Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Highway products litigation We previously reported that on January 28, 2013, the United States filed a “Notice of Election to Decline Intervention” in a False Claims Act (“Act”) complaint filed under seal on March 6, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division (“District Court”) styled Joshua Harman, on behalf of the United States of America, Plaintiff/Relator v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Defendant, Case 2:12-cv-00089-JRG. Mr. Harman alleged the Company knowingly presented or caused to be presented a false or fraudulent claim, record or statement to purchasers of the Company's ET-Plus® System, a highway guardrail end-terminal (“ET Plus”), in order for such purchasers to obtain Federal-aid reimbursement for payments made on such purchases. On October 20, 2014 a trial of this case concluded with a jury verdict stating that the Company and its subsidiary, Trinity Highway Products, LLC, “knowingly made, used or caused to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim," awarding $175 million in damages based on such finding. The jury's damages award, to the extent it survives the Company's challenge in post-trial motions or on appeal, is automatically trebled under the Act to $525 million. Additionally, the District Court is required to impose civil penalties for each violation of the Act (which penalties are not automatically trebled). The District Court has the discretion to establish the civil penalty amount between $5,500 and $11,000 per violation. In this regard, the Relator contended during trial that certain invoices submitted to purchasers of the ET Plus certified that the product was accepted by the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA") and was therefore eligible for Federal-aid reimbursement. Based on Relator’s damages model in this respect, the range of possible civil penalties is $5,500 (if the District Court determines there has been a single violation) to $184 million (if the District Court determines that each invoice for the product was a violation). The District Court has not yet entered a final judgment or determined a civil penalty amount. While the Company believes the District Court does not have the evidence required under the law to quantify civil penalties, the total range of loss in this case, based on the jury’s verdict and Mr. Harman's damage model for civil penalties, is $525 million to $709 million, exclusive of attorney's fees, costs, and interest. The Company maintains that Mr. Harman’s allegations are without merit. Accordingly, the Company intends to challenge the damages award on the ground of insufficient evidence and to vigorously defend its positions in post-trial motions and on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (“Fifth Circuit”). Such post-trial motions and appellate review will result in certain legal expenses, including potential costs associated with posting a supersedeas bond upon the District Court’s entry of a final judgment. The face amount of such bond could equal the amount of the final judgment entered plus twenty (20) percent. The Company has confidence that such bond will be issued if, when, and to the extent required. Texas A&M Transportation Institute (“TTI”), a member of The Texas A&M University System, designed the technology employed in the ET Plus. The Texas A&M University System is the owner of patents issued by the U.S. Patent Office that cover the ET Plus. Trinity Highway Products manufactures and markets the ET Plus pursuant to an exclusive license granted by The Texas A&M University System of their intellectual property. Trinity Highway Products contracted with TTI to conduct crash testing of the ET Plus to demonstrate compliance with the required standards set out in National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 350 (“Report 350”). In addition, TTI prepared and provided to Trinity Highway Products the test reports on the performance of the ET Plus for review by the FHWA in their consideration for accepting the product for use on the national highway system and determining the product’s eligibility for Federal-aid reimbursement. It is our belief that since its introduction in 2000, including all subsequent improvement modifications recommended by TTI, the ET Plus has been in compliance with Report 350 and has been, and is currently, accepted by the FHWA for Federal-aid reimbursement eligibility. In a Memorandum dated June 17, 2014, the FHWA confirmed to its Division Administrators, Directors of Field Services, Federal Lands Division Engineers, that "The Trinity ET Plus with 4-inch guide channels became eligible for Federal-aid reimbursement under FHWA letter CC-94 on September 2, 2005. In addition, the device is eligible for reimbursement under FHWA letters CC-94A and CC-120.” In its memorandum, the FHWA further confirmed the reimbursement eligibility of the device at guardrail heights from 27 3/4 inches to 31 inches, stating that an “unbroken chain of eligibility for Federal-aid reimbursement has existed since September 2, 2005 and the ET Plus continues to be eligible today." A trial in this matter commenced in July 2014, but ended in a mistrial declared by the District Court on its own volition. Preceding the second trial in this matter, the Company filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus with the Fifth Circuit based, in part, on the District Court’s failure to apply Fifth Circuit case law precedent as well as other precedential case law. In its per curiam order denying the Company’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus, the Fifth Circuit expressed concern regarding the District Court’s failure to issue a reasoned ruling rejecting the Company’s prior motions for judgment as a matter of law. The Fifth Circuit also stated that the FHWA authoritative memorandum dated June 17, 2014, on its face, appears to compel the conclusion that the FHWA, after due consideration of all the facts, found the ET Plus sufficiently compliant with federal safety standards and therefore fully eligible, in the past, present and future, for Federal-aid reimbursement claims. Additionally, the Fifth Circuit noted that a strong argument could be made that the Company’s actions were neither material nor were any false claims based on false certifications presented to the government. Based on the Fifth Circuit’s remarks, the Company re-urged its motions with the District Court for judgment as a matter of law, which the District Court denied during trial. We believe this reinforces our prospects for a successful outcome. Revenues from sales of the ET Plus in the United States, included in the Construction Products Group, totaled approximately $35.1 million and $46.