Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Contingent Obligations Related to Divested Operations — We have divested certain businesses in recent years. In each case, we have retained certain known contingent obligations related to those businesses and/or assumed an obligation to indemnify the purchasers of the businesses for certain unknown contingent liabilities, including environmental liabilities. We believe that we have established adequate reserves, which are immaterial to the unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, for potential liabilities and indemnifications related to our divested businesses. Moreover, we do not expect any liability that we may have for these retained liabilities, or any indemnification liability, to materially exceed amounts accrued. Contingent Obligations Related to Milk Supply Arrangements — In connection with our acquisition of Legacy Dean, we purchased Dairy Farmers of America’s (“DFA”) 33.8% interest in our operations in 2001. In connection with that transaction, we issued a contingent, subordinated promissory note to DFA in the original principal amount of $40 million. The promissory note has a 20-year term and bears interest based on the consumer price index. Interest will not be paid in cash but will be added to the principal amount of the note annually, up to a maximum principal amount of $96 million. We may prepay the note in whole or in part at any time, without penalty. The note will only become payable if we materially breach or terminate one of our related milk supply agreements with DFA without renewal or replacement. Otherwise, the note will expire in 2021, without any obligation to pay any portion of the principal or interest. Payments made under the note, if any, would be expensed as incurred. We have not terminated, and we have not materially breached, any of our milk supply agreements with DFA related to the promissory note. We have previously terminated unrelated supply agreements with respect to several plants that were supplied by DFA. In connection with our goals of accelerated cost control and increased supply chain efficiency, we continue to evaluate our sources of raw milk supply. Insurance — We use a combination of insurance and self-insurance for a number of risks, including property, workers’ compensation, general liability, automobile liability, product liability and employee health care utilizing high deductibles. Deductibles vary due to insurance market conditions and risk. Liabilities associated with these risks are estimated considering historical claims experience and other actuarial assumptions. Based on current information, we believe that we have established adequate reserves to cover these claims. Lease and Purchase Obligations — We lease certain property, plant and equipment used in our operations under both capital and operating lease agreements. Such leases, which are primarily for machinery, equipment and vehicles, have lease terms ranging from one to 20 years. We had an immaterial amount of capital lease obligations as of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013. Certain of the operating lease agreements require the payment of additional rentals for maintenance, along with additional rentals based on miles driven or units produced. Certain leases require us to guarantee a minimum value of the leased asset at the end of the lease. Our maximum exposure under those guarantees is not a material amount. We have entered into various contracts, in the normal course of business, obligating us to purchase minimum quantities of raw materials used in our production and distribution processes, including conventional raw milk, diesel fuel, sugar and other ingredients that are inputs into our finished products. We enter into these contracts from time to time to ensure a sufficient supply of raw ingredients. In addition, we have contractual obligations to purchase various services that are part of our production process. Litigation, Investigations and Audits Tennessee Retailer and Indirect Purchaser Actions A putative class action antitrust complaint (the “retailer action”) was filed on August 9, 2007 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Plaintiffs allege generally that we, either acting alone or in conjunction with others in the milk industry who are also defendants in the retailer action, lessened competition in the Southeastern United States for the sale of processed fluid Grade A milk to retail outlets and other customers, and that the defendants’ conduct also artificially inflated wholesale prices for direct milk purchasers. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in the retailer action was granted in part and denied in part in August 2010. Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration, and renewed their request for summary judgment in September 2010. In March 2012, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants as to all remaining counts and entered judgment in favor of all defendants, including the Company. Plaintiffs appealed the court’s decision in April 2012. Briefing on the appeal was completed in April 2013, and oral argument occurred in July 2013. In January 2014, the appeals court reversed the judgment for the defendants, including the Company, on one of the original five counts in the Tennessee retailer action. In February 2014, the Company requested that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals consider its decision en banc; the Sixth Circuit declined to do so. The Sixth Circuit returned the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The Company filed a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for review of the case on August 1, 2014. The parties have agreed to defer further proceedings in the trial court until there is a determination by the Supreme Court whether to review the decision of the Court of Appeals. On June 29, 2009, another putative class action lawsuit was filed in the Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeneville Division, on behalf of indirect purchasers of processed fluid Grade A milk (the “indirect purchaser action”). The allegations in this complaint are similar to those in the retailer action, but primarily involve state law claims. Because the allegations in the indirect purchaser action substantially overlap with the allegations in the retailer action, the Court granted the parties’ joint motion to stay all proceedings in the indirect purchaser action pending the outcome of the summary judgment motions in the retailer action. On August 16, 2012, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit. On January 17, 2013, these same plaintiffs filed a new lawsuit in the Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeneville Division, on behalf of a putative class of indirect purchasers of processed fluid Grade A milk (the “2013 indirect purchaser action”). The allegations are similar to those in the voluntarily dismissed indirect purchaser action, but involve only claims arising under Tennessee law. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on April 30, 2013. On June 14, 2013, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs responded to the Company’s motion to dismiss and filed an amended complaint. On July 1, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed on August 15, 2013. On September 11, 2014, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. The Court granted the motion to dismiss the non-Tennessee plaintiffs’ claims. The Company filed its answer to the surviving claims on October 15, 2014. At this time, it is not possible for us to predict the ultimate outcome of these matters. In addition to the pending legal proceedings set forth above, we are party from time to time to certain claims, litigations, audits and investigations. Potential liabilities associated with these other matters are not expected to have a material adverse impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Other We have settled with substantially all states in regards to our obligations under state unclaimed property laws, the results of which did not have a material adverse impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Commitments and Contingencies

Contingent Obligations Related to Divested Operations — We have divested certain businesses in recent years. In each case, we have retained certain known contingent obligations related to those businesses and/or assumed an obligation to indemnify the purchasers of the businesses for certain unknown contingent liabilities, including environmental liabilities. We believe that we have established adequate reserves, which are immaterial to the unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, for potential liabilities and indemnifications related to our divested businesses. Moreover, we do not expect any liability that we may have for these retained liabilities, or any indemnification liability, to materially exceed amounts accrued.

