XML 27 R17.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.5.0.2

Asbestos-Related Liabilities | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2016
Liability for Asbestos and Environmental Claims [Abstract] |
Asbestos-Related Liabilities | Asbestos-Related Liabilities Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. (“Crown Cork”) is one of many defendants in a substantial number of lawsuits filed throughout the United States by persons alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. These claims arose from the insulation operations of a U.S. company, the majority of whose stock Crown Cork purchased in 1963. Approximately ninety days after the stock purchase, this U.S. company sold its insulation assets and was later merged into Crown Cork. Prior to 1998, amounts paid to asbestos claimants were covered by a fund made available to Crown Cork under a 1985 settlement with carriers insuring Crown Cork through 1976, when Crown Cork became self-insured. The fund was depleted in 1998 and the Company has no remaining coverage for asbestos-related costs. In December 2001, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted legislation that limits the asbestos-related liabilities of Pennsylvania corporations that are successors by corporate merger to companies involved with asbestos. The legislation limits the successor’s liability for asbestos to the acquired company’s asset value adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-related claims than the acquired company’s adjusted asset value. In November 2004, the legislation was amended to address a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision (Ieropoli v. AC&S Corporation, et. al., No. 117 EM 2002) which held that the statute violated the Pennsylvania Constitution due to retroactive application. The Company cautions that the limitations of the statute, as amended, are subject to litigation and may not be upheld. In June 2003, the state of Texas enacted legislation that limits the asbestos-related liabilities in Texas courts of companies such as Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because they are successors by corporate merger to companies that had been involved with asbestos. The Texas legislation, which applies to future claims and pending claims, caps asbestos-related liabilities at the total gross value of the predecessor’s assets adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-related claims than the total adjusted value of its predecessor’s assets. In October 2010, the Texas Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision, reversed a lower court decision, Barbara Robinson v. Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., No. 14-04-00658-CV, Fourteenth Court of Appeals, Texas, which had upheld the dismissal of an asbestos-related case against Crown Cork. The Texas Supreme Court held that the Texas legislation was unconstitutional under the Texas Constitution when applied to asbestos-related claims pending against Crown Cork when the legislation was enacted in June 2003. The Company believes that the decision of the Texas Supreme Court is limited to retroactive application of the Texas legislation to asbestos-related cases that were pending against Crown Cork in Texas on June 11, 2003 and therefore, in its accrual, continues to assign no value to claims filed after June 11, 2003. In recent years, the states of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming enacted legislation that limits asbestos-related liabilities under state law of companies such as Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because they are successors by corporate merger to companies that had been involved with asbestos. The legislation, which applies to future and, with the exception of Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia and Wyoming, pending claims, caps asbestos-related liabilities at the fair market value of the predecessor's total gross assets adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-related claims than the total value of its predecessor's assets adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has integrated the legislation into its claims defense strategy. The Company further cautions that an adverse ruling in any litigation relating to the constitutionality or applicability to Crown Cork of one or more statutes that limits the asbestos-related liability of alleged defendants like Crown Cork could have a material impact on the Company. During the six months ended June 30, 2016, the Company paid $9 to settle outstanding claims and had claims activity as follows:
Beginning claims | 54,500 |
New claims | 1,500 |
Settlements or dismissals | (1,000 | )
Ending claims | 55,000 |
In the fourth quarter of each year, the Company performs an analysis of outstanding claims and categorizes these claims by year of exposure and state filed. As of December 31, 2015, the Company's outstanding claims were:
Claimants alleging first exposure after 1964 | 16,000 |
Claimants alleging first exposure before or during 1964 filed in: |
Texas | 13,000 |
Pennsylvania | 2,000 |
Other states that have enacted asbestos legislation | 6,000 |
Other states | 17,500 |
Total claims outstanding | 54,500 |
The outstanding claims in each period exclude approximately19,000 inactive claims. Due to the passage of time, the Company considers it unlikely that the plaintiffs in these cases will pursue further action against the Company. The exclusion of these inactive claims had no effect on the calculation of the Company’s accrual as the claims were filed in states, as described above, where the Company’s liability is limited by statute. With respect to claimants alleging first exposure to asbestos before or during 1964, the Company does not include in its accrual any amounts for settlements in states where the Company’s liability is limited by statute except for certain pending claims in Texas as described earlier. With respect to post-1964 claims, regardless of the existence of asbestos legislation, the Company does not include in its accrual any amounts for settlement of these claims because of increased difficulty of establishing identification of relevant insulation products as the cause of injury. Given the Company's settlement experience with post-1964 claims, it does not believe that an adverse ruling in the Texas or Pennsylvania asbestos litigation cases, or in any other state that has enacted asbestos legislation, would have a material impact on the Company with respect to such claims. As of December 31, the percentage of outstanding claims related to claimants alleging serious diseases (primarily mesothelioma and other malignancies) were as follows:
| 2015 |  |  | 2014 |  |  | 2013 |
Total claims | 22 | % |  | 22 | % |  | 21 | %
Pre-1964 claims in states without asbestos legislation | 41 | % |  | 41 | % |  | 39 | %
Crown Cork has entered into arrangements with plaintiffs’ counsel in certain jurisdictions with respect to claims which are not yet filed, or asserted, against it. However, Crown Cork expects claims under these arrangements to be filed or asserted against Crown Cork in the future. The projected value of these claims is included in the Company’s estimated liability as of June 30, 2016. As of June 30, 2016, the Company’s accrual for pending and future asbestos-related claims and related legal costs was $259, including $213 for unasserted claims. The Company’s accrual includes estimated probable costs for claims through the year 2025. The Company’s accrual excludes potential costs for claims beyond 2025 because the Company believes that the key assumptions underlying its accrual are subject to greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens. It is reasonably possible that the actual loss could be in excess of the Company’s accrual. The Company is unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss in excess of its accrual due to uncertainty in the following assumptions that underlie the Company’s accrual and the possibility of losses in excess of such accrual: the amount of damages sought by the claimant (which was not specified for approximately 82% of the claims outstanding at the end of 2015), the Company and claimant’s willingness to negotiate a settlement, the terms of settlements of other defendants with asbestos-related liabilities, the bankruptcy filings of other defendants (which may result in additional claims and higher settlements for non-bankrupt defendants), the nature of pending and future claims (including the seriousness of alleged disease, whether claimants allege first exposure to asbestos before or during 1964 and the claimant’s ability to demonstrate the alleged link to Crown Cork), the volatility of the litigation environment, the defense strategies available to the Company, the level of future claims, the rate of receipt of claims, the jurisdiction in which claims are filed, and the effect of state asbestos legislation (including the validity and applicability of the Pennsylvania legislation to non-Pennsylvania jurisdictions, where the substantial majority of the Company’s asbestos cases are filed).

X
- Definition Includes disclosures about loss contingencies related to asbestos claims and litigation + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | cck_AsbestosRelatedLiabilitiesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | cck_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LiabilityForAsbestosAndEnvironmentalClaimsAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration