avisep and Bevisep initiated an arbitration proceeding against the Company in the International Court of Arbitration contending that the Company breached the Purchase Agreement by terminating the Purchase Agreement and not utilizing commercially reasonable efforts under the Purchase Agreement, which allegedly caused Avisep and Bevisep to incur damages. On June 1, 2015, Avisep and Bevisep filed their statement of claim in the arbitration alleging damages of approximately $85 million. The Company continues to believe that the claims are without merit and will continue to vigorously defend against such claims. Titanium dioxide suppliers antitrust class action lawsuit. The Company is a member of the plaintiff class related to Titanium Dioxide Antitrust Litigation that was initiated in 2010 against certain suppliers alleging various theories of relief arising from purchases of titanium dioxide made from 2003 through 2012. The Court approved a settlement less attorney fees and expense, and the Company timely submitted claims to recover its pro-rata portion of the settlement. There was no specified deadline for the claims administrator to complete the review of all claims submitted. In October 2014, the Company was notified that it would receive a disbursement of settlement funds, and the Company received a pro-rata disbursement net of all fees of approximately $21.4 million. The Company recorded this settlement gain in the fourth quarter of 2014.

LITIGATION

In the course of its business, the Company is subject to a variety of claims and lawsuits, including, but not limited to, litigation relating to product liability and warranty, personal injury, environmental, intellectual property, commercial, contractual and antitrust claims that are inherently subject to many uncertainties regarding the possibility of a loss to the Company. These uncertainties will ultimately be resolved when one or more future events occur or fail to occur confirming the incurrence of a liability or the reduction of a liability. In accordance with the Contingencies Topic of the ASC, the Company accrues for these contingencies by a charge to income when it is both probable that one or more future events will occur confirming the fact of a loss and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. In the event that the Company’s loss contingency is ultimately determined to be significantly higher than currently accrued, the recording of the additional liability may result in a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition for the annual or interim period during which such additional liability is accrued. In those cases where no accrual is recorded because it is not probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of any such loss cannot be reasonably estimated, any potential liability ultimately determined to be attributable to the Company may result in a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition for the annual or interim period during which such liability is accrued. In those cases where no accrual is recorded or exposure to loss exists in excess of the amount accrued, the Contingencies Topic of the ASC requires disclosure of the contingency when there is a reasonable possibility that a loss or additional loss may have been incurred.

Lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation. The Company’s past operations included the manufacture and sale of lead pigments and lead-based paints. The Company, along with other companies, is and has been a defendant in a number of legal proceedings, including individual personal injury actions, purported class actions, and actions brought by various counties, cities, school districts and other government-related entities, arising from the manufacture and sale of lead pigments and lead-based paints. The plaintiffs’ claims have been based upon various legal theories, including negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentations and omissions, fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions, concert of action, civil conspiracy, violations of unfair trade practice and consumer protection laws, enterprise liability, market share liability, public nuisance, unjust enrichment and other theories. The plaintiffs seek various damages and relief, including personal injury and property damage, costs relating to the detection and abatement of lead-based paint from buildings, costs associated with a public education campaign, medical monitoring costs and others. The Company has also been a defendant in legal proceedings arising from the manufacture and sale of non-lead-based paints that seek recovery based upon various legal theories, including the failure to adequately warn of potential exposure to lead during surface preparation when using non-lead-based paint on surfaces previously painted with lead-based paint. The Company believes that the litigation brought to date is without merit or subject to meritorious defenses and is vigorously defending such litigation. The Company has not settled any material lead pigment or lead-based paint litigation. The Company expects that additional lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation may be filed against the Company in the future asserting similar or different legal theories and seeking similar or different types of damages and relief.

Notwithstanding the Company’s views on the merits, litigation is inherently subject to many uncertainties, and the Company ultimately may not prevail. Adverse court rulings or determinations of liability, among other factors, could affect the lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation against the Company and encourage an increase in the number and nature of future claims and proceedings. In addition, from time to time, various legislation and administrative regulations have been enacted, promulgated or proposed to impose obligations on present and former manufacturers of lead pigments and lead-based paints respecting asserted health concerns associated with such products or to overturn the effect of court decisions in which the Company and other manufacturers have been successful.

Due to the uncertainties involved, management is unable to predict the outcome of the lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation, the number or nature of possible future claims and proceedings or the effect that any legislation and/or administrative regulations may have on the litigation or against the Company. In addition, management cannot reasonably determine the scope or amount of the potential costs and liabilities related to such litigation, or resulting from any such legislation and regulations. The Company has not accrued any amounts for such litigation. With respect to such litigation, including the public nuisance litigation, the Company does not believe that it is probable that a loss has occurred, and it is not possible to estimate the range of potential losses as there is no prior history of a loss of this nature and there is no substantive information upon which an estimate could be based. In addition, any potential liability that may result from any changes to legislation and regulations cannot reasonably be estimated. In the event any significant liability is determined to be attributable to the Company relating to such litigation, the recording of the liability may result in a material impact on net income for the annual or interim period during which such liability is accrued. Additionally, due to the uncertainties associated with the amount of any such liability and/or the nature of any other remedy which may be imposed in such litigation, any potential liability determined to be attributable to the Company arising out of such litigation may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. An estimate of the potential impact on the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition cannot be made due to the aforementioned uncertainties.

