Contingencies and Commitments	9 Months Ended
Contingencies and Commitments	Sep. 30, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies and Commitments	Contingencies and Commitments We and certain of our subsidiaries are subject to litigation, claims and other commitments and contingencies, including matters arising in the ordinary course of business, of which the asserted value may be significant. We record accruals in the financial statements for contingencies when we determine that an unfavorable outcome is probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. While there is at least a reasonable possibility that other losses may be incurred in excess of amounts accrued, management is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss or has determined such amounts to be immaterial, except as otherwise noted below. At present, except as set forth below, we do not expect that the ultimate resolution of any open matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations. However, legal proceedings and regulatory and governmental matters are subject to inherent uncertainties, and unfavorable rulings or other events could occur. Unfavorable outcomes could involve substantial monetary damages, fines, penalties and other expenditures. An unfavorable outcome might result in a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations or financial position. We might also enter into an agreement to settle one or more such matters if we determine such settlement is in the best interests of our stakeholders, and any such settlement could include substantial payments. The following disclosures for commitments and contingencies are new or have been updated since the matter was presented in the 2024 10-K. Fluor Australia Ltd., our wholly-owned subsidiary (“Fluor Australia”), completed a cost reimbursable engineering, procurement and construction management services project for Santos Ltd. (“Santos”) involving a large network of natural gas gathering and processing facilities in Queensland, Australia. On December 13, 2016, Santos filed an action in Queensland Supreme Court (the “Court”) against Fluor Australia, asserting various causes of action and seeking damages and/or a refund of contract proceeds paid of AUD $1.47 billion. Santos joined Fluor to the matter on the basis of a parent company guarantee issued for the project. In March 2023, a panel of 3 referees appointed by the Court (the "Panel”) issued a draft, non-binding report setting forth recommendations to the Court regarding liability and damages in the lawsuit. After consideration of further submissions by the parties, the Panel finalized its report on July 14, 2023. The Panel’s report has no legal effect unless adopted by the Court through an adoption hearing, and the Court could have accepted or rejected, in whole or in part, the Panel’s recommendations. In the final report, the Panel recommended judgment for Fluor on one of Santos’s damages claims that Santos contends has an approximate value of AUD $700 million, and recommended judgment for Santos on other claims that the Panel valued at approximately AUD $790 million excluding interest and costs. While the project contract contains a liability cap of approximately AUD $236 million, the Panel found that the liability cap did not apply to Santos’s claims. We made an application to have the Court set aside the reference to the Panel and the Panel’s recommendations on several procedural and substantive grounds, including in relation to apparent bias of the referees, a failure to comply with the order which established the reference to the Panel and a lack of procedural fairness. In July 2023, the Court held oral argument on that application and reserved its decision. Pursuant to an application by Santos to adopt the Panel’s report, the Court then held an adoption hearing in February and March 2024 at which we contended that the Court should not adopt the Panel’s recommendation based on numerous grounds, including the Panel’s failure to apply the project’s liability cap. The Court also reserved its decision at the close of the adoption hearing. In August 2025, the Court generally accepted the recommendations of the panel of referees. Accordingly, we anticipate that, in the fourth quarter of 2025, Santos will move the Supreme Court of Queensland for judgment. The precise amount of the judgment is still pending determination by the Court, but we expect that Santos will seek judgment for approximately $665 million, including interest but excluding GST and Santos’ legal fees. Legal fees are likely to be assessed in a separate process after the judgment. We have appealed the court ruling to the Queensland Court of Appeal and could be required to pay the judgment while the appeal is ongoing. We are working with our insurance carriers to address the obligations expected to arise from the judgment and the costs related to the appeal. After allowing for committed insurance proceeds and reserves, we recognized a charge in the 2025 Quarter as a reduction to revenue of $653 million reflecting the net estimated impact of the anticipated judgment. We have commenced discussions with our insurers which, if successful, may further reduce the ultimate obligation. In mid-October 2025, five of our more than 30 insurers filed a complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, disputing coverage by seeking various declaratory judgments. We will contest. In September 2025, purported shareholders filed a complaint against Fluor and certain of its current and former executives in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Fluor securities between February 18, 2025 and July 31, 2025, and seek to recover damages arising from alleged violations of federal securities laws. These claims are based on statements concerning market conditions, rising costs on three infrastructure projects and the effectiveness of our risk mitigation strategies, which statements the plaintiffs assert were materially misleading. In October 2025, a purported shareholders' derivative action was filed against current and former members of our Board of Directors, as well as certain current and former executives in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Fluor is named as a nominal defendant in the action. The action purports to assert claims on behalf of Fluor and makes substantially the same factual allegations as the securities class action matter discussed above and seeks various forms of declaratory and monetary relief, as well as corporate reforms.