Contingent Liabilities	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2013
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements [Abstract]
Contingent Liabilities	Contingent Liabilities Summarized below are the matters previously described in Note 18 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in our 2012 Annual Report, incorporated by reference in our 2012 Form 10-K, updated as applicable. Environmental. Our operations are subject to environmental regulation by federal, state and local authorities in the U.S. and regulatory authorities with jurisdiction over our non-U.S. operations. We accrue for the costs of environmental investigatory, remediation, operating and maintenance costs when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. The most likely cost to be incurred is accrued based on an evaluation of currently available facts with respect to each individual site, including existing technology, current laws and regulations and prior remediation experience. Where no amount within a range of estimates is more likely, we accrue the minimum. For sites with multiple responsible parties, we consider our likely proportionate share of the anticipated remediation costs and the ability of the other parties to fulfill their obligations in establishing a provision for those costs. We discount liabilities with fixed or reliably determinable future cash payments. We do not reduce accrued environmental liabilities by potential insurance reimbursements. We periodically reassess these accrued amounts. We believe that the likelihood of incurring losses materially in excess of amounts accrued is remote. In conjunction with the completion of our acquisition of Goodrich on July 26, 2012, we recorded additional environmental reserves of $325 million. See Note 1 for further discussion. Government. We are now, and believe that in light of the current U.S. Government contracting environment we will continue to be, the subject of one or more U.S. Government investigations. If we or one of our business units were charged with wrongdoing as a result of any of these investigations or other government investigations (including violations of certain environmental or export laws) the U.S. Government could suspend us from bidding on or receiving awards of new U.S. Government contracts pending the completion of legal proceedings. If convicted or found liable, the U.S. Government could fine and debar us from new U.S. Government contracting for a period generally not to exceed three years. The U.S. Government could void any contracts found to be tainted by fraud. Our contracts with the U.S. Government are also subject to audits. Like many defense contractors, we have received audit reports, which recommend that certain contract prices should be reduced to comply with various government regulations. Some of these audit reports involve substantial amounts. We have made voluntary refunds in those cases we believe appropriate, have settled some allegations and continue to litigate certain other cases. In addition, we accrue for liabilities associated with those matters that are probable and can be reasonably estimated. The most likely settlement amount to be incurred is accrued based upon a range of estimates. Where no amount within a range of estimates is more likely, then we accrue the minimum amount. As previously disclosed, the United States government sued us in 1999 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, claiming that Pratt & Whitney violated the civil False Claims Act and common law. The claims relate to the “Fighter Engine Competition” between Pratt & Whitney's F100 engine and General Electric's F110 engine. The government alleged that it overpaid for F100 engines under contracts awarded by the U.S. Air Force in fiscal years 1985 through 1990 because Pratt & Whitney inflated its estimated costs for some purchased parts and withheld data that would have revealed the overstatements. At trial, which ended in April, 2005, the government claimed Pratt & Whitney's liability to be approximately $624 million. On August 1, 2008, the trial court held that the Air Force had not suffered any actual damages because Pratt & Whitney had made significant price concessions after the alleged overstatements were made. However, the trial court judge found that Pratt & Whitney violated the False Claims Act due to inaccurate statements contained in its 1983 initial engine pricing proposal. In the absence of actual damages, the trial court awarded the government the maximum civil penalty of approximately $7 million, or $10,000 for each of the 709 invoices Pratt & Whitney submitted in 1989 and later under the contracts. In September 2008, both the government and UTC appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On November 18, 2010, the Sixth Circuit affirmed Pratt & Whitney's liability under the False Claims Act, but remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings on the issues of False Claims Act damages and common law liability and damages. On June 18, 2012, the trial court found that Pratt & Whitney had breached obligations imposed by common law based on the same conduct with respect to which the court previously found liability under the False Claims Act. Under the common law claims, the U.S. Air Force is entitled to seek damages for events occurring before March 3, 1989, which are not recoverable under the False Claims Act. On June 17, 2013, the trial court awarded the government approximately $473 million in damages and penalties, plus prejudgment interest in an amount to be determined. On July 1, 2013, the trial court, after determining the amount of prejudgment interest, entered judgment in favor of the government in the amount of approximately $664 million. The trial court also awarded postjudgment interest on the full amount of the judgment to accrue from July 2, 2013, at the federal variable interest rate determined pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961. The judgment included four different components of damages: (1) common law damages of approximately $109 million; (2) prejudgment interest on common law damages of approximately $191 million; (3) False Claims Act treble damages of approximately $357 million; and (4) penalties of approximately $7 million. The penalty component of the judgment previously was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals in 2010. We