Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	Contingencies Highway products litigation Federal False Claims Act case We previously reported the filing of a False Claims Act (“Act”) complaint 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 (E.D. Tex.). In this case, the relator, Mr. Joshua 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. A trial in this matter commenced in July 2014, but ended in a mistrial declared by the District Court on its own volition. On October 20, 2014 a retrial 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 $175.0 million in damages based on such finding. The jury's damages award is automatically trebled under the Act to $525.0 million. Additionally, the District Court is required to impose civil penalties for each violation of the Act (these 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, Mr. Harman contended during trial that each invoice 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 Mr. Harman’s calculations, the range of possible civil penalties is $5,500 (if the District Court determines there has been a single violation) to $184.0 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 calculations for civil penalties, is $525.0 million to $709.0 million, exclusive of attorney's fees, costs, and interest. The Company maintains that Mr. Harman’s allegations are without merit. The Company has filed multiple post-verdict motions, including a motion for the District Court to enter judgment in favor of the Company. However, if the Court enters judgment based on the jury’s verdict, the Company intends to file the necessary motions to perfect its right to appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (“Fifth Circuit”). Any post-judgment motions and appellate review will result in certain legal expenses, including potential costs associated with posting a bond upon the District Court’s entry of a judgment on the jury’s verdict. The face amount of such a bond could equal the amount of the final judgment plus twenty (20) percent. The Company has confidence that such a bond will be issued if 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. 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. These reports were reviewed by the FHWA in their acceptance of the product for use on the national highway system and their determination of the product’s eligibility for Federal-aid reimbursement. In a memorandum dated June 17, 2014, the FHWA confirmed 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 this memorandum the FHWA confirmed that the reimbursement eligibility applies at guardrail heights from 27 ¾" to 31". The memorandum goes on to state 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.” Preceding the retrial 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 precedential case law. The Fifth Circuit denied this Petition, but 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’s authoritative memorandum of June 17, 2014 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 the retrial. We believe this reinforces our prospects for a successful outcome. 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. 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, and 0.6% and 1.1% of the Company’s consolidated revenues, respectively, for those years. Crash testing and FHWA assessments Following the October 20, 2014 jury verdict, the FHWA requested that the Company conduct eight separate crash tests pursuant to crash test criteria required in Report 350. The FHWA-requested tests were conducted in December 2014 and January 2015 at Southwest Research Institute, an FHWA-approved and independent research facility. On February 6, 2015, the FHWA reported that the ET Plus passed the first four tests conducted at the 27 ¾" guardrail installation height. The vast majority of ET Plus systems are installed on the roadways in the U.S. and Canada at the 27 ¾" guardrail height. On March 13, 2015, the FWHA reported that the ET Plus passed the second four crash tests conducted at a 31" guardrail installation height. These eight test results validate Trinity Highway Products' long standing position that when installed, maintained and impacted within the Report 350 standards, the ET Plus performs to Report 350 criteria at both heights. On March 11, 2015, the FHWA and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ("AASHTO") released the findings of a joint task force which evaluated field measurement data collected by FHWA engineers from more than 1,000 4-inch ET Plus devices installed on roadways throughout the country. The FHWA-AASHTO joint task force concluded there is no evidence to suggest that there are multiple versions of the 4-inch ET-Plus on the nation's roadways. This task force also concluded that the ET Plus end terminals crash tested at Southwest Research Institute between December 2014 and January 2015 were representative of the devices installed across the country. A second FHWA-AASHTO joint task force is doing further evaluation of the ET Plus. The FHWA has reported that this evaluation is expected to be completed early this summer. When the findings of this second task force are released, the Company will perform a thorough analysis regarding the resumption of any shipments of the ET Plus to customers. State, county, and municipal actions Trinity is aware of 41 states that have 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. Commonwealth of Virginia ex rel. Joshua M. Harman v. Trinity Industries, Inc. and Trinity Highway Products, LLC Case No. CL13-698 (Circuit Court, Richmond, Virginia). Other states could take similar or different actions regarding recall, and could be considering similar state false claims or other litigation against the Company. While the financial impacts of such actions are currently unknown, they could be material. The Company is aware of three class action lawsuits involving claims pertaining to the ET Plus. The Company has been served 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 Case 3:14-cv-1320 (Southern District of Illinois). This complaint was later amended to substitute St. Clair County, Illinois for Hamilton County as a lead plaintiff. The case is being brought by plaintiffs for and on behalf of themselves and the other 101 counties of the State of Illinois. The plaintiffs allege 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 also allege breach of express and implied warranties, violation of the Illinois 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 Company has also been served 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. Case No. 15-2622 CP, 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 plaintiff alleges that Trinity Industries, Inc., Trinity Highway Products, LLC, and Trinity Industries Canada, Inc., failed to warn of dangers associated with undisclosed modifications to the ET Plus guardrail end terminals, breached an implied warranty, breached a duty of care, and were negligent. The plaintiff is seeking $400.0 million in compensatory damages and $100.0 million in punitive damages. Alternatively, the plaintiff claims the right to an accounting or other restitution remedy for disgorgement of the revenues generated by the sale of the modified ET Plus in Canada. The Company has been served in a lawsuit filed February 25, 2015, titled La Crosse County, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. Trinity Industries, Inc. and Trinity Highway Products, LLC Case 15-cv-117 (Western District of Wisconsin). The case is being brought by the plaintiffs for and on behalf of themselves and all other purchasers of allegedly defective ET Pluses, including proposed statewide and nationwide classes. The plaintiff alleges 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 plaintiff also alleges strict liability design defect, breach of contract, breach of express and implied warranties, violation of the Wisconsin Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the ET Plus is defective, actual damages related to class-wide purchases of the ET Plus, punitive damages, statutory penalties, interest, and injunctive relief. The Company believes each of these class action lawsuits is without merit and intends to vigorously defend all allegations. While the financial impacts of these three actions are currently unknown, they could be material. Product liability cases; law firm investigations 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 is aware that several law firms are investigating whether the Company and certain of its officers and directors 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 will 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's loss accrual for this matter, net of expected third party recoveries, is not significant. The Company has engaged in settlement negotiations to resolve the entirety of the above referenced derailment litigation within the limits of available insurance and subject to court approval in the context of the Canadian and U.S. bankruptcy proceedings of the involved railroad. 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 $3.5 million to $23.7 million. This range excludes any amount related to the highway products litigation matters described above. At March 31, 2015, total accruals of $25.8 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 $5.2 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.

