Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Commitments and Contingencies	Jun. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Accounts Receivable A portion of accounts receivable at our Brazilian subsidiary are sold with limited recourse at a discount, which creates a contingent liability for the business. Discounted receivables sold with limited recourse were $3.8 million at June 30, 2015 and $3.7 million at December 31, 2014, respectively, and our weighted average interest rate was 11.8% and 8.5% for the six months ended June 30, 2015 and for the year ended December 31, 2014, respectively. Under our factoring program in Europe, we may discount receivables with recourse; however, at June 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, there were no receivables sold with recourse. Purchase Commitments As of June 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, we had $17.2 million and $19.2 million, respectively, of non-cancelable purchase commitments with suppliers for materials and supplies in the normal course of business. Letters of credit We issue letters of credit in the normal course of business as required by some vendor contracts and insurance policies. As of June 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, we had $6.2 million and $6.4 million, respectively, in outstanding letters of credit in the U.S. Outside the U.S., we had $14.1 million and $16.2 million in outstanding letters of credit at June 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively. Litigation General We are party to litigation in the ordinary course of business. Litigation occasionally involves claims for punitive as well as compensatory damages arising out of use of our products. Although we are self-insured to some extent, we maintain insurance against certain product liability losses. We are also subject to administrative proceedings with respect to claims involving the discharge of hazardous substances into the environment. Some of these claims assert damages and liability for remedial investigation and clean-up costs. We are also typically involved in commercial and employee disputes in the ordinary course of business. Although their ultimate outcome cannot be predicted with certainty, and some may be disposed of unfavorably to us, management considers that appropriate reserves have been established and, except as described below, does not believe that the disposition of these matters will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, cash flows or results of operations. With the exception of the settlement of the working capital adjustment made with the purchaser of our former Engine & Power Train business segment, our reserves for contingent liabilities have not historically differed materially from estimates upon their final outcomes. However, discovery of new facts, developments in litigation, or settlement negotiations could cause estimates to differ materially from current expectations in the future. Except as disclosed below, we do not believe we have any pending loss contingencies that are probable or reasonably possible of having a material impact to our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Canadian Horsepower label litigation On March 19, 2010, Robert Foster and Murray Davenport filed a lawsuit under the Class Proceedings Act in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against us and several other defendants (including Sears Canada Inc., Sears Holdings Corporation, John Deere Limited, Platinum Equity, LLC, Briggs & Stratton Corporation, Kawasaki Motors Corp., USA, MTD Products Inc., The Toro Company, American Honda Motor Co., Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Husqvarna Consumer Outdoor Products N.A., Inc. and Kohler Co.), alleging that defendants conspired to fix prices of lawn mowers and lawn mower engines in Canada, to lessen competition in lawn mowers and lawn mower engines in Canada, and to mislabel the horsepower of lawn mower engines and lawn mowers in violation of the Canadian Competition Act, civil conspiracy prohibitions and the Consumer Packaging and Labeling Act. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons in Canada who purchased, for their own use and not for resale, a lawn mower containing a gas combustible engine of 30 horsepower or less provided that either the lawn mower or the engine contained within the lawn mower was manufactured and/or sold by a defendant or their predecessors between January 1, 1994 and the date of judgment. Plaintiffs seek undetermined money damages, punitive damages, interest, costs and equitable relief. In addition, Snowstorm Acquisition Corporation and Platinum Equity, LLC, the purchasers of Tecumseh Power Company and its subsidiaries and Motoco a.s. in November 2007, have notified us that they claim indemnification with respect to this lawsuit under our Stock Purchase Agreement with them. Settlements involving all but two of the defendants (Kawasaki and Tecumseh) have been negotiated and have either been approved by the court or are in the process of being approved. These settlements are not binding on Kawasaki and Tecumseh, nor are they determinative of their liability, if any. It is unclear at this time how aggressively the plaintiffs will pursue the litigation given these settlements. A schedule leading to the hearing of the plaintiffs’ certification motion has been established. Pursuant to this schedule, the hearing will take place from November 30 to December 2, 2015 in London, Ontario. Because of certain recently filed defense motions, it is unclear at this stage whether the hearing