Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2016
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 system (“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" and awarding $175.0 million in damages. Following unsuccessful settlement negotiations to resolve this dispute and the District Court's denial of the Company’s post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law, on June 9, 2015 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 attorneys' 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. 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”). On March 21, 2016, the Company filed its opening appellate brief. On March 28, 2016, six separate amicus curiae briefs were filed in the Fifth Circuit in support of Trinity’s appeal seeking a reversal of the judgment by the following organizations and individuals: (i) Eleven states - Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Louisiana, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah and Wisconsin; (ii) the National Association of Manufacturers, United States Chamber of Commerce, and the American Tort Reform Association; (iii) five former United States Department of Justice Officials; (iv) Mothers Against Drunk Driving; (v) the Cato Institute; and (vi) the Washington Legal Foundation. 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. In 2005, 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”). Following the 2005 crash testing, 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 2005 acceptance of the product for use on the national highway system and 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 set out in Report 350. Due to the FHWA’s request for additional ET Plus crash tests, on October 24, 2014 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. Performance evaluation results from eight successful crash tests 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 and other guardrail end terminals 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 accident 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 is vigorously pursuing a reversal of the $682.4 million judgment before the Fifth Circuit. Appellate review will result in legal expenses that are expensed as incurred. We remain confident in the performance of the product at issue in this matter, and we maintain that the allegations in the case are baseless and without merit. We believe our filing in the Fifth Circuit articulates in a clear and convincing way why the judgment should not stand. Based on information currently available to the Company, including, but not limited to 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. There were no revenues from the sales of ET Plus systems in the United States for the first three quarters of 2015 as a result of the Company’s action to suspend shipments of the product during that time. The Company resumed shipment of ET Plus systems in the fourth quarter of 2015. Revenues from sales of the ET Plus, included in the Construction Products Group, totaled approximately $0.8 million for the first quarter of 2016. State, county, and municipal actions Trinity is aware of 35 states and the District of Columbia that have removed the ET Plus from their respective qualified products list. Mr. Harman has also filed nine separate state qui tam actions pursuant to: the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act (Commonwealth of Virginia ex rel. Joshua M. Harman v. Trinity Industries, Inc. and Trinity Highway Products, LLC, Case No. CL13-698, in the Circuit Court, Richmond, Virginia); 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); 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); the Minnesota False Claims Act (State of Minnesota ex rel. Joshua M. Harman Qui Tam v. Trinity Industries, Inc., and Trinity Highway Products, LLC, Case No. 62-CV-14-3457, in the Second Judicial District Court, Ramsey County, Minnesota); the Montana False Claims Act (State of Montana ex rel. Joshua M. Harman v. Trinity Industries, Inc., and Trinity Highway Products, LLC, Case No. DV 14-0692, in the Montana Thirteenth Judicial District Court for Yellowstone County); and the Georgia Taxpayer Protection False Claims Act (State of Georgia ex rel. Joshua M. Harman v. Trinity Industries, Inc., and Trinity Highway Products, LLC, Case No. 1:15-CV-1260, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia). In each of these nine cases Mr. Harman is alleging the Company violated the respective states' false claims act pertaining to sales of the ET Plus, and he is seeking damages, civil penalties, attorneys’ fees, costs and interest. Also, the respective states’ Attorneys General filed Notices of Election to Decline Intervention in all of these matters, with the exception of the Commonwealth of Virginia Attorney General who intervened in the Virginia matter. At this time all of the above-referenced state qui tam cases are 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 four class action lawsuits involving claims pertaining to the ET Plus. The Company has been served in a lawsuit filed November 26, 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 and to expand the proposed class. The case is being brought by plaintiffs for and on behalf of themselves and the other 101 counties of the State of Illinois and on behalf of cities, villages, incorporated towns, and township governments 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 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, attorneys' fees and costs, 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 million in compensatory damages and $100 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 plaintiff for and on behalf of itself 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, attorneys' fees and costs, and injunctive relief. On March 31, 2016, the Court partially granted Trinity’s Motion to Dismiss as to some but not all of plaintiff’s claims, with only plaintiff’s claims for breach of express and implied warranties, violation of the Wisconsin Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and unjust enrichment remaining. The Company has been served in a lawsuit filed November 5, 2015, titled Jackson County, Missouri, individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated vs. Trinity Industries, Inc. and Trinity Highway Products, LLC, Case No. 1516-CV23684 (Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri). The case is being brought by plaintiff for and on behalf of itself and all Missouri counties with a population of 10,000 or more persons, including the City of St. Louis, and the State of Missouri’s transportation authority. The plaintiff alleges that the Company and Trinity Highway Products did not disclose design changes to the ET Plus and these allegedly undisclosed design changes made the ET Plus allegedly defective, unsafe, and unreasonably dangerous. The plaintiff alleges product liability negligence, product liability strict liability, and negligently supplying dangerous instrumentality for supplier’s business purposes. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and in the alternative plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the ET Plus is defective, the Company’s conduct was unlawful, and class-wide costs and expenses associated with removing and replacing the ET Plus throughout Missouri. The Company believes each of these county and municipal class action lawsuits is without merit and intends to vigorously defend all allegations. While the financial impacts of these four 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 In April 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 as well as other products manufactured by Trinity Highway Products. These cases are diverse in light of the randomness of collisions in general and the fact that each accident involving a roadside device such as an end terminal, 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 and tested 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 a Trinity Highway Products manufactured product 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 On January 11, 2016, the previously reported cases styled 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) (“Nemky”) and 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) ("Isolde"), were consolidated in the District Court for the Northern District of Texas, with all future filings to be filed in the Isolde case. The complaints in Isolde 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 March 9, 2016, the Court appointed the Department of the Treasury of the State of New Jersey and its Division of Investment and the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund and United Association Local Union Officers & Employees’ Pension Fund as co-lead plaintiffs. On March 22, 2016, the Court entered the parties’ Joint Stipulation and Order Regarding the Schedule for the Consolidated Complaint and Defendants’ Response Thereto. Under said Order, the Lead Plaintiffs shall file their Consolidated Amended Complaint on or before May 11, 2016. Trinity, Mr. Wallace, and Mr. Perry deny and intend to vigorously defend against the allegations in the Isolde case. Based on the information available to the Company, we currently do not believe that a loss is probable with respect to this shareholder class action; 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 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 originally 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. The Company was also named as a defendant in multiple cases filed by the estates of decedents in Illinois, Texas and Maine seeking damages for alleged wrongful death and property damage arising from the same incident. These cases, if not dismissed as to the Company, were either transferred to Maine (as related to the bankruptcy proceedings pending there of the involved railroad) and stayed, or are constructively stayed as to the Company in view of a settlement reached in the context of the railroad’s bankruptcy proceedings in both Canada and the U.S. The referenced settlement resolves the entirety of all of the above referenced derailment litigation as to the Company within the limits of available insurance in an amount that is not material to its consolidated financial statements. This settlement was approved by the Canadian and U.S. Bankruptcy courts as part of the railroad’s respective plans of liquidation. Subsequently, all cases pending outside Maine were transferred back to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine and on April 6, 2016 that court issued a decision dismissing, with prejudice, all the settling defendants from all pending cases in that court arising from the derailment. This dismissal order will be final if no party appeals it within 30 days of entry, or by May 6, 2016. 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 $3.3 million to $16.6 million. This range includes any amount related to the Highway Products litigation matters described above in the section titled “Product liability cases”. At March 31, 2016, total accruals of $20.7 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 $4.0 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 system (“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" and awarding $175.0 million in damages. Following unsuccessful settlement negotiations to resolve this dispute and the District Court's denial of the Company’s post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law, on June 9, 2015 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 attorneys' 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.