Contingencies

Highway products litigation

Federal False Claims Act case

We previously reported the filing of a False Claims Act (“Act”) complaint 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 (E.D. Tex.). In this case, the relator, Mr. Joshua 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.

A trial in this matter commenced in July 2014, but ended in a mistrial declared by the District Court on its own volition. On October 20, 2014 a retrial 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 $175.0 million in damages based on such finding. The jury's damages award is automatically trebled under the Act to $525.0 million. Additionally, the District Court is required to impose civil penalties for each violation of the Act (these 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, Mr. Harman contended during trial that each invoice 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 Mr. Harman’s calculations, the range of possible civil penalties is $5,500 (if the District Court determines there has been a single violation) to $184.0 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 calculations for civil penalties, is $525.0 million to $709.0 million, exclusive of attorney's fees, costs, and interest.

The Company maintains that Mr. Harman’s allegations are without merit. The Company has filed multiple post-verdict motions, including a motion for the District Court to enter judgment in favor of the Company. However, if the Court enters judgment based on the jury’s verdict, the Company intends to file the necessary motions to perfect its right to appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (“Fifth Circuit”). Any post-judgment motions and appellate review will result in certain legal expenses, including potential costs associated with posting a bond upon the District Court’s entry of a judgment on the jury’s verdict. The face amount of such a bond could equal the amount of the final judgment plus twenty (20) percent. The Company has confidence that such a bond will be issued if 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. 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. These reports were reviewed by the FHWA in their acceptance of the product for use on the national highway system and their determination of the product’s eligibility for Federal-aid reimbursement. In a memorandum dated June 17, 2014, the FHWA confirmed 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 this memorandum the FHWA confirmed that the reimbursement eligibility applies at guardrail heights from 27 ¾" to 31". The memorandum goes on to state 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.”

Preceding the retrial 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 precedential case law. The Fifth Circuit denied this Petition, but 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’s authoritative memorandum of June 17, 2014 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 the retrial. We believe this reinforces our prospects for a successful outcome.

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.

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, and 0.6% and 1.1% of the Company’s consolidated revenues, respectively, for those years.

Crash testing and FHWA assessments

Following the October 20, 2014 jury verdict, the FHWA requested that the Company conduct eight separate crash tests pursuant to crash test criteria required in Report 350. The FHWA-requested tests were conducted in December 2014 and January 2015 at Southwest Research Institute, an FHWA-approved and independent research facility.

On February 6, 2015, the FHWA reported that the ET Plus passed the first four tests conducted at the 27 ¾" guardrail installation height. The vast majority of ET Plus systems are installed on the roadways in the U.S. and Canada at the 27 ¾" guardrail height. On March 13, 2015, the FWHA reported that the ET Plus passed the second four crash tests conducted at a 31" guardrail installation height. These eight test results validate Trinity Highway Products' long standing position that when installed, maintained and impacted within the Report 350 standards, the ET Plus performs to Report 350 criteria at both heights. On March 11, 2015, the FHWA and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ("AASHTO") released the findings of a joint task force which evaluated field measurement data collected by FHWA engineers from more than 1,000 4-inch ET Plus devices installed on roadways throughout the country. The FHWA-AASHTO joint task force concluded there is no evidence to suggest that there are multiple versions of the 4-inch ET-Plus on the nation's roadways. This task force also concluded that the ET Plus end terminals crash tested at Southwest Research Institute between December 2014 and January 2015 were representative of the devices installed across the country.

A second FHWA-AASHTO joint task force is doing further evaluation of the ET Plus. The FHWA has reported that this evaluation is expected to be completed early this summer. When the findings of this second task force are released, the Company will perform a thorough analysis regarding the resumption of any shipments of the ET Plus to customers.

State, county, and municipal actions

Trinity is aware of 41 states that have 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. Commonwealth of Virginia ex rel. Joshua M. Harman v. Trinity Industries, Inc. and Trinity Highway Products, LLC Case No. CL13-698 (Circuit Court, Richmond, Virginia). Other states could take similar or different actions regarding recall, and could be considering similar state false claims or other litigation against the Company. While the financial impacts of such actions are currently unknown, they could be material.

The Company is aware of three class action lawsuits involving claims pertaining to the ET Plus. The Company has been served 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 Case 3:14-cv-1320 (Southern District of Illinois). This complaint was later amended to substitute St. Clair County, Illinois for Hamilton County as a lead plaintiff. The case is being brought by plaintiffs for and on behalf of themselves and the other 101 counties of the State of Illinois. The plaintiffs allege 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 also allege breach of express and implied warranties, violation of the Illinois 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 Company has also been served 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. Case No. 15-2622 CP, 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 plaintiff alleges that Trinity Industries, Inc., Trinity Highway Products, LLC, and Trinity Industries Canada, Inc., failed to warn of dangers associated with undisclosed modifications to the ET Plus guardrail end terminals, breached an implied warranty, breached a duty of care, and were negligent. The plaintiff is seeking $400.0 million in compensatory damages and $100.0 million in punitive damages. Alternatively, the plaintiff claims the right to an accounting or other restitution remedy for disgorgement of the revenues generated by the sale of the modified ET Plus in Canada.

The Company has been served in a lawsuit filed February 25, 2015, titled La Crosse County, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. Trinity Industries, Inc. and Trinity Highway Products, LLC Case 15-cv-117 (Western District of Wisconsin). The case is being brought by the plaintiffs for and on behalf of themselves and all other purchasers of allegedly defective ET Pluses, including proposed statewide and nationwide classes. The plaintiff alleges 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 plaintiff also alleges strict liability design defect, breach of contract, breach of express and implied warranties, violation of the Wisconsin Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the ET Plus is defective, actual damages related to class-wide purchases of the ET Plus, punitive damages, statutory penalties, interest, and injunctive relief.

The Company believes each of these class action lawsuits is without merit and intends to vigorously defend all allegations. While the financial impacts of these three actions are currently unknown, they could be material.

Product liability cases; law firm investigations

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 is aware that several law firms are investigating whether the Company and certain of its officers and directors 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 will 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's loss accrual for this matter, net of expected third party recoveries, is not significant. The Company has engaged in settlement negotiations to resolve the entirety of the above referenced derailment litigation within the limits of available insurance and subject to court approval in the context of the Canadian and U.S. bankruptcy proceedings of the involved railroad.

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 $3.5 million to $23.7 million. This range excludes any amount related to the highway products litigation matters described above. At March 31, 2015, total accruals of $25.8 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 $5.2 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.