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively. Pending entry of a final judgment and completion of the Company’s post-trial and appellate activities in this matter, we currently do not believe that a loss is probable, therefore no accrual has been included in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. At December 31, 2014, the Company had unrestricted cash, cash equivalents, and short-term marketable securities of $962.9 million. When combined with capacity under committed credit facilities, the Company had approximately $1.6 billion of available liquidity at the end of the fourth quarter. On October 21, 2014, in light of the jury’s finding, the FHWA requested that the Company perform eight (8) additional crash tests of the ET Plus to support the FHWA’s ongoing evaluation of ET Plus performance. The eight tests were comprised of four tests at a guardrail height of 27 3/4" and four tests at a guardrail height of 31". On October 24, 2014, the Company issued a press release stating that it will stop shipments of the ET Plus until additional crash testing of the ET Plus was completed. The requested tests were conducted in December 2014 and January 2015, in accordance with Report 350 at Southwest Research Institute, an FHWA-approved and independent research facility. Report 350 sets forth the performance evaluation criteria applicable to the ET Plus and many other roadside safety features used on U.S. highways. The ET Plus extruder heads tested in all eight tests were randomly selected by the FHWA from inventory at the California Department of Transportation. These extruder heads were representative of what is in use on U.S. and Canadian highways. On January 27, 2015, Trinity Highway Products completed the eighth, and final, test. On February 6, 2015, the FHWA released the crash test results of the first four tests conducted at the 27 3/4" installation height of the ET Plus. This release reports that the ET Plus passed Report 350 crash test criteria at the 27 3/4" guardrail height. The vast majority of guardrails installed on the roadways in the U.S. and Canada are at the 27 3/4" height. These test results validate Trinity Highway Products' long standing position that when installed, maintained and impacted within the Report 350 standards, the 27 3/4" height ET Plus performs to Report 350 criteria. When all eight test results are reviewed and released by the FHWA, the Company will perform a thorough analysis before resuming any shipments of the ET Plus to its customers. As of the date on which the eighth test was concluded, Trinity is aware of 42 states that had removed the ET Plus from their respective qualified products list. The state of Virginia, in addition to evaluating a potential recall of all ET Plus products installed on Virginia roadways, has joined Mr. Harman's Virginia state action alleging the same false claims as were alleged in the false claims act case pending in the Eastern District of Texas. Other states could take similar or different actions regarding recall, and could be considering similar state false claims litigation against the Company. While the financial impacts of such actions are currently unknown, they could be material. The Company is aware of two class action lawsuits involving claims pertaining to the ET Plus. The Company has received service of process in a lawsuit filed November 6, 2014, titled Hamilton County, Illinois and Macon County, Illinois, Individually and on behalf of all Other Counties in the State of Illinois vs. Trinity Industries, Inc. and Trinity Highway Products, LLC. In this case it is alleged that the Company and Trinity Highway Products made a series of un-tested modifications to the ET Plus and falsely certified that the modified ET Plus was acceptable for use on the nation’s highways based on federal testing standards and approval for Federal-aid reimbursement. The Plaintiffs further allege breach of express and implied warranties, violation of the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act and unjust enrichment, for which Plaintiffs seek actual damages related to purchases of the ET Plus, compensatory damages for establishing a common fund for class members, punitive damages, and injunctive relief. The case is filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois and is being brought by Plaintiffs for and on behalf of themselves and the other 101 counties of the State of Illinois. The Company is also aware of, but has not received service of process in a lawsuit filed February 11, 2015 titled The Corporation of the City of Stratford and Trinity Industries, Inc., Trinity Highway Products, LLC, and Trinity Industries Canada, Inc. pending in Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The class in this matter has been identified as persons in Canada who purchased and/or used an ET Plus guardrail end terminal. The Statement of Claim in this litigation generally alleges that Trinity Industries, Inc., Trinity Highway Products, and Trinity Industries Canada, failed to warn of dangers associated with undisclosed modifications to the ET Plus guardrail end terminals, breached its implied warranty, breached its duty of care, and was negligent. Plaintiff is seeking $400 million in compensatory damages and $100 million in punitive damages. In the alternative to damages, Plaintiff further pleads an entitlement to "waive the tort" and claim an accounting or other such restitution remedy for disgorgement of the revenues generated by Trinity Industries, Inc., Trinity Highway Products, and Trinity Industries Canada as a result of the sale of the modified ET Plus guardrail end terminals in Canada, due to the product not being fit for its intended purpose and/or the failure to disclose the modifications and/or risks associated with the modifications to the ET Plus guardrail end terminals. The Company believes each of these lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend these allegations. While the financial impacts of these two actions are currently unknown, they could be material. The Company is currently defending a number of product liability lawsuits in several different states that are alleged to involve the ET Plus. These cases are diverse in light of the randomness of collisions in general and the fact that each accident involving roadside devices such as an ET Plus, or any other fixed object along the highway has its own unique facts and circumstances. Report 350 recognizes that performance of even the most carefully researched roadside device is subject to physical laws and the crash worthiness of vehicles. The Company expects the jury verdict, coupled with the media attention the verdict has generated, will prompt the plaintiff’s bar to seek out vehicle accident victims involved in collisions with an ET Plus as potential clients, which may result in additional product liability lawsuits being filed against the Company. The Company carries general liability insurance to mitigate the impact of adverse verdict exposures in these product liability cases. The Company has received information that several law firms are investigating whether certain officers and directors of the Company breached their fiduciary duties relating to modifications made to the ET Plus and/or violated federal securities laws. We believe these investigations will be concluded without substantive results. However, the Company may incur legal expenses and related costs in responding to these investigations. Train derailment As previously reported, the Company was named as a respondent in litigation filed July 15, 2013 in Superior Court, Province of Quebec, District of Saint-Francois, styled Yannick Gagne and Guy Ouellet vs. Rail World, Inc., et al related to the July 2013 crude oil unit train derailment in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec. A partially-owned subsidiary of the Company owned and leased to a third party 13 of the railcars involved in the incident, which lessee is also named as a defendant in the Province of Quebec litigation. As of June 18, 2014, the petitioners in the Quebec litigation have voluntarily desisted with their claims against the Company resulting in the dismissal of the Company without prejudice; however the partially-owned subsidiary remains as a respondent in the litigation. The litigation filed in Quebec is seeking “class” status which, if certified, could lead to multiple individuals and business entities becoming class members. The Company was also named as a defendant in multiple cases filed by the estates of decedents in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois seeking damages for alleged wrongful death and property damage arising from the July 2013 crude oil unit train derailment in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec. The Company’s tank car manufacturing subsidiary manufactured 35 of the 72 tank railcars involved in the derailment. However the Illinois cases have since been ordered transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Maine. This transfer prompted plaintiffs to seek dismissal of these actions. Nonetheless, the Maine court has not indicated those dismissals were effectuated and the cases were transferred to federal court in Maine and have been assigned new case numbers. Certain of the plaintiffs in these transferred cases have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit seeking to overturn the decision to transfer. This appeal has resulted in a stay of all proceedings in the transferred cases pending resolution of the appeal. The Company could be named in similar litigation involving other affected plaintiffs, but the ultimate number of claims and the jurisdiction in which such claims are filed, may vary. The Company has recorded an accrual of $11.4 million at December 31, 2014 related to this matter of which expected third-party recoveries of $10.2 million are recorded in other assets at December 31, 2014. We do not believe at this time that an additional loss is probable nor can a range of additional losses be determined. Other matters The Company is involved in claims and lawsuits incidental to our business arising from various matters including product warranty, personal injury, environmental issues, workplace laws, and various governmental regulations. The Company evaluates its exposure to such claims and suits periodically and establishes accruals for these contingencies when a range of loss can be reasonably estimated. The range of reasonably possible losses for such matters, taking into consideration our rights in indemnity and recourse to third parties is $3.9 million to $29.3 million. This range excludes any amount related to the highway products litigation matters described above. At December 31, 2014, total accruals of $27.5 million, including environmental and workplace matters described below, are included in accrued liabilities in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet. The Company believes any additional liability would not be material to its financial position or results of operations. Trinity is subject to remedial orders and Federal, state, local, and foreign laws and regulations relating to the environment and the workplace. The Company has reserved $6.1 million to cover our probable and estimable liabilities with respect to the investigations, assessments, and remedial responses to such matters, taking into account currently available information and our contractual rights to indemnification and recourse to third parties. However, estimates of liability arising from future proceedings, assessments, or remediation are inherently imprecise. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that we will not become involved in future litigation or other proceedings involving the environment and the workplace or, if we are found to be responsible or liable in any such litigation or proceeding, that such costs would not be material to the Company. We believe that we are currently in substantial compliance with environmental and workplace laws and regulations. Other commitments Non-cancelable purchase obligations amounted to $1.4 billion as of December 31, 2014, of which $1.2 billion is for the purchase of raw materials and components, principally by the Rail, Inland Barge, and Energy Equipment Groups.

