Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	Contingencies Highway products litigation We previously reported the filing of a False Claims Act (“FCA”) 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 No. 2:12-cv-00089-JRG (E.D. Tex.). In this case, the relator, Mr. Joshua Harman, alleged the Company violated the FCA pertaining to sales of the Company's ET-Plus® System, a highway guardrail end-terminal (“ET Plus”). On October 20, 2014, a trial in this case concluded with a jury verdict stating that the Company and its subsidiary, Trinity Highway Products, LLC (“Trinity Highway Products”), “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. Following the jury verdict, the District Court ordered the parties to engage in good faith negotiations in an effort to reach a settlement of the matter. On June 9th, 2015, the parties reported to the District Court that despite mutual best efforts, the parties were not successful at resolving their disputes. On the same day, following denial of the Company’s post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law, the District Court entered judgment on the verdict in the total amount of $682.4 million, comprised of $175.0 million in damages, which amount is automatically trebled under the FCA to $525.0 million, plus $138.4 million in civil penalties and $19.0 million in costs and attorney’s fees. On June 23, 2015, the District Court approved the Company’s posting of a supersedeas bond in the amount of $686.0 million (the “Bond”) and ordered a stay of the execution of the District Court’s June 9, 2015 entry of judgment of $682.4 million against the Company pending resolution of all appeals. The Company obtained the Bond on an unsecured basis for an initial annual premium of $3.9 million. The Company maintains that Mr. Harman’s allegations are without merit. On July 7, 2015, the Company filed a Motion for New Trial with the District Court and on August 3, 2015, the Motion was denied. On August 28, 2015, the Company filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (“Fifth Circuit”). The Notice of Appeal, related filings, and any appellate review will result in legal expenses which are expensed as incurred. 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 crash test criteria 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 crash test performance of the ET Plus. These reports were reviewed by the Federal Highway Administration (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 October 2014 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 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. We believe this reinforces our prospects for a successful outcome on appeal. 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. On October 24, 2014, due to the FHWA’s request for additional ET Plus crash tests, the Company announced that it would suspend shipment of the ET Plus to customers. The FHWA-requested tests were conducted in December 2014 and January 2015 at Southwest Research Institute, an FHWA-approved and independent research facility. Following completion of the first four tests at a 27 ¾" guardrail installation height, and again after completion of the second four tests at a 31" guardrail installation height, the FHWA reported that the ET Plus passed all tests. The eight test results validate Trinity Highway Products' long standing position that the ET Plus performs as tested for both guardrail installation heights when properly installed and maintained. 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 ("Task Force I"), comprised of representatives from the FHWA, AASHTO, the state Departments of Transportation of South Dakota, New Hampshire, Missouri, Ohio, Delaware, and Wyoming, and the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario, Canada, that evaluated field measurement data collected by FHWA engineers from more than 1,000 4-inch ET Plus devices installed on roadways throughout the country. Task Force I concluded there is no evidence to suggest that there are multiple versions of the 4-inch ET Plus on the nation's roadways. Task Force I also concluded that the ET Plus end terminals crash tested at Southwest Research Institute in December 2014 and January 2015 were representative of the devices installed across the country. The FHWA and AASHTO formed a second joint task force ("Task Force II”) comprised of representatives from the FHWA, AASHTO, the state Departments of Transportation of Iowa, Georgia, New Hampshire, North Carolina, New York, Michigan, Missouri, Delaware, and Utah, and independent experts to further evaluate the in-service performance of the ET Plus through the collection and analysis of a broad array of data. In a report dated September 11, 2015, the FHWA and AASHTO released certain findings, conclusions, and recommendations of Task Force II, including but not limited to, the following: there are no performance limitations unique to the ET Plus; there will be real-world conditions that exceed the performance expectations of all manufacturers’ guardrail end terminal systems; and additional crash testing of all existing Report 350 compliant guardrail end terminals, including the ET Plus, “would not be informative” and “would be irrelevant”. The Company's Notice of Appeal is pending, and the Company will vigorously pursue a reversal of the $682.4 million judgment before the Fifth Circuit. Based on information currently available to the Company including the significance of the successful completion of eight post-verdict crash tests of the ET Plus and the favorable findings and conclusions published by both Task Force I and II regarding ET Plus end terminal systems installed on the nation's roadways, we do not believe that a loss is probable in this matter, 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 represented approximately 0.6% and 1.1% of the Company’s consolidated revenues, respectively, for those years. There were no revenues from the sales of ET Plus systems for the nine months ended September 30, 2015 as a result of the Company’s action to suspend shipments of the product. The Company is currently receiving inquiries from customers for potential purchases of ET Plus systems, and will resume shipment of the product as orders are received and accepted. State, county, and municipal actions Trinity is aware of 40 states and the District of Columbia that have removed the ET Plus from their respective qualified products list. Mr. Harman filed a qui tam action pursuant to the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act (“VFATA”), entitled 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), alleging the Company violated the VFATA pertaining to sales of the ET Plus. The Commonwealth of Virginia, in addition to evaluating a potential replacement of certain ET Plus products installed on Virginia roadways, has intervened in Mr. Harman's Virginia state action. Mr. Harman and the Commonwealth of Virginia are seeking damages, civil penalties, attorneys’ fees, costs and interest. In September and October 2015, the Virginia Department of Transportation (“VDOT”) conducted a series of six crash tests on the ET Plus, the results of which have not yet been published. On September 18, 2015, TTI, the designer of the ET Plus technology, released a statement that it has no confidence in the six crash tests performed by VDOT. On October 1, 2015, TTI released a statement characterizing VDOT’s six crash tests as arbitrary and non-standard due to crash test inconsistencies with Report 350 testing and performance evaluation criteria. Mr. Harman has also filed five additional separate state qui tam actions pursuant to the Indiana False Claims and Whistleblower Protection Act (State of Indiana ex rel. Joshua M. Harman Qui Tam v. Trinity Industries, Inc., and Trinity Highway Products, LLC, Case No. 49D06-1407-PL-024117, In the Sixth Court of Marion County, Indiana); the Delaware False Claims and Reporting Act (State of Delaware ex rel. Joshua M. Harman v. Trinity Industries, Inc., and Trinity Highway Products, LLC, Civ. No. N14C-06-227 MMJ CCLD, In the Superior Court