strongly disagree with the trial court's analysis and conclusions. We will file an appeal from the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on or before September 1, 2013. Based on our analysis, we continue to believe that there is no basis for any common law liability for the inaccurate statements. We also believe that the government suffered no actual damages as a result of the inaccurate statements made in 1983 and, therefore, there is no basis in fact or law for the award of common law damages, prejudgment interest or False Claims Act treble damages. If, contrary to our expectations, all or any portion of the judgment should ultimately be affirmed, we estimate a range of possible loss from approximately $24 million to $657 million in excess of amounts previously accrued, plus postjudgment interest. The outcome of this matter could result in a material adverse effect on our results of operations in the period in which a liability would be recognized and cash flows for the period in which damages would be paid. As previously disclosed, in December 2008, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a contract claim against Sikorsky to recover overpayments the DOD alleges that it made to Sikorsky since January 2003 in connection with cost accounting changes approved by the DOD and implemented by Sikorsky in 1999 and 2006. These changes relate to the calculation of material overhead rates in government contracts. The DOD claimed that Sikorsky's liability was approximately $95 million (including interest through March 31, 2013). We believed this claim was without merit and Sikorsky filed an appeal in December 2009 with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Trial in the matter concluded in January 2013 and on March 22, 2013, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a written decision in favor of Sikorsky determining that the DOD had failed to prove its claims because Sikorsky's calculation of material overhead complied with the cost accounting standards. DOD has appealed this decision. We do not believe the ultimate resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. As previously disclosed, UTC has been involved in administrative review proceedings with the German Tax Office concerning €203 million (approximately $266 million) of tax benefits that we have claimed related to a 1998 reorganization of the corporate structure of Otis operations in Germany. A portion of these tax benefits were disallowed by the local German Tax Office on July 5, 2012, as a result of the audit of tax years 1999 to 2000. The legal and factual issues relating to the denial of the tax benefits center on the interpretation and application of a German tax law. On August 3, 2012, the Company filed suit in the local German tax court and intends to litigate vigorously the matter to conclusion. We do not believe the resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. Other. We extend performance and operating cost guarantees beyond our normal warranty and service policies for extended periods on some of our products. We have accrued our estimate of the liability that may result under these guarantees and for service costs that are probable and can be reasonably estimated. Like many other industrial companies in recent years, we or our subsidiaries are named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos integrated into certain of our products or premises. While we have never manufactured asbestos and no longer incorporate it in any currently-manufactured products, certain of our historical products, like those of many other manufacturers, have contained components incorporating asbestos. A substantial majority of these asbestos-related claims have been covered by insurance or other forms of indemnity or have been dismissed without payment. The remainder of the closed cases have been resolved for amounts that are not material individually or in the aggregate. While insurance coverage litigation is pending against a number of Goodrich insurers, based on information currently available we do not believe that resolution of asbestos-related matters will have a material adverse effect upon our competitive position, results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. We are involved in a number of other legal proceedings, investigations and other contingency matters, including government audit matters, environmental investigatory, remediation, operating and maintenance costs, performance guarantees, self-insurance programs and matters arising out of the normal course of business. We are also subject to a number of routine lawsuits, investigations and claims (some of which involve substantial amounts) arising out of the ordinary course of our business. Many of these proceedings are at preliminary stages, and many of these cases seek an indeterminate amount of damages. We regularly evaluate the status of legal proceedings in which we are involved, to assess whether a loss is probable and reasonably estimable in light of the facts and circumstances known to us at a particular point in time or there is a reasonable possibility that a loss or additional loss may have been incurred and determine if accruals and related disclosures are appropriate. The Company has established reserves for several hundred of its legal proceedings and other matters. We accrue contingencies based upon a range of possible outcomes. If no amount within this range is a better estimate than any other, then we accrue the minimum amount. With respect to any additional losses that may be incurred in excess of those accrued, either they are considered not material or we do not believe that a range of reasonably possible losses (defined by the relevant accounting literature to include all potential losses other than those deemed “remote”) can be determined. We do not believe that these matters will have a material adverse effect upon our competitive position, results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. All forward-looking statements concerning the possible or anticipated outcome of environmental, investigatory, litigation proceedings and other contingency matters involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements. For further information as to these risks and uncertainties, see “Cautionary Note Concerning Factors That May Affect Future Results” and Part II, Item 1A, “Risk Factors” in this Form 10-Q.