Public nuisance claim litigation. The Company and other companies are or were defendants in legal proceedings seeking recovery based on public nuisance liability theories, among other theories, brought by the State of Rhode Island, the City of St. Louis, Missouri, various cities and counties in the State of New Jersey, various cities in the State of Ohio and the State of Ohio, the City of Chicago, Illinois, the City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin and the County of Santa Clara, California and other public entities in the State of California. Except for the Santa Clara County, California proceeding, all of these legal proceedings have been concluded in favor of the Company and other defendants at various stages in the proceedings.

The proceedings initiated by the State of Rhode Island included two jury trials. At the conclusion of the second trial, the jury returned a verdict finding that (i) the cumulative presence of lead pigment in paints and coatings on buildings in the State of Rhode Island constitutes a public nuisance, (ii) the Company, along with two other defendants, caused or substantially contributed to the creation of the public nuisance and (iii) the Company and two other defendants should be ordered to abate the public nuisance. The Company and two other defendants appealed and, on July 1, 2008, the Rhode Island Supreme Court, among other determinations, reversed the judgment of abatement with respect to the Company and two other defendants. The Rhode Island Supreme Court’s decision reversed the public nuisance liability judgment against the Company on the basis that the complaint failed to state a public nuisance claim as a matter of law.

The Santa Clara County, California proceeding was initiated in March 2000 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara. In the original complaint, the plaintiffs asserted various claims including fraud and concealment, strict product liability/failure to warn, strict product liability/design defect, negligence, negligent breach of a special duty, public nuisance, private nuisance, and violations of California’s Business and Professions Code. A number of the asserted claims were resolved in favor of the defendants through pre-trial proceedings. The named plaintiffs in the Fourth Amended Complaint, filed on March 16, 2011, are the Counties of Santa Clara, Alameda, Los Angeles, Monterey, San Mateo, Solano and Ventura, the Cities of Oakland and San Diego and the City and County of San Francisco. The Fourth Amended Complaint asserted a sole claim for public nuisance, alleging that the presence of lead pigments for use in paint and coatings in, on and around residences in the plaintiffs’ jurisdictions constitutes a public nuisance. The plaintiffs sought the abatement of the alleged public nuisance that exists within the plaintiffs’ jurisdictions. A trial commenced on July 15, 2013 and ended on August 22, 2013. The court entered final judgment on January 27, 2014, finding in favor of the plaintiffs and against the Company and two other defendants (ConAgra Grocery Products Company and NL Industries, Inc.). The final judgment held the Company jointly and severally liable with the other two defendants to pay $1.15 billion into a fund to abate the public nuisance. The Company strongly disagrees with the judgment. On February 18, 2014, the Company filed a motion for new trial and a motion to vacate the judgment. The court denied these motions on March 24, 2014. On March 28, 2014, the Company filed a notice of appeal to the Sixth District Court of Appeal for the State of California. The filing of the notice of appeal effects an automatic stay of the judgment without the requirement to post a bond. The appeal is fully briefed, and the parties are waiting for the Sixth District Court of Appeal to set a date for oral argument. The date for oral argument is at the discretion of the Sixth District Court of Appeal. The Company expects the Sixth District Court of Appeal to issue its ruling within 90 days following oral argument. The Company believes that the judgment conflicts with established principles of law and is unsupported by the evidence. The Company has had a favorable history with respect to lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation, particularly other public nuisance litigation, and accordingly, the Company believes that it is not probable that a loss has occurred and it is not possible to estimate the range of potential loss with respect to the case.

Litigation seeking damages from alleged personal injury. The Company and other companies are defendants in a number of legal proceedings seeking monetary damages and other relief from alleged personal injuries. These proceedings include claims by children allegedly injured from ingestion of lead pigment or lead-containing paint and claims for damages allegedly incurred by the children’s parents or guardians. These proceedings generally seek compensatory and punitive damages, and seek other relief including medical monitoring costs. These proceedings include purported claims by individuals, groups of individuals and class actions.

The plaintiff in Thomas v. Lead Industries Association, et al., initiated an action in state court against the Company, other alleged former lead pigment manufacturers and the Lead Industries Association in September 1999. The claims against the Company and the other defendants included strict liability, negligence, negligent misrepresentation and omissions, fraudulent misrepresentation and omissions, concert of action, civil conspiracy and enterprise liability. Implicit within these claims is the theory of “risk contribution” liability (Wisconsin’s theory which is similar to market share liability, except that liability can be joint and several) due to the plaintiff’s inability to identify the manufacturer of any product that allegedly injured the plaintiff. The case ultimately proceeded to trial and, on November 5, 2007, the jury returned a defense verdict, finding that the plaintiff had ingested white lead carbonate, but was not brain damaged or injured as a result. The plaintiff appealed and, on December 16, 2010, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the final judgment in favor of the Company and other defendants.