of the State of Delaware In and For New Castle County); the Iowa False Claims Act (State of Iowa ex rel. Joshua M. Harman v. Trinity Industries, Inc., and Trinity Highway Products, LLC, Case No. CVCV048309, In the Iowa District Court for Polk County); the Rhode Island False Claims Act (State of Rhode Island ex rel. Joshua M. Harman v. Trinity Industries, Inc., and Trinity Highway Products, LLC, Case No. 14-3498, In the Superior Court for the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations); and the Tennessee False Claims Act (State of Tennessee ex rel. Joshua M. Harman v. Trinity Industries, Inc., and Trinity Highway Products, LLC, Case No. 14C2652, In the Circuit Court for Davidson County, Tennessee). In each of these five cases Mr. Harman is alleging the Company violated the respective state false claims act pertaining to sales of the ET Plus and he is seeking damages, civil penalties, attorneys’ fees, costs and interest. Also, in each of these five cases the respective states’ Attorney General filed its Notice of Election to Decline Intervention in the matter. At this time, with the exception of the State of Tennessee case, each of these cases is stayed. The Company believes these state qui tam lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend all allegations. Other states could take similar or different actions, and could be considering similar state false claims or other litigation against the Company. 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 No. 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. This lawsuit was previously stayed by order of the Court. On September 30, 2015, the Court lifted the stay on this action. 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 alleged 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 No. 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 county and municipal class action lawsuits are currently unknown, they could be material. Based on the information currently available to the Company, we currently do not believe that a loss is probable in any one or more of the actions described under "State, county, and municipal actions", therefore no accrual has been included in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. Because of the complexity of these actions as well as the current status of certain of these actions, we are not able to estimate a range of possible losses with respect to any one or more of these actions. Federal grand jury subpoena On April 28, 2015, the Company received a federal subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice through the U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts. The subpoena requests documents from 1999 through the present relating to the ET 2000 and ET Plus guardrail end-terminal products. The Company is cooperating with this request. Product liability cases 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 judgment in the FCA case, coupled with the media attention such judgment has generated, will prompt the plaintiff’s bar to seek out individuals 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 judgment exposures in these product liability cases. To the extent that the Company believes that a loss is probable with respect to these product liability cases, the accrual for such losses is included in the amounts described below under Other Matters. Shareholder class actions Thomas Nemky, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and James E. Perry, Case No. (2:15-CV-00732) was filed in U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Texas on May 15, 2015 (“Nemky”). Richard J. Isolde, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and James E. Perry, Case No. (3:15-CV-2093) was filed in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Texas on June 19, 2015 (“Isolde”). The complaints in the Nemky and Isolde cases allege that defendants Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and James E. Perry violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and misleading statements and/or by failing to disclose material facts about Trinity’s ET Plus and the FCA case styled Joshua Harman, on behalf of the United States of America, Plaintiff/Relator v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:12-cv-00089-JRG (E.D. Tex.). On September 21, 2015, the District Court in the Eastern District of Texas appointed the Department of the Treasury of the State of New Jersey and its Division of Investment as the lead plaintiff in the Nemky case. On October 5, 2015, the District Court in the Eastern District of Texas granted the Company’s, Mr. Wallace’s, and Mr. Perry’s motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of Texas in the Nemky case. Pending before the court in the Isolde case is a motion by the Department of the Treasury of the State of New Jersey and its Division of Investment to transfer venue to the Eastern District of Texas. Trinity, Mr. Wallace, and Mr. Perry deny and intend to vigorously defend against the allegations in the Nemky and Isolde matters. Based on the information available to the Company, we currently do not believe that a loss is probable with respect to these shareholder class actions; therefore no accrual has been included in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. Because of the complexity of these actions as well as the current status of certain of these actions, we are not able to estimate a range of possible losses with respect to these matters. Stockholder books and records requests The Company has received multiple requests from stockholders pursuant to the Delaware General Corporation Law to review certain of the Company's books and records related to the ET Plus and the FCA case styled Joshua Harman, on behalf of the United States of America, Plaintiff/Relator v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:12-cv-00089-JRG (E.D. Tex.). The stockholders' stated purpose for seeking access to the Company's books and records is to investigate the possibility of whether the directors or officers of the Company committed breaches of fiduciary duty, or other wrongdoing, in connection with the ET Plus. In accordance with the Company's obligations under the Delaware law when such requests are properly filed, the Company has provided books and records to some of those stockholders. 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 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 resulted in a stay of all proceedings in the transferred cases pending resolution of the appeal. This stay was recently lifted to permit certain plaintiffs to file new or amended suits before the expiration of applicable statutes of limitation. These new and amended proceedings name the Company among numerous other defendants and have been filed in Illinois, Texas and Maine. 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. These actions are constructively stayed to permit the settlement approval process to continue. As of October 9, 2015 the Canadian and U.S. Bankruptcy courts have approved the proposed plan of liquidation of the involved railroad which includes provisions approving the settlement of the Company. This plan is now before the District Court of Maine for an order confirming the plan. 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, though the approved plan of liquidation would bar such litigation. The Company maintains liability insurance coverage to protect the Company’s assets from losses arising from this type of litigation, and the Company is not expected to incur significant out-of-pocket costs in connection with these matters that would be material to its consolidated financial statements. 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 $7.0 million to $26.8 million. This range excludes any amount related to the highway products litigation matters described above except for amounts related to matters described above in the section titled “Product liability cases”. At September 30, 2015, total accruals of $29.3 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 $5.0 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