will proceed on those dates. At this time, we do not have a reasonable estimate of the amount of our ultimate liability, if any, or the amount of any potential future settlement, but the amount could be material to our financial position, consolidated results of operations and cash flows. On May 3, 2010, a class action was commenced in the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec by Eric Liverman and Sidney Vadish against us and several other defendants (including those listed above) advancing allegations similar to those outlined immediately above. Plaintiffs seek undetermined monetary damages, punitive damages, interest, costs, and equitable relief. As stated above, Snowstorm Acquisition Corporation and Platinum Equity, LLC, the purchasers of Tecumseh Power Company and its subsidiaries and Motoco a.s. in November 2007, have notified us that they claim indemnification with respect to this lawsuit under our Stock Purchase Agreement with them. As was the case with the Ontario litigation described above, settlements involving all but two of the defendants (Kawasaki and Tecumseh) have been negotiated and have received or are in the process of receiving, court approval. These settlements are not binding on the non-settling defendants, nor is it determinative of their liability, if any. It is unclear at this time how aggressively the plaintiffs will pursue the litigation against the non-settling defendants. The certification motion in the Quebec action has not been scheduled. It is unlikely, however, that it will be heard before the certification in the Ontario action. At this time, we do not have a reasonable estimate of the amount of our ultimate liability, if any, or the amount of any potential future settlement, but the amount could be material to our financial position, consolidated results of operations and cash flows. Compressor industry antitrust investigation On February 17, 2009, we received a subpoena from the United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division (“DOJ”) and a formal request for information from the Secretariat of Economic Law of the Ministry of Justice of Brazil (“SDE”) related to investigations by these authorities into possible anti-competitive pricing arrangements among certain manufacturers in the compressor industry. The European Commission began an investigation of the industry on the same day. We have entered into a conditional amnesty agreement with the DOJ under the Antitrust Division's Corporate Leniency Policy. Pursuant to the agreement, the DOJ has agreed not to bring any criminal prosecution or impose any monetary fines with respect to the investigation against us as long as we, among other things, continue our full cooperation in the investigation. We have received similar conditional immunity from the European Commission and the SDE, and have received or requested immunity or leniency from competition authorities in other jurisdictions. On December 7, 2011, the European Commission announced it had reached a cartel settlement under which certain of our competitors received fines for the conduct investigated. As a result of our conditional immunity, we were not assessed any fine. While we have taken steps to avoid fines, penalties and other sanctions as the result of proceedings brought by regulatory authorities, the amnesty grants do not extend to civil actions brought by private plaintiffs. The public disclosure of these investigations has resulted in class action lawsuits filed in Canada and numerous class action lawsuits filed in the United States, including by both direct and indirect purchaser groups. In the second quarter of 2015, in connection with ongoing settlement negotiations, we recorded an accrual of $500,000 in anticipation of settling the Canadian antitrust lawsuits, although an agreement has not been finalized. All of the U.S. actions have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings under Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) procedures. Our settlements with the direct and indirect plaintiffs were approved by the court in April and June 2014. On March 12, 2012, a proceeding was commenced by Electrolux do Brasil S.A., in the Civil Division of the State District Court in São Paulo, Brazil, against Tecumseh Do Brasil Ltda. and two other defendants controlled by Whirlpool, jointly and severally. The complaint alleges that Electrolux suffered damages from over pricing due to the activities of a cartel of which we and Whirlpool were members. The complaint states that the amount in controversy is Brazilian Real 1,000,000. However, Electrolux would be entitled to recover any damages it is able to prove in the proceeding, in the event that they exceed this amount. We timely filed opposition to this claim. We intend to continue to vigorously contest the claim. On March 20, 2013, a proceeding was commenced by Electrolux Home Products Corporation N.V. in the Regional Court of Kiel, Germany against Tecumseh Europe S.A. and several other defendants, jointly and severally. The claim alleges total estimated damages of approximately €63.0 million based on 15% of Electrolux's total purchases in Europe of the relevant compressors, the vast majority of which were purchased from a competitor. We filed our initial response to the claim on August 30, 2013. On August 22, 2013, the District Court of Kiel decided to stay the case until the Court of Justice of the European Union issues a decision in another case regarding jurisdictional issues that are also raised in this case. On March 20, 2014, we entered into a Settlement Agreement with AB