Contingent Liabilities

Summarized below are the matters previously described in Note 18 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in our 2012 Annual Report, incorporated by reference in our 2012 Form 10-K, updated as applicable.

Environmental. Our operations are subject to environmental regulation by federal, state and local authorities in the U.S. and regulatory authorities with jurisdiction over our non-U.S. operations. We accrue for the costs of environmental investigatory, remediation, operating and maintenance costs when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. The most likely cost to be incurred is accrued based on an evaluation of currently available facts with respect to each individual site, including existing technology, current laws and regulations and prior remediation experience. Where no amount within a range of estimates is more likely, we accrue the minimum. For sites with multiple responsible parties, we consider our likely proportionate share of the anticipated remediation costs and the ability of the other parties to fulfill their obligations in establishing a provision for those costs. We discount liabilities with fixed or reliably determinable future cash payments. We do not reduce accrued environmental liabilities by potential insurance reimbursements. We periodically reassess these accrued amounts. We believe that the likelihood of incurring losses materially in excess of amounts accrued is remote.

In conjunction with the completion of our acquisition of Goodrich on July 26, 2012, we recorded additional environmental reserves of $325 million. See Note 1 for further discussion.

Government. We are now, and believe that in light of the current U.S. Government contracting environment we will continue to be, the subject of one or more U.S. Government investigations. If we or one of our business units were charged with wrongdoing as a result of any of these investigations or other government investigations (including violations of certain environmental or export laws) the U.S. Government could suspend us from bidding on or receiving awards of new U.S. Government contracts pending the completion of legal proceedings. If convicted or found liable, the U.S. Government could fine and debar us from new U.S. Government contracting for a period generally not to exceed three years. The U.S. Government could void any contracts found to be tainted by fraud.

Our contracts with the U.S. Government are also subject to audits. Like many defense contractors, we have received audit reports, which recommend that certain contract prices should be reduced to comply with various government regulations. Some of these audit reports involve substantial amounts. We have made voluntary refunds in those cases we believe appropriate, have settled some allegations and continue to litigate certain other cases. In addition, we accrue for liabilities associated with those matters that are probable and can be reasonably estimated. The most likely settlement amount to be incurred is accrued based upon a range of estimates. Where no amount within a range of estimates is more likely, then we accrue the minimum amount.