Contingent Obligations Related to Milk Supply Arrangements — In connection with our acquisition of Legacy Dean, we purchased Dairy Farmers of America’s (“DFA”) 33.8% interest in our operations in 2001. In connection with that transaction, we issued a contingent, subordinated promissory note to DFA in the original principal amount of $40 million. The promissory note has a 20-year term and bears interest based on the consumer price index. Interest will not be paid in cash but will be added to the principal amount of the note annually, up to a maximum principal amount of $96 million. We may prepay the note in whole or in part at any time, without penalty. The note will only become payable if we materially breach or terminate one of our related milk supply agreements with DFA without renewal or replacement. Otherwise, the note will expire in 2021, without any obligation to pay any portion of the principal or interest. Payments made under the note, if any, would be expensed as incurred. We have not terminated, and we have not materially breached, any of our milk supply agreements with DFA related to the promissory note. We have previously terminated unrelated supply agreements with respect to several plants that were supplied by DFA. In connection with our goals of accelerated cost control and increased supply chain efficiency, we continue to evaluate our sources of raw milk supply.

Insurance — We use a combination of insurance and self-insurance for a number of risks, including property, workers’ compensation, general liability, automobile liability, product liability and employee health care utilizing high deductibles. Deductibles vary due to insurance market conditions and risk. Liabilities associated with these risks are estimated considering historical claims experience and other actuarial assumptions. Based on current information, we believe that we have established adequate reserves to cover these claims.

Lease and Purchase Obligations — We lease certain property, plant and equipment used in our operations under both capital and operating lease agreements. Such leases, which are primarily for machinery, equipment and vehicles, have lease terms ranging from one to 20 years. We had an immaterial amount of capital lease obligations as of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013. Certain of the operating lease agreements require the payment of additional rentals for maintenance, along with additional rentals based on miles driven or units produced. Certain leases require us to guarantee a minimum value of the leased asset at the end of the lease. Our maximum exposure under those guarantees is not a material amount.

We have entered into various contracts, in the normal course of business, obligating us to purchase minimum quantities of raw materials used in our production and distribution processes, including conventional raw milk, diesel fuel, sugar and other ingredients that are inputs into our finished products. We enter into these contracts from time to time to ensure a sufficient supply of raw ingredients. In addition, we have contractual obligations to purchase various services that are part of our production process.

Litigation, Investigations and Audits

Tennessee Retailer and Indirect Purchaser Actions

A putative class action antitrust complaint (the “retailer action”) was filed on August 9, 2007 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Plaintiffs allege generally that we, either acting alone or in conjunction with others in the milk industry who are also defendants in the retailer action, lessened competition in the Southeastern United States for the sale of processed fluid Grade A milk to retail outlets and other customers, and that the defendants’ conduct also artificially inflated wholesale prices for direct milk purchasers. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in the retailer action was granted in part and denied in part in August 2010. Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration, and renewed their request for summary judgment in September 2010. In March 2012, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants as to all remaining counts and entered judgment in favor of all defendants, including the Company. Plaintiffs appealed the court’s decision in April 2012. Briefing on the appeal was completed in April 2013, and oral argument occurred in July 2013. In January 2014, the appeals court reversed the judgment for the defendants, including the Company, on one of the original five counts in the Tennessee retailer action. In February 2014, the Company requested that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals consider its decision en banc; the Sixth Circuit declined to do so. The Sixth Circuit returned the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The Company filed a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for review of the case on August 1, 2014. The parties have agreed to defer further proceedings in the trial court until there is a determination by the Supreme Court whether to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.

On June 29, 2009, another putative class action lawsuit was filed in the Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeneville Division, on behalf of indirect purchasers of processed fluid Grade A milk (the “indirect purchaser action”). The allegations in this complaint are similar to those in the retailer action, but primarily involve state law claims. Because the allegations in the indirect purchaser action substantially overlap with the allegations in the retailer action, the Court granted the parties’ joint motion to stay all proceedings in the indirect purchaser action pending the outcome of the summary judgment motions in the retailer action. On August 16, 2012, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit. On January 17, 2013, these same plaintiffs filed a new lawsuit in the Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeneville Division, on behalf of a putative class of indirect purchasers of processed fluid Grade A milk (the “2013 indirect purchaser action”). The allegations are similar to those in the voluntarily dismissed indirect purchaser action, but involve only claims arising under Tennessee law. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on April 30, 2013. On June 14, 2013, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs responded to the Company’s motion to dismiss and filed an amended complaint. On July 1, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed on August 15, 2013. On September 11, 2014, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. The Court granted the motion to dismiss the non-Tennessee plaintiffs’ claims. The Company filed its answer to the surviving claims on October 15, 2014.

At this time, it is not possible for us to predict the ultimate outcome of these matters.

In addition to the pending legal proceedings set forth above, we are party from time to time to certain claims, litigations, audits and investigations. Potential liabilities associated with these other matters are not expected to have a material adverse impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Other

We have settled with substantially all states in regards to our obligations under state unclaimed property laws, the results of which did not have a material adverse impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.