Commitments and Contingencies

Highway products litigation

We previously reported that on January 28, 2013, the United States filed a “Notice of Election to Decline Intervention” in a False Claims Act (“Act”) complaint filed under seal on March 6, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division (“District Court”) styled Joshua Harman, on behalf of the United States of America, Plaintiff/Relator v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Defendant, Case 2:12-cv-00089-JRG. Mr. Harman alleged the Company knowingly presented or caused to be presented a false or fraudulent claim, record or statement to purchasers of the Company's ET-Plus® System, a highway guardrail end-terminal (“ET Plus”), in order for such purchasers to obtain Federal-aid reimbursement for payments made on such purchases. On October 20, 2014 a trial of this case concluded with a jury verdict stating that the Company and its subsidiary, Trinity Highway Products, LLC, “knowingly made, used or caused to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim," awarding $175 million in damages based on such finding. The jury's damages award, to the extent it survives the Company's challenge in post-trial motions or on appeal, is automatically trebled under the Act to $525 million. Additionally, the District Court is required to impose civil penalties for each violation of the Act (which penalties are not automatically trebled). The District Court has the discretion to establish the civil penalty amount between $5,500 and $11,000 per violation. In this regard, the Relator contended during trial that certain invoices submitted to purchasers of the ET Plus certified that the product was accepted by the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA") and was therefore eligible for Federal-aid reimbursement. Based on Relator’s damages model in this respect, the range of possible civil penalties is $5,500 (if the District Court determines there has been a single violation) to $184 million (if the District Court determines that each invoice for the product was a violation).

The District Court has not yet entered a final judgment or determined a civil penalty amount. While the Company believes the District Court does not have the evidence required under the law to quantify civil penalties, the total range of loss in this case, based on the jury’s verdict and Mr. Harman's damage model for civil penalties, is $525 million to $709 million, exclusive of attorney's fees, costs, and interest.

