Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2018
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, in which the U.S. Government declined to intervene, 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. 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 September 29, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ("Fifth Circuit") reversed the District Court’s $682.4 million judgment and rendered judgment as a matter of law in favor of the Company and Trinity Highway Products. On October 27, 2017, Mr. Harman filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc in the Fifth Circuit, which was denied by the Fifth Circuit on November 14, 2017. On February 12, 2018, the relator, Mr. Joshua Harman, filed a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, seeking a review of the Fifth Circuit's decision. Mr. Harman's petition for certiorari remains pending. Further appellate review would continue to 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. Based on information currently available to the Company and previously disclosed, including, but not limited to the significance of the successful completion of eight post-verdict crash tests of the ET Plus in 2015, the favorable findings and conclusions published in 2015 by two joint task forces of the Federal Highway Administration and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials regarding the ET Plus end terminal system, the Fifth Circuit's unanimous panel opinion reversing the $682.4 million judgment and rendering judgment in favor of the Company, and the Fifth Circuit's subsequent denial of Mr. Harman's Petition for Rehearing En Banc, we do not believe that a loss is probable in this matter; therefore, no accrual has been included in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. State, county, and municipal actions Mr. Harman has also filed thirteen 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); 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); the Florida False Claims Act (State of Florida ex rel. Joshua M. Harman Qui Tam v. Trinity Industries, Inc., and Trinity Highway Products, LLC, Case No. 2014-CA-000596, in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit in and for Leon County, Florida); the Illinois False Claims Act (State of Illinois ex rel. Joshua M. Harman Qui Tam v. Trinity Industries, Inc. and Trinity Highway Products, LLC, Case No. 2014 L 000098, in the Circuit Court for the Sixth Judicial District, Sangamon County, Illinois); the Massachusetts False Claims Act (Commonwealth of Massachusetts ex rel. Joshua M. Harman Qui Tam v. Trinity Industries, Inc. and Trinity Highway Products, LLC, Case No. 1484-CV-02364, in the Superior Court Department of the Trial Court); and the Nevada False Claims Act (State of Nevada ex rel. Joshua M. Harman V. Trinity Industries, Inc. and Trinity Highway Products, LLC, Case No. A-14-699028-C, in the District Court for Clark County, Nevada). In each of these thirteen 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, the above-referenced state qui tam cases, with the exception of the Massachusetts state qui tam case, 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 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. On December 6, 2017, the Court granted plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, certifying a class of Missouri counties with populations of 10,000 or more persons, including the City of St. Louis and the State of Missouri's transportation authority that have or had ET Plus guardrail end terminals with 4-inch wide guide channels installed on roadways they own or maintain. On December 18, 2017, the Company and Trinity Highway Products filed a petition for permission to appeal the Order of Class Certification in the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Western District. On March 6, 2018, the Missouri Court of Appeals denied Trinity's petition for permission to appeal the Order of Class Certification. On March 15, 2018, the Company and Trinity Highway Products filed a Petition for Writ of Prohibition with the Missouri Supreme Court, seeking review of the Order of Class Certification. On May 1, 2018, the Missouri Supreme Court denied Trinity's Petition for Writ of Prohibition seeking review of the Order of Class Certification. The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend all allegations. While the financial impacts of these state, county, and municipal actions 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. 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. As previously disclosed, National Cooperative Highway Research Program 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 believes the District Court judgment in the FCA case, coupled with the media attention such judgment generated, caused the plaintiff’s bar to seek out individuals involved in collisions with a Trinity Highway Products manufactured product as potential clients, which resulted 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. 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 ("Lead Plaintiffs"). On May 11, 2016, the Lead Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Complaint alleging defendants Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, James E. Perry, and Gregory B. Mitchell violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and defendants Mr. Wallace and Mr. Perry violated 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 August 18, 2016, Trinity, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Perry, and Mr. Mitchell filed motions to dismiss Lead Plaintiffs Consolidated Complaint, which remain pending. On March 13, 2017, the Court granted defendant’s motion to stay and administratively close proceedings pending Fifth Circuit appeal. The Isolde matter is stayed and remains administratively closed pending the conclusion of the appeal in the Joshua Harman FCA case. Trinity, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Perry, and Mr. Mitchell 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. 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 $4.2 million to $27.4 million. This range includes any amount related to the Highway Products litigation matters described above in the section titled “Product liability cases.” At September 30, 2018, total accruals of $25.9 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 $2.9 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, in which the U.S. Government declined to intervene, 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. 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 September 29, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ("Fifth Circuit") reversed the District Court’s $682.4 million judgment and rendered judgment as a matter of law in favor of the Company and Trinity Highway Products. On October 27, 2017, Mr. Harman filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc in the Fifth Circuit, which was denied by the Fifth Circuit on November 14, 2017. On February 12, 2018, the relator, Mr. Joshua Harman, filed a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, seeking a review of the Fifth Circuit's decision. Mr. Harman's petition for certiorari remains pending.