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”). On March 21, 2016, the Company filed its opening appellate brief. On March 28, 2016, six separate amicus curiae briefs were filed in the Fifth Circuit in support of Trinity’s appeal seeking a reversal of the judgment by the following organizations and individuals: (i) Eleven states - Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Louisiana, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah and Wisconsin; (ii) the National Association of Manufacturers, United States Chamber of Commerce, and the American Tort Reform Association; (iii) five former United States Department of Justice Officials; (iv) Mothers Against Drunk Driving; (v) the Cato Institute; and (vi) the Washington Legal Foundation.

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. In 2005, 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”). Following the 2005 crash testing, 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 2005 acceptance of the product for use on the national highway system and 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 set out in Report 350. Due to the FHWA’s request for additional ET Plus crash tests, on October 24, 2014 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. Performance evaluation results from eight successful crash tests 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 and other guardrail end terminals 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 accident 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 is vigorously pursuing a reversal of the $682.4 million judgment before the Fifth Circuit. Appellate review will result in legal expenses that are expensed as incurred. We remain confident in the performance of the product at issue in this matter, and we maintain that the allegations in the case are baseless and without merit. We believe our filing in the Fifth Circuit articulates in a clear and convincing way why the judgment should not stand.

Based on information currently available to the Company, including, but not limited to 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.

There were no revenues from the sales of ET Plus systems in the United States for the first three quarters of 2015 as a result of the Company’s action to suspend shipments of the product during that time. The Company resumed shipment of ET Plus systems in the fourth quarter of 2015. Revenues from sales of the ET Plus, included in the Construction Products Group, totaled approximately $0.8 million for the first quarter of 2016.

State, county, and municipal actions

Trinity is aware of 35 states and the District of Columbia that have removed the ET Plus from their respective qualified products list.