We previously reported the filing of a False Claims Act (“FCA”) 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 No. 2:12-cv-00089-JRG (E.D. Tex.). In this case, the relator, Mr. Joshua Harman, alleged the Company violated the FCA pertaining to sales of the Company's ET-Plus® System, a highway guardrail end-terminal (“ET Plus”). On October 20, 2014, a trial in this case concluded with a jury verdict stating that the Company and its subsidiary, Trinity Highway Products, LLC (“Trinity Highway Products”), “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. Following the jury verdict, the District Court ordered the parties to engage in good faith negotiations in an effort to reach a settlement of the matter. On June 9th, 2015, the parties reported to the District Court that despite mutual best efforts, the parties were not successful at resolving their disputes. On the same day, following denial of the Company’s post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law, the District Court entered judgment on the verdict in the total amount of $682.4 million, comprised of $175.0 million in damages, which amount is automatically trebled under the FCA to $525.0 million, plus $138.4 million in civil penalties and $19.0 million in costs and attorney’s fees.

On June 23, 2015, the District Court approved the Company’s posting of a supersedeas bond in the amount of $686.0 million (the “Bond”) and ordered a stay of the execution of the District Court’s June 9, 2015 entry of judgment of $682.4 million against the Company pending resolution of all appeals. The Company obtained the Bond on an unsecured basis for an initial annual premium of $3.9 million.