Further appellate review would continue to 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.

Based on information currently available to the Company and previously disclosed, including, but not limited to the significance of the successful completion of eight post-verdict crash tests of the ET Plus in 2015, the favorable findings and conclusions published in 2015 by two joint task forces of the Federal Highway Administration and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials regarding the ET Plus end terminal system, the Fifth Circuit's unanimous panel opinion reversing the $682.4 million judgment and rendering judgment in favor of the Company, and the Fifth Circuit's subsequent denial of Mr. Harman's Petition for Rehearing En Banc, we do not believe that a loss is probable in this matter; therefore, no accrual has been included in the accompanying consolidated financial statements.

State, county, and municipal actions

Mr. Harman has also filed thirteen 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); 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); the Florida False Claims Act (State of Florida ex rel. Joshua M. Harman Qui Tam v. Trinity Industries, Inc., and Trinity Highway Products, LLC, Case No. 2014-CA-000596, in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit in and for Leon County, Florida); the Illinois False Claims Act (State of Illinois ex rel. Joshua M. Harman Qui Tam v. Trinity Industries, Inc. and Trinity Highway Products, LLC, Case No. 2014 L 000098, in the Circuit Court for the Sixth Judicial District, Sangamon County, Illinois); the Massachusetts False Claims Act (Commonwealth of Massachusetts ex rel. Joshua M. Harman Qui Tam v. Trinity Industries, Inc. and Trinity Highway Products, LLC, Case No. 1484-CV-02364, in the Superior Court Department of the Trial Court); and the Nevada False Claims Act (State of Nevada ex rel. Joshua M. Harman V. Trinity Industries, Inc. and Trinity Highway Products, LLC, Case No. A-14-699028-C, in the District Court for Clark County, Nevada). In each of these thirteen 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, the above-referenced state qui tam cases, with the exception of the Massachusetts state qui tam case, 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 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. On December 6, 2017, the Court granted plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, certifying a class of Missouri counties with populations of 10,000 or more persons, including the City of St. Louis and the State of Missouri's transportation authority that have or had ET Plus guardrail end terminals with 4-inch wide guide channels installed on roadways they own or maintain. On December 18, 2017, the Company and Trinity Highway Products filed a petition for permission to appeal the Order of Class Certification in the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Western District. On March 6, 2018, the Missouri Court of Appeals denied Trinity's petition for permission to appeal the Order of Class Certification. On March 15, 2018, the Company and Trinity Highway Products filed a Petition for Writ of Prohibition with the Missouri Supreme Court, seeking review of the Order of Class Certification. On May 1, 2018, the Missouri Supreme Court denied Trinity's Petition for Writ of Prohibition seeking review of the Order of Class Certification.

The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend all allegations. While the financial impacts of these state, county, and municipal actions 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.

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. As previously disclosed, National Cooperative Highway Research Program 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 believes the District Court judgment in the FCA case, coupled with the media attention such judgment generated, caused the plaintiff’s bar to seek out individuals involved in collisions with a Trinity Highway Products manufactured product as potential clients, which resulted 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. 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 ("Lead Plaintiffs"). On May 11, 2016, the Lead Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Complaint alleging defendants Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, James E. Perry, and Gregory B. Mitchell violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and defendants Mr. Wallace and Mr. Perry violated 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 August 18, 2016, Trinity, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Perry, and Mr. Mitchell filed motions to dismiss Lead Plaintiffs Consolidated Complaint, which remain pending. On March 13, 2017, the Court granted defendant’s motion to stay and administratively close proceedings pending Fifth Circuit appeal. The Isolde matter is stayed and remains administratively closed pending the conclusion of the appeal in the Joshua Harman FCA case.

Trinity, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Perry, and Mr. Mitchell 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.

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 $4.2 million to $27.4 million. This range includes any amount related to the Highway Products litigation matters described above in the section titled “Product liability cases.” At September 30, 2018, total accruals of $25.9 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 $2.9 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.