The Company maintains that Mr. Harman’s allegations are without merit. Accordingly, the Company intends to challenge the damages award on the ground of insufficient evidence and to vigorously defend its positions in post-trial motions and on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (“Fifth Circuit”). Such post-trial motions and appellate review will result in certain legal expenses, including potential costs associated with posting a supersedeas bond upon the District Court’s entry of a final judgment. The face amount of such bond could equal the amount of the final judgment entered plus twenty (20) percent. The Company has confidence that such bond will be issued if, when, and to the extent required.

Texas A&M Transportation Institute (“TTI”), a member of The Texas A&M University System, designed the technology employed in the ET Plus. The Texas A&M University System is the owner of patents issued by the U.S. Patent Office that cover the ET Plus. Trinity Highway Products manufactures and markets the ET Plus pursuant to an exclusive license granted by The Texas A&M University System of their intellectual property. Trinity Highway Products contracted with TTI to conduct crash testing of the ET Plus to demonstrate compliance with the required standards set out in National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 350 (“Report 350”). In addition, TTI prepared and provided to Trinity Highway Products the test reports on the performance of the ET Plus for review by the FHWA in their consideration for accepting the product for use on the national highway system and determining the product’s eligibility for Federal-aid reimbursement. It is our belief that since its introduction in 2000, including all subsequent improvement modifications recommended by TTI, the ET Plus has been in compliance with Report 350 and has been, and is currently, accepted by the FHWA for Federal-aid reimbursement eligibility. In a Memorandum dated June 17, 2014, the FHWA confirmed to its Division Administrators, Directors of Field Services, Federal Lands Division Engineers, that "The Trinity ET Plus with 4-inch guide channels became eligible for Federal-aid reimbursement under FHWA letter CC-94 on September 2, 2005. In addition, the device is eligible for reimbursement under FHWA letters CC-94A and CC-120.” In its memorandum, the FHWA further confirmed the reimbursement eligibility of the device at guardrail heights from 27 3/4 inches to 31 inches, stating that an “unbroken chain of eligibility for Federal-aid reimbursement has existed since September 2, 2005 and the ET Plus continues to be eligible today."

A trial in this matter commenced in July 2014, but ended in a mistrial declared by the District Court on its own volition. Preceding the second trial in this matter, the Company filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus with the Fifth Circuit based, in part, on the District Court’s failure to apply Fifth Circuit case law precedent as well as other precedential case law. In its per curiam order denying the Company’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus, the Fifth Circuit expressed concern regarding the District Court’s failure to issue a reasoned ruling rejecting the Company’s prior motions for judgment as a matter of law. The Fifth Circuit also stated that the FHWA authoritative memorandum dated June 17, 2014, on its face, appears to compel the conclusion that the FHWA, after due consideration of all the facts, found the ET Plus sufficiently compliant with federal safety standards and therefore fully eligible, in the past, present and future, for Federal-aid reimbursement claims. Additionally, the Fifth Circuit noted that a strong argument could be made that the Company’s actions were neither material nor were any false claims based on false certifications presented to the government. Based on the Fifth Circuit’s remarks, the Company re-urged its motions with the District Court for judgment as a matter of law, which the District Court denied during trial. We believe this reinforces our prospects for a successful outcome.

Revenues from sales of the ET Plus in the United States, included in the Construction Products Group, totaled approximately $35.1 million and $46.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively.

Pending entry of a final judgment and completion of the Company’s post-trial and appellate activities in this matter, we currently do not believe that a loss is probable, therefore no accrual has been included in the accompanying consolidated financial statements.

At December 31, 2014, the Company had unrestricted cash, cash equivalents, and short-term marketable securities of $962.9 million. When combined with capacity under committed credit facilities, the Company had approximately $1.6 billion of available liquidity at the end of the fourth quarter.

On October 21, 2014, in light of the jury’s finding, the FHWA requested that the Company perform eight (8) additional crash tests of the ET Plus to support the FHWA’s ongoing evaluation of ET Plus performance. The eight tests were comprised of four tests at a guardrail height of 27 3/4" and four tests at a guardrail height of 31". On October 24, 2014, the Company issued a press release stating that it will stop shipments of the ET Plus until additional crash testing of the ET Plus was completed. The requested tests were conducted in December 2014 and January 2015, in accordance with Report 350 at Southwest Research Institute, an FHWA-approved and independent research facility. Report 350 sets forth the performance evaluation criteria applicable to the ET Plus and many other roadside safety features used on U.S. highways. The ET Plus extruder heads tested in all eight tests were randomly selected by the FHWA from inventory at the California Department of Transportation. These extruder heads were representative of what is in use on U.S. and Canadian highways.

On January 27, 2015, Trinity Highway Products completed the eighth, and final, test. On February 6, 2015, the FHWA released the crash test results of the first four tests conducted at the 27 3/4" installation height of the ET Plus. This release reports that the ET Plus passed Report 350 crash test criteria at the 27 3/4" guardrail height. The vast majority of guardrails installed on the roadways in the U.S. and Canada are at the 27 3/4" height. These test results validate Trinity Highway Products' long standing position that when installed, maintained and impacted within the Report 350 standards, the 27 3/4" height ET Plus performs to Report 350 criteria. When all eight test results are reviewed and released by the FHWA, the Company will perform a thorough analysis before resuming any shipments of the ET Plus to its customers.

As of the date on which the eighth test was concluded, Trinity is aware of 42 states that had removed the ET Plus from their respective qualified products list. The state of Virginia, in addition to evaluating a potential recall of all ET Plus products installed on Virginia roadways, has joined Mr. Harman's Virginia state action alleging the same false claims as were alleged in the false claims act case pending in the Eastern District of Texas. Other states could take similar or different actions regarding recall, and could be considering similar state false claims litigation against the Company. While the financial impacts of such actions are currently unknown, they could be material.

The Company is aware of two class action lawsuits involving claims pertaining to the ET Plus. The Company has received service of process in a lawsuit filed November 6, 2014, titled Hamilton County, Illinois and Macon County, Illinois, Individually and on behalf of all Other Counties in the State of Illinois vs. Trinity Industries, Inc. and Trinity Highway Products, LLC. In this case it is alleged that the Company and Trinity Highway Products made a series of un-tested modifications to the ET Plus and falsely certified that the modified ET Plus was acceptable for use on the nation’s highways based on federal testing standards and approval for Federal-aid reimbursement. The Plaintiffs further allege breach of express and implied warranties, violation of the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act and unjust enrichment, for which Plaintiffs seek actual damages related to purchases of the ET Plus, compensatory damages for establishing a common fund for class members, punitive damages, and injunctive relief. The case is filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois and is being brought by Plaintiffs for and on behalf of themselves and the other 101 counties of the State of Illinois. The Company is also aware of, but has not received service of process in a lawsuit filed February 11, 2015 titled The Corporation of the City of Stratford and Trinity Industries, Inc., Trinity Highway Products, LLC, and Trinity Industries Canada, Inc. pending in Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The class in this matter has been identified as persons in Canada who purchased and/or used an ET Plus guardrail end terminal. The Statement of Claim in this litigation generally alleges that Trinity Industries, Inc., Trinity Highway Products, and Trinity Industries Canada, failed to warn of dangers associated with undisclosed modifications to the ET Plus guardrail end terminals, breached its implied warranty, breached its duty of care, and was negligent. Plaintiff is seeking $400 million in compensatory damages and $100 million in punitive damages. In the alternative to damages, Plaintiff further pleads an entitlement to "waive the tort" and claim an accounting or other such restitution remedy for disgorgement of the revenues generated by Trinity Industries, Inc., Trinity Highway Products, and Trinity Industries Canada as a result of the sale of the modified ET Plus guardrail end terminals in Canada, due to the product not being fit for its intended purpose and/or the failure to disclose the modifications and/or risks associated with the modifications to the ET Plus guardrail end terminals. The Company believes each of these lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend these allegations. While the financial impacts of these two actions are currently unknown, they could be material.