The Company maintains that Mr. Harman’s allegations are without merit. On July 7, 2015, the Company filed a Motion for New Trial with the District Court and on August 3, 2015, the Motion was denied. On August 28, 2015, the Company filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (“Fifth Circuit”). The Notice of Appeal, related filings, and any appellate review will result in legal expenses which are expensed as incurred.

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 crash test criteria 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 crash test performance of the ET Plus. These reports were reviewed by the Federal Highway Administration (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 October 2014 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 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. We believe this reinforces our prospects for a successful outcome on appeal.

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. On October 24, 2014, due to the FHWA’s request for additional ET Plus crash tests, the Company announced that it would suspend shipment of the ET Plus to customers. The FHWA-requested tests were conducted in December 2014 and January 2015 at Southwest Research Institute, an FHWA-approved and independent research facility. Following completion of the first four tests at a 27 ¾" guardrail installation height, and again after completion of the second four tests at a 31" guardrail installation height, the FHWA reported that the ET Plus passed all tests. The eight test results validate Trinity Highway Products' long standing position that the ET Plus performs as tested for both guardrail installation heights when properly installed and maintained. 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 ("Task Force I"), comprised of representatives from the FHWA, AASHTO, the state Departments of Transportation of South Dakota, New Hampshire, Missouri, Ohio, Delaware, and Wyoming, and the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario, Canada, that evaluated field measurement data collected by FHWA engineers from more than 1,000 4-inch ET Plus devices installed on roadways throughout the country. Task Force I concluded there is no evidence to suggest that there are multiple versions of the 4-inch ET Plus on the nation's roadways. Task Force I also concluded that the ET Plus end terminals crash tested at Southwest Research Institute in December 2014 and January 2015 were representative of the devices installed across the country.

The FHWA and AASHTO formed a second joint task force ("Task Force II”) comprised of representatives from the FHWA, AASHTO, the state Departments of Transportation of Iowa, Georgia, New Hampshire, North Carolina, New York, Michigan, Missouri, Delaware, and Utah, and independent experts to further evaluate the in-service performance of the ET Plus through the collection and analysis of a broad array of data. In a report dated September 11, 2015, the FHWA and AASHTO released certain findings, conclusions, and recommendations of Task Force II, including but not limited to, the following: there are no performance limitations unique to the ET Plus; there will be real-world conditions that exceed the performance expectations of all manufacturers’ guardrail end terminal systems; and additional crash testing of all existing Report 350 compliant guardrail end terminals, including the ET Plus, “would not be informative” and “would be irrelevant”.