Wisconsin is the only jurisdiction to date to apply a theory of liability with respect to alleged personal injury (i.e., risk contribution/market share liability) that does not require the plaintiff to identify the manufacturer of the product that allegedly injured the plaintiff in the lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation. Although the risk contribution liability theory was applied during the Thomas trial, the constitutionality of this theory as applied to the lead pigment cases has not been judicially determined by the Wisconsin state courts. However, in an unrelated action filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Gibson v. American Cyanamid, et al., on November 15, 2010, the District Court held that Wisconsin’s risk contribution theory as applied in that case violated the defendants’ right to substantive due process and is unconstitutionally retroactive. The District Court's decision in Gibson v. American Cyanamid, et al., was appealed by the plaintiff to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. On July 24, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the judgment and remanded the case back to the District Court for further proceedings. On January 16, 2015, the defendants filed a petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court seeking that Court's review of the Seventh Circuit's decision, and on May 18, 2015, the United States Supreme Court denied the defendants' petition. Also, in Yasmine Clark v. The Sherwin-Williams Company, et al., the Wisconsin Circuit Court, Milwaukee County, on March 25, 2014, held that the application to a pending case of Section 895.046 of the Wisconsin Statutes (which clarifies the application of the risk contribution theory) is unconstitutional as a violation of the plaintiff’s right to due process of law under the Wisconsin Constitution. On April 8, 2014, defendants filed a petition requesting the Wisconsin Court of Appeal to hear the issue as an interlocutory appeal. On August 21, 2014, the Wisconsin Court of Appeal granted defendants' petition.

Insurance coverage litigation. The Company and its liability insurers, including certain underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, initiated legal proceedings against each other to primarily determine, among other things, whether the costs and liabilities associated with the abatement of lead pigment are covered under certain insurance policies issued to the Company. The Company’s action, filed on March 3, 2006 in the Common Pleas Court, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, is currently stayed and inactive. The liability insurers’ action, which was filed on February 23, 2006 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, has been dismissed. An ultimate loss in the insurance coverage litigation would mean that insurance proceeds could be unavailable under the policies at issue to mitigate any ultimate abatement related costs and liabilities. The Company has not recorded any assets related to these insurance policies or otherwise assumed that proceeds from these insurance policies would be received in estimating any contingent liability accrual. Therefore, an ultimate loss in the insurance coverage litigation without a determination of liability against the Company in the lead pigment or lead-based paint litigation will have no impact on the Company’s results of operation, liquidity or financial condition. As previously stated, however, the Company has not accrued any amounts for the lead pigment or lead-based paint litigation and any significant liability ultimately determined to be attributable to the Company relating to such litigation may result in a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition for the annual or interim period during which such liability is accrued.

Litigation related to Consorcio Comex. As previously disclosed, the Company entered into a definitive Stock Purchase Agreement (as subsequently amended and restated, the “Purchase Agreement”), with Avisep, S.A. de C.V. (“Avisep”) and Bevisep, S.A. de C.V. (“Bevisep”) to, among other things, acquire the Mexico business of Consorcio Comex, S.A. de C.V. (the "Acquisition"). Under the terms of the Purchase Agreement, either the Company or Avisep and Bevisep had the right to terminate the Purchase Agreement in the event that the closing of the Acquisition did not occur on or prior to March 31, 2014 and such party was not in material breach of the Purchase Agreement.

On April 3, 2014, the Company sent notice to Avisep and Bevisep that the Company was terminating the Purchase Agreement. On April 3, 2014, the Company filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, requesting the court to declare that the Company had used commercially reasonable efforts as required under the Purchase Agreement and has not breached the Purchase Agreement. On August 7, 2014, the case was removed by Avisep and Bevisep to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On April 11, 2014, Avisep and Bevisep initiated an arbitration proceeding against the Company in the International Court of Arbitration contending that the Company breached the Purchase Agreement by terminating the Purchase Agreement and not utilizing commercially reasonable efforts under the Purchase Agreement, which allegedly caused Avisep and Bevisep to incur damages. On June 1, 2015, Avisep and Bevisep filed their statement of claim in the arbitration alleging damages of approximately $85 million. The Company continues to believe that the claims are without merit and will continue to vigorously defend against such claims.

Titanium dioxide suppliers antitrust class action lawsuit. The Company is a member of the plaintiff class related to Titanium Dioxide Antitrust Litigation that was initiated in 2010 against certain suppliers alleging various theories of relief arising from purchases of titanium dioxide made from 2003 through 2012. The Court approved a settlement less attorney fees and expense, and the Company timely submitted claims to recover its pro-rata portion of the settlement. There was no specified deadline for the claims administrator to complete the review of all claims submitted. In October 2014, the Company was notified that it would receive a disbursement of settlement funds, and the Company received a pro-rata disbursement net of all fees of approximately $21.4 million. The Company recorded this settlement gain in the fourth quarter of 2014.