The Company is currently defending a number of product liability lawsuits in several different states that are alleged to involve the ET Plus. These cases are diverse in light of the randomness of collisions in general and the fact that each accident involving roadside devices such as an ET Plus, or any other fixed object along the highway has its own unique facts and circumstances. Report 350 recognizes that performance of even the most carefully researched roadside device is subject to physical laws and the crash worthiness of vehicles. The Company expects the jury verdict, coupled with the media attention the verdict has generated, will prompt the plaintiff’s bar to seek out vehicle accident victims involved in collisions with an ET Plus as potential clients, which may result in additional product liability lawsuits being filed against the Company. The Company carries general liability insurance to mitigate the impact of adverse verdict exposures in these product liability cases.

The Company has received information that several law firms are investigating whether certain officers and directors of the Company breached their fiduciary duties relating to modifications made to the ET Plus and/or violated federal securities laws. We believe these investigations will be concluded without substantive results. However, the Company may incur legal expenses and related costs in responding to these investigations.

Train derailment

As previously reported, the Company was named as a respondent in litigation filed July 15, 2013 in Superior Court, Province of Quebec, District of Saint-Francois, styled Yannick Gagne and Guy Ouellet vs. Rail World, Inc., et al related to the July 2013 crude oil unit train derailment in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec. A partially-owned subsidiary of the Company owned and leased to a third party 13 of the railcars involved in the incident, which lessee is also named as a defendant in the Province of Quebec litigation. As of June 18, 2014, the petitioners in the Quebec litigation have voluntarily desisted with their claims against the Company resulting in the dismissal of the Company without prejudice; however the partially-owned subsidiary remains as a respondent in the litigation. The litigation filed in Quebec is seeking “class” status which, if certified, could lead to multiple individuals and business entities becoming class members.

The Company was also named as a defendant in multiple cases filed by the estates of decedents in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois seeking damages for alleged wrongful death and property damage arising from the July 2013 crude oil unit train derailment in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec. The Company’s tank car manufacturing subsidiary manufactured 35 of the 72 tank railcars involved in the derailment. However the Illinois cases have since been ordered transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Maine. This transfer prompted plaintiffs to seek dismissal of these actions. Nonetheless, the Maine court has not indicated those dismissals were effectuated and the cases were transferred to federal court in Maine and have been assigned new case numbers. Certain of the plaintiffs in these transferred cases have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit seeking to overturn the decision to transfer. This appeal has resulted in a stay of all proceedings in the transferred cases pending resolution of the appeal. The Company could be named in similar litigation involving other affected plaintiffs, but the ultimate number of claims and the jurisdiction in which such claims are filed, may vary. The Company has recorded an accrual of $11.4 million at December 31, 2014 related to this matter of which expected third-party recoveries of $10.2 million are recorded in other assets at December 31, 2014. We do not believe at this time that an additional loss is probable nor can a range of additional losses be determined.

Other matters

The Company is involved in claims and lawsuits incidental to our business arising from various matters including product warranty, personal injury, environmental issues, workplace laws, and various governmental regulations. The Company evaluates its exposure to such claims and suits periodically and establishes accruals for these contingencies when a range of loss can be reasonably estimated. The range of reasonably possible losses for such matters, taking into consideration our rights in indemnity and recourse to third parties is $3.9 million to $29.3 million. This range excludes any amount related to the highway products litigation matters described above. At December 31, 2014, total accruals of $27.5 million, including environmental and workplace matters described below, are included in accrued liabilities in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet. The Company believes any additional liability would not be material to its financial position or results of operations.

Trinity is subject to remedial orders and Federal, state, local, and foreign laws and regulations relating to the environment and the workplace. The Company has reserved $6.1 million to cover our probable and estimable liabilities with respect to the investigations, assessments, and remedial responses to such matters, taking into account currently available information and our contractual rights to indemnification and recourse to third parties. However, estimates of liability arising from future proceedings, assessments, or remediation are inherently imprecise. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that we will not become involved in future litigation or other proceedings involving the environment and the workplace or, if we are found to be responsible or liable in any such litigation or proceeding, that such costs would not be material to the Company. We believe that we are currently in substantial compliance with environmental and workplace laws and regulations.

Other commitments

Non-cancelable purchase obligations amounted to $1.4 billion as of December 31, 2014, of which $1.2 billion is for the purchase of raw materials and components, principally by the Rail, Inland Barge, and Energy Equipment Groups.