The Company's Notice of Appeal is pending, and the Company will vigorously pursue a reversal of the $682.4 million judgment before the Fifth Circuit. Based on information currently available to the Company including the significance of the successful completion of eight post-verdict crash tests of the ET Plus and the favorable findings and conclusions published by both Task Force I and II regarding ET Plus end terminal systems installed on the nation's roadways, we do not believe that a loss is probable in this matter, 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 represented approximately 0.6% and 1.1% of the Company’s consolidated revenues, respectively, for those years. There were no revenues from the sales of ET Plus systems for the nine months ended September 30, 2015 as a result of the Company’s action to suspend shipments of the product. The Company is currently receiving inquiries from customers for potential purchases of ET Plus systems, and will resume shipment of the product as orders are received and accepted.

State, county, and municipal actions

Trinity is aware of 40 states and the District of Columbia that have removed the ET Plus from their respective qualified products list. Mr. Harman filed a qui tam action pursuant to the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act (“VFATA”), entitled 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), alleging the Company violated the VFATA pertaining to sales of the ET Plus. The Commonwealth of Virginia, in addition to evaluating a potential replacement of certain ET Plus products installed on Virginia roadways, has intervened in Mr. Harman's Virginia state action. Mr. Harman and the Commonwealth of Virginia are seeking damages, civil penalties, attorneys’ fees, costs and interest. In September and October 2015, the Virginia Department of Transportation (“VDOT”) conducted a series of six crash tests on the ET Plus, the results of which have not yet been published. On September 18, 2015, TTI, the designer of the ET Plus technology, released a statement that it has no confidence in the six crash tests performed by VDOT. On October 1, 2015, TTI released a statement characterizing VDOT’s six crash tests as arbitrary and non-standard due to crash test inconsistencies with Report 350 testing and performance evaluation criteria.

Mr. Harman has also filed five additional separate state qui tam actions pursuant to the Indiana False Claims and Whistleblower Protection Act (State of Indiana ex rel. Joshua M. Harman Qui Tam v. Trinity Industries, Inc., and Trinity Highway Products, LLC, Case No. 49D06-1407-PL-024117, In the Sixth Court of Marion County, Indiana); the Delaware False Claims and Reporting Act (State of Delaware ex rel. Joshua M. Harman v. Trinity Industries, Inc., and Trinity Highway Products, LLC, Civ. No. N14C-06-227 MMJ CCLD, In the Superior Court of the State of Delaware In and For New Castle County); the Iowa False Claims Act (State of Iowa ex rel. Joshua M. Harman v. Trinity Industries, Inc., and Trinity Highway Products, LLC, Case No. CVCV048309, In the Iowa District Court for Polk County); the Rhode Island False Claims Act (State of Rhode Island ex rel. Joshua M. Harman v. Trinity Industries, Inc., and Trinity Highway Products, LLC, Case No. 14-3498, In the Superior Court for the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations); and the Tennessee False Claims Act (State of Tennessee ex rel. Joshua M. Harman v. Trinity Industries, Inc., and Trinity Highway Products, LLC, Case No. 14C2652, In the Circuit Court for Davidson County, Tennessee). In each of these five cases Mr. Harman is alleging the Company violated the respective state false claims act pertaining to sales of the ET Plus and he is seeking damages, civil penalties, attorneys’ fees, costs and interest. Also, in each of these five cases the respective states’ Attorney General filed its Notice of Election to Decline Intervention in the matter. At this time, with the exception of the State of Tennessee case, each of these cases is stayed.

The Company believes these state qui tam lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend all allegations. Other states could take similar or different actions, and could be considering similar state false claims or other litigation against the Company.

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 No. 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. This lawsuit was previously stayed by order of the Court. On September 30, 2015, the Court lifted the stay on this action.

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 alleged 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 No. 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 county and municipal class action lawsuits are currently unknown, they could be material.

Based on the information currently available to the Company, we currently do not believe that a loss is probable in any one or more of the actions described under "State, county, and municipal actions", therefore no accrual has been included in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. Because of the complexity of these actions as well as the current status of certain of these actions, we are not able to estimate a range of possible losses with respect to any one or more of these actions.