Mr. Harman has also filed nine separate state qui tam actions pursuant to: the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act (Commonwealth of Virginia ex rel. Joshua M. Harman v. Trinity Industries, Inc. and Trinity Highway Products, LLC, Case No. CL13-698, in the Circuit Court, Richmond, Virginia); 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); 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); the Minnesota False Claims Act (State of Minnesota ex rel. Joshua M. Harman Qui Tam v. Trinity Industries, Inc., and Trinity Highway Products, LLC, Case No. 62-CV-14-3457, in the Second Judicial District Court, Ramsey County, Minnesota); the Montana False Claims Act (State of Montana ex rel. Joshua M. Harman v. Trinity Industries, Inc., and Trinity Highway Products, LLC, Case No. DV 14-0692, in the Montana Thirteenth Judicial District Court for Yellowstone County); and the Georgia Taxpayer Protection False Claims Act (State of Georgia ex rel. Joshua M. Harman v. Trinity Industries, Inc., and Trinity Highway Products, LLC, Case No. 1:15-CV-1260, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia). In each of these nine cases Mr. Harman is alleging the Company violated the respective states' false claims act pertaining to sales of the ET Plus, and he is seeking damages, civil penalties, attorneys’ fees, costs and interest. Also, the respective states’ Attorneys General filed Notices of Election to Decline Intervention in all of these matters, with the exception of the Commonwealth of Virginia Attorney General who intervened in the Virginia matter. At this time all of the above-referenced state qui tam cases are 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 four class action lawsuits involving claims pertaining to the ET Plus. The Company has been served in a lawsuit filed November 26, 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 and to expand the proposed class. The case is being brought by plaintiffs for and on behalf of themselves and the other 101 counties of the State of Illinois and on behalf of cities, villages, incorporated towns, and township governments 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 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, attorneys' fees and costs, 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 million in compensatory damages and $100 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 plaintiff for and on behalf of itself 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, attorneys' fees and costs, and injunctive relief. On March 31, 2016, the Court partially granted Trinity’s Motion to Dismiss as to some but not all of plaintiff’s claims, with only plaintiff’s claims for breach of express and implied warranties, violation of the Wisconsin Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and unjust enrichment remaining.

The Company has been served in a lawsuit filed November 5, 2015, titled Jackson County, Missouri, individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated vs. Trinity Industries, Inc. and Trinity Highway Products, LLC, Case No. 1516-CV23684 (Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri). The case is being brought by plaintiff for and on behalf of itself and all Missouri counties with a population of 10,000 or more persons, including the City of St. Louis, and the State of Missouri’s transportation authority. The plaintiff alleges that the Company and Trinity Highway Products did not disclose design changes to the ET Plus and these allegedly undisclosed design changes made the ET Plus allegedly defective, unsafe, and unreasonably dangerous. The plaintiff alleges product liability negligence, product liability strict liability, and negligently supplying dangerous instrumentality for supplier’s business purposes. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and in the alternative plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the ET Plus is defective, the Company’s conduct was unlawful, and class-wide costs and expenses associated with removing and replacing the ET Plus throughout Missouri.

The Company believes each of these county and municipal class action lawsuits is without merit and intends to vigorously defend all allegations. While the financial impacts of these four 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

In April 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 as well as other products manufactured by Trinity Highway Products. These cases are diverse in light of the randomness of collisions in general and the fact that each accident involving a roadside device such as an end terminal, 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 and tested 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 a Trinity Highway Products manufactured product 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

On January 11, 2016, the previously reported cases styled 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) (“Nemky”) and 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) ("Isolde"), were consolidated in the District Court for the Northern District of Texas, with all future filings to be filed in the Isolde case. The complaints in Isolde 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 March 9, 2016, the Court appointed the Department of the Treasury of the State of New Jersey and its Division of Investment and the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund and United Association Local Union Officers & Employees’ Pension Fund as co-lead plaintiffs. On March 22, 2016, the Court entered the parties’ Joint Stipulation and Order Regarding the Schedule for the Consolidated Complaint and Defendants’ Response Thereto. Under said Order, the Lead Plaintiffs shall file their Consolidated Amended Complaint on or before May 11, 2016.

Trinity, Mr. Wallace, and Mr. Perry deny and intend to vigorously defend against the allegations in the Isolde case. Based on the information available to the Company, we currently do not believe that a loss is probable with respect to this shareholder class action; 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 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 originally 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. The Company was also named as a defendant in multiple cases filed by the estates of decedents in Illinois, Texas and Maine seeking damages for alleged wrongful death and property damage arising from the same incident. These cases, if not dismissed as to the Company, were either transferred to Maine (as related to the bankruptcy proceedings pending there of the involved railroad) and stayed, or are constructively stayed as to the Company in view of a settlement reached in the context of the railroad’s bankruptcy proceedings in both Canada and the U.S. The referenced settlement resolves the entirety of all of the above referenced derailment litigation as to the Company within the limits of available insurance in an amount that is not material to its consolidated financial statements. This settlement was approved by the Canadian and U.S. Bankruptcy courts as part of the railroad’s respective plans of liquidation. Subsequently, all cases pending outside Maine were transferred back to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine and on April 6, 2016 that court issued a decision dismissing, with prejudice, all the settling defendants from all pending cases in that court arising from the derailment. This dismissal order will be final if no party appeals it within 30 days of entry, or by May 6, 2016.

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 $3.3 million to $16.6 million. This range includes any amount related to the Highway Products litigation matters described above in the section titled “Product liability cases”. At March 31, 2016, total accruals of $20.7 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 $4.0 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.