Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Commitments and Contingencies	Jun. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies For additional information on commitments and contingencies, see Note 20, “Commitments and Contingencies” of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in the Annual Report. We record reserves for environmental liabilities when environmental investigation and remediation obligations are probable and related costs are reasonably estimable. We believe that the resolution of environmental matters, individually or in the aggregate, materially in excess of amounts accrued, is not reasonably possible. At June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, we had accrued approximately $0.4 million and $0.5 million, respectively, related to environmental liabilities. Our environmental accrual is an estimate and future expenditures may exceed our estimate. Environmental related liabilities are included in the other current liabilities line item in the condensed consolidated balance sheets. The majority of our medical and workers’ compensation benefits are under high-deductible plans with certain stop loss arrangements. We determine our workers' compensation liability using actuarial data based on filed claims, and we determine our medical claims liability based on our analysis of historical claims. At June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, we had accrued approximately $11.7 million and $11.6 million, respectively, related to these self-insurance liabilities, which are included in other current liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets. We are involved in legal proceedings from time to time in the ordinary course of business. We are also involved in certain proceedings relating to environmental matters as described above. At June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, we had accrued liabilities related to pending litigation matters of approximately $0.2 million and $0.3 million, respectively, which were included in the other current liabilities line item in the condensed consolidated balance sheets. Lead Pigment and Lead Paint Litigation Wisconsin Personal Injury Lawsuits In late 2006 and early 2007, our Armstrong Containers, Inc. (“Armstrong”) subsidiary was named as an alleged successor-in-interest in approximately thirty-three lead paint related personal injury lawsuits in Wisconsin. By 2008, all but six of these cases were dismissed without prejudice, leaving only Godoy v. American Cyanamid Co., et al.; Circuit Court, Milwaukee County, State of Wisconsin; Case No. 6-CV-277 (“Godoy”) and the Clark, Burton, Stokes, Owens and Sifuentes cases (as cited and defined in the Annual Report). After an unsuccessful appeal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the Godoy plaintiff filed, and the court granted, a motion to dismiss his claims without prejudice. In 2011, the Gibson defendants filed, and the court granted, a motion for summary judgment as to the Gibson plaintiff’s claims. The Gibson plaintiff appealed this decision to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. On July 24, 2014 the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of defendants (of which Armstrong is one) in Gibson v. Armstrong Containers, Inc., et al.; United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; Case No. 10-3814. The company is still assessing the Court of Appeals decision and determining what action to take going forward. Following the initial dismissal of Gibson at the trial court level, the defendants in Clark, Burton, Stokes, Owens and Sifuentes filed motions for summary judgment and requested a stay of each case pending the outcome of the Gibson appeal. In Burton, Stokes, Owens and Sifuentes, the court denied defendants’ motions for summary judgment and stayed each case pending the outcome of the Gibson appeal. In Clark, the court stayed the case without ruling on the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The Clark court subsequently lifted the stay solely for the purpose of litigating the constitutionality of certain amendments to Wisconsin tort reform legislation. There have been no subsequent actions in these cases following the recent decision of the court of appeals in Gibson. In 2011, two additional lawsuits were filed on behalf of current and former Wisconsin residents alleging injuries caused by exposure to lead paint in which Armstrong was named as a defendant (see Allen and Williams as cited and defined in the Annual Report), and Armstrong was served with a new lead paint personal injury lawsuit filed against various lead industry defendants (see Valoe as cited and defined in the Annual Report). Each of these case was stayed pending the outcome of the Gibson appeal. However, there have been no subsequent actions following the recent decision of the court of appeals in Gibson. There have been no other lead paint actions filed, settled or otherwise dismissed. The amount of each claim pending is unknown and to date no cases have been settled. Although we continue to believe that we have valid defenses against the plaintiffs in the lead paint related personal injury litigation, litigation is inherently subject to many uncertainties. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the potential liability or likelihood of the outcome of this litigation. In addition, because of the dismissal of prior cases, we are unable to provide additional information concerning the underlying risks of the lead paint related personal injury cases. As such, we are unable to provide a range of reasonably possible losses related to this litigation. As of June 30, 2014, we had not accrued any amounts for lead paint related personal injury claims other than amounts spent to meet our insurance deductibles or retentions.

- Definition

The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.

+ References+ Details

BWAY INTERMEDIATE COMPANY, INC. 10-Q