Federal grand jury subpoena

On April 28, 2015, the Company received a federal subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice through the U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts. The subpoena requests documents from 1999 through the present relating to the ET 2000 and ET Plus guardrail end-terminal products. The Company is cooperating with this request.

Product liability cases

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 judgment in the FCA case, coupled with the media attention such judgment has generated, will prompt the plaintiff’s bar to seek out individuals 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 judgment exposures in these product liability cases. To the extent that the Company believes that a loss is probable with respect to these product liability cases, the accrual for such losses is included in the amounts described below under Other Matters.

Shareholder class actions

Thomas Nemky, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and James E. Perry, Case No. (2:15-CV-00732) was filed in U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Texas on May 15, 2015 (“Nemky”). Richard J. Isolde, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and James E. Perry, Case No. (3:15-CV-2093) was filed in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Texas on June 19, 2015 (“Isolde”). The complaints in the Nemky and Isolde cases allege that defendants Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and James E. Perry violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and misleading statements and/or by failing to disclose material facts about Trinity’s ET Plus and the FCA case styled Joshua Harman, on behalf of the United States of America, Plaintiff/Relator v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:12-cv-00089-JRG (E.D. Tex.). On September 21, 2015, the District Court in the Eastern District of Texas appointed the Department of the Treasury of the State of New Jersey and its Division of Investment as the lead plaintiff in the Nemky case. On October 5, 2015, the District Court in the Eastern District of Texas granted the Company’s, Mr. Wallace’s, and Mr. Perry’s motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of Texas in the Nemky case. Pending before the court in the Isolde case is a motion by the Department of the Treasury of the State of New Jersey and its Division of Investment to transfer venue to the Eastern District of Texas. Trinity, Mr. Wallace, and Mr. Perry deny and intend to vigorously defend against the allegations in the Nemky and Isolde matters.

Based on the information available to the Company, we currently do not believe that a loss is probable with respect to these shareholder class actions; therefore no accrual has been included in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. Because of the complexity of these actions as well as the current status of certain of these actions, we are not able to estimate a range of possible losses with respect to these matters.

Stockholder books and records requests

The Company has received multiple requests from stockholders pursuant to the Delaware General Corporation Law to review certain of the Company's books and records related to the ET Plus and the FCA case styled Joshua Harman, on behalf of the United States of America, Plaintiff/Relator v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:12-cv-00089-JRG (E.D. Tex.). The stockholders' stated purpose for seeking access to the Company's books and records is to investigate the possibility of whether the directors or officers of the Company committed breaches of fiduciary duty, or other wrongdoing, in connection with the ET Plus. In accordance with the Company's obligations under the Delaware law when such requests are properly filed, the Company has provided books and records to some of those stockholders.

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 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 resulted in a stay of all proceedings in the transferred cases pending resolution of the appeal. This stay was recently lifted to permit certain plaintiffs to file new or amended suits before the expiration of applicable statutes of limitation. These new and amended proceedings name the Company among numerous other defendants and have been filed in Illinois, Texas and Maine. 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. These actions are constructively stayed to permit the settlement approval process to continue. As of October 9, 2015 the Canadian and U.S. Bankruptcy courts have approved the proposed plan of liquidation of the involved railroad which includes provisions approving the settlement of the Company. This plan is now before the District Court of Maine for an order confirming the plan. 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, though the approved plan of liquidation would bar such litigation. The Company maintains liability insurance coverage to protect the Company’s assets from losses arising from this type of litigation, and the Company is not expected to incur significant out-of-pocket costs in connection with these matters that would be material to its consolidated financial statements.

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 $7.0 million to $26.8 million. This range excludes any amount related to the highway products litigation matters described above except for amounts related to matters described above in the section titled “Product liability cases”. At September 30, 2015, total accruals of $29.3 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 $5.0 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.