Electrolux and its affiliates (“Electrolux”) pursuant to which Electrolux agreed to release us from all antitrust claims worldwide except those currently pending in the Brazil case described above and except for Electrolux's share of any direct purchaser settlement payments pursuant to the settlement described above. We agreed to pay Electrolux US$1.5 million over three years in connection with this settlement agreement. On December 18, 2013, BSH Boschund Siemens Hausgerate GMBH ("Bosch") sent the company a letter in which it threatened to initiate court proceedings in Germany against Tecumseh unless Tecumseh pays Bosch damages for alleged overcharges relating to its purchases of compressors. A complaint was filed by Bosch in the Regional Court of Munich I on August 25, 2014 against us and several other defendants (including Embraco Europe S.r.l., Whirlpool S.A. and Panasonic Corporation). We intend to vigorously contest the claim. Danfoss (one of the other participants in the conduct) pre-empted Bosch’s claim in Munich by filing a declarative claim against Bosch in Denmark, to which Bosch has filed a counterclaim for damages. In connection with this proceeding in Denmark, Danfoss has filed a contribution claim in Denmark against Tecumseh as well as a claim for damages in France against Tecumseh Europe. In addition, Embraco has issued third party notices to Tecumseh for a contribution claim in connection with the Embraco claims. We intend to vigorously defend the claim. Products Liability/ Warranty Claim On July 31, 2014, Tecumseh Europe S.A. was served a writ (on the merits) before the Commercial Court of La Roche-sur-Yon by the five companies of the Atlantic Industrie SAS group. The dispute alleges product failures associated with the supply by Tecumseh Europe of evaporating units mounted on Atlantic's thermodynamic water heaters pursuant to a November 2009 purchase agreement. The writ seeks the payment of 16,715,109 Euros as damages alleging our failure to satisfy our obligation of information, hidden defects, lack of conformity and breach of the purchase agreement. We have informed our insurance company about this dispute. Under our insurance policy, we are responsible for the first 60,000 Euros, with our insurance covering up to the next 3.5 million Euros. Our insurance company has assumed the defense of this claim, subject to a reservation of rights. A judicial expert was appointed by the Commercial Court of La Roche-sur-Yon on June 9, 2015, and has requested from the parties relevant documents for a first meeting likely to be held in September or October 2015. Due to the uncertainty of our liability in the "Litigation" issues discussed above, or other cases that may be brought in the future, we have not recognized any impact in our financial statements, other than for the claims subject to the settlement agreements as well as our estimated contractual obligation related to the Atlantic claim described above. Our ultimate liability or the amount of any potential future settlements or resolution of these claims, if any, could be material to our financial position, consolidated results of operations and cash flows. We anticipate that we will incur additional expenses as we continue to cooperate with the investigations and defend the lawsuits. We expense all legal costs as incurred in our Consolidated Statements of Operations. Such expenses and any restitution payments could negatively impact our reputation, compromise our ability to compete and result in financial losses in an amount which could be material to our financial position, consolidated results of operations and cash flows. Environmental Matters At June 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014 we had accrued $5.1 million and $5.7 million, respectively, for environmental remediation. Included in the June 30, 2015 balance is an accrual, measured on a discounted basis, of $1.2 million for the remaining estimated costs associated with remediation activities at our former Tecumseh, Michigan facility. We have met with the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("USEPA") several times and most recently in early 2014, to discuss the overall project at this site. On September 30, 2013, we submitted the Supplement to the Current Human Exposures Environmental Indicators Report to the USEPA. This Supplement confirmed that human exposures are under control in accordance with the Administrative Order on Consent. USEPA provided comments on January 31, 2014. We submitted a scope of work for additional investigation activities to USEPA on March 27, 2014 to respond to USEPA’s comments. These additional investigative activities began in the second quarter of 2014. The deadline for the final corrective measures proposal was extended to January 31, 2016, based upon feedback from the USEPA and time to address their comments. Based upon the known USEPA expectations, the majority of investigation work is complete while remediation and monitoring activities are expected to be completed by the end of 2020. Delays in demolition activities of the current property owner could delay remediation system construction at the site. We were named by the USEPA as a potentially responsible party in connection with the Sheboygan River and Harbor Superfund Site ("SRHS") in Wisconsin. In 2003, with the cooperation of the USEPA, we and Pollution Risk Services, LLC (“PRS”) entered into a Liability Transfer and Assumption Agreement (the “Liability Transfer Agreement”). Under the terms of the Liability Transfer Agreement, PRS assumed all of our responsibilities, obligations and liabilities for remediation of the entire SRHS and the associated costs, except for potential future liabilities related to Natural Resource Damages (“NRD”). Also, as required by the Liability Transfer Agreement, we purchased Remediation Cost Cap insurance, with a 30 year term, in the amount of $100.0 million and Environmental Site Liability insurance in the amount of $20.0 million. We believe that insurance coverage will provide sufficient assurance for completion of the responsibilities, obligations and liabilities assumed by PRS under the Liability Transfer Agreement. In conjunction with the Liability Transfer Agreement, we completed the transfer of title to the Sheboygan Falls, Wisconsin property to PRS. Active remediation of the SRHS was completed in 2013 and PRS is currently preparing the final work completion reports. PRS has been submitting these reports and continues to do so. USEPA is expected to issue a Certificate of Completion for the Site after it has reviewed and approved the final work completion reports. Now that the remediation and reporting on SRHS is nearing completion, the natural resource trustees (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (collectively, the "Trustees")) will have the opportunity to assess if they will assert any NRD claims. In September 2012, we were advised that the Sheboygan River Natural Resource Trustees conducted a pre-assessment screen of natural resources damages related to the Sheboygan River and Harbor Site, including the Kohler Landfill Superfund Site and the Campmarina Alternate Superfund Site. In a letter received by us on May 23, 2013, the Trustees provided notice to us of their intent to perform a formal NRD assessment. The Trustees sent this letter to three parties in addition to us. Neither we, nor any of the other three notified parties, admit that we are, or it is, liable for any natural resource damages in connection with the SRHS. Further, no allocation of liability among the parties, whether interim or final, has been reached. At this time, we have not received a Notice of Intent to Sue as required by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act as a predicate to any lawsuit for natural resources damages by the Trustees. However, we have entered into a second tolling agreement with the Trustees to stop any applicable limitations period on their asserted claims for the period from September 15, 2014 to September 15, 2015, "to facilitate settlement negotiations between the Parties". Settlement discussions among us, one of the other potentially responsible parties ("PRP's") and the Trustees have been ongoing and continue. In cooperation with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (“WDNR”), we also conducted an investigation of soil and groundwater contamination at our Grafton, Wisconsin plant. In February 2013, the WDNR granted a "no further action" for the on-site groundwater component of the investigation but required the installation of three additional off-site, down-gradient monitoring wells and two years (six sampling events) of off-site monitoring. The timetable for monitoring began with the sampling event conducted in October 2012, with the objective of demonstrating that concentrations are stable and receiving full closure from the WDNR in 2014. The three additional off-site, down-gradient monitoring wells were installed and all on-site monitoring wells were formally abandoned during the second quarter of 2013. Groundwater results from the off-site monitoring wells indicated the possibility of vapor intrusion in nearby residences. Under an agreement with the WDNR, we initiated sampling of vapor intrusion beginning with residences nearest the off-site monitoring wells. Based on the results of fifteen properties to date, we have installed vapor mitigation systems in four residences and the vapor intrusion investigation was deemed complete by the WDNR. The WDNR subsequently required an additional off-site groundwater investigation. A work plan to investigate the extent of the contamination was approved by the WDNR in June 2014. Four new monitoring wells were installed and sampled in the third quarter of 2014. The sampling results of these wells indicated that additional investigation was needed and was performed, as approved by the WDNR, during the first and second quarters of 2015. The additional off-site groundwater investigation has led to the additional vapor intrusion investigation of nine additional offsite properties that were completed during the first quarter of 2015. Based upon the favorable results of the two rounds of vapor intrusion sampling at these nine residences, the WDNR issued a notice on April 22, 2015 that no additional vapor intrusion sampling would be required. Going forward, the work will mainly consist of off-site quarterly groundwater monitoring until closure is sought at the end of 2016. In addition to the above-mentioned sites, we are also currently participating with the USEPA and various state agencies at certain other sites to determine the nature and extent of any remedial action that may be necessary with regard to such other sites. As these matters continue toward final resolution, amounts in excess of those already provided may be necessary to discharge us from our obligations for these sites. Such amounts, depending on their amount and timing, could be material to reported net income in the particular quarter or period that they are recorded. In addition, the ultimate resolution of these matters, either individually or in the aggregate, could be material to the consolidated financial statements.