As previously disclosed, the United States government sued us in 1999 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, claiming that Pratt & Whitney violated the civil False Claims Act and common law. The claims relate to the “Fighter Engine Competition” between Pratt & Whitney's F100 engine and General Electric's F110 engine. The government alleged that it overpaid for F100 engines under contracts awarded by the U.S. Air Force in fiscal years 1985 through 1990 because Pratt & Whitney inflated its estimated costs for some purchased parts and withheld data that would have revealed the overstatements. At trial, which ended in April, 2005, the government claimed Pratt & Whitney's liability to be approximately $624 million. On August 1, 2008, the trial court held that the Air Force had not suffered any actual damages because Pratt & Whitney had made significant price concessions after the alleged overstatements were made. However, the trial court judge found that Pratt & Whitney violated the False Claims Act due to inaccurate statements contained in its 1983 initial engine pricing proposal. In the absence of actual damages, the trial court awarded the government the maximum civil penalty of approximately $7 million, or $10,000 for each of the 709 invoices Pratt & Whitney submitted in 1989 and later under the contracts. In September 2008, both the government and UTC appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On November 18, 2010, the Sixth Circuit affirmed Pratt & Whitney's liability under the False Claims Act, but remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings on the issues of False Claims Act damages and common law liability and damages.

On June 18, 2012, the trial court found that Pratt & Whitney had breached obligations imposed by common law based on the same conduct with respect to which the court previously found liability under the False Claims Act. Under the common law claims, the U.S. Air Force is entitled to seek damages for events occurring before March 3, 1989, which are not recoverable under the False Claims Act.

On June 17, 2013, the trial court awarded the government approximately $473 million in damages and penalties, plus prejudgment interest in an amount to be determined. On July 1, 2013, the trial court, after determining the amount of prejudgment interest, entered judgment in favor of the government in the amount of approximately $664 million. The trial court also awarded postjudgment interest on the full amount of the judgment to accrue from July 2, 2013, at the federal variable interest rate determined pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961. The judgment included four different components of damages: (1) common law damages of approximately $109 million; (2) prejudgment interest on common law damages of approximately $191 million; (3) False Claims Act treble damages of approximately $357 million; and (4) penalties of approximately $7 million. The penalty component of the judgment previously was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals in 2010.

We strongly disagree with the trial court's analysis and conclusions. We will file an appeal from the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on or before September 1, 2013. Based on our analysis, we continue to believe that there is no basis for any common law liability for the inaccurate statements. We also believe that the government suffered no actual damages as a result of the inaccurate statements made in 1983 and, therefore, there is no basis in fact or law for the award of common law damages, prejudgment interest or False Claims Act treble damages. If, contrary to our expectations, all or any portion of the judgment should ultimately be affirmed, we estimate a range of possible loss from approximately $24 million to $657 million in excess of amounts previously accrued, plus postjudgment interest. The outcome of this matter could result in a material adverse effect on our results of operations in the period in which a liability would be recognized and cash flows for the period in which damages would be paid.

As previously disclosed, in December 2008, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a contract claim against Sikorsky to recover overpayments the DOD alleges that it made to Sikorsky since January 2003 in connection with cost accounting changes approved by the DOD and implemented by Sikorsky in 1999 and 2006. These changes relate to the calculation of material overhead rates in government contracts. The DOD claimed that Sikorsky's liability was approximately $95 million (including interest through March 31, 2013). We believed this claim was without merit and Sikorsky filed an appeal in December 2009 with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Trial in the matter concluded in January 2013 and on March 22, 2013, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a written decision in favor of Sikorsky determining that the DOD had failed to prove its claims because Sikorsky's calculation of material overhead complied with the cost accounting standards. DOD has appealed this decision. We do not believe the ultimate resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, results of operations, cash flows or financial condition.

As previously disclosed, UTC has been involved in administrative review proceedings with the German Tax Office concerning €203 million (approximately $266 million) of tax benefits that we have claimed related to a 1998 reorganization of the corporate structure of Otis operations in Germany. A portion of these tax benefits were disallowed by the local German Tax Office on July 5, 2012, as a result of the audit of tax years 1999 to 2000. The legal and factual issues relating to the denial of the tax benefits center on the interpretation and application of a German tax law. On August 3, 2012, the Company filed suit in the local German tax court and intends to litigate vigorously the matter to conclusion. We do not believe the resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows or financial condition.

Other. We extend performance and operating cost guarantees beyond our normal warranty and service policies for extended periods on some of our products. We have accrued our estimate of the liability that may result under these guarantees and for service costs that are probable and can be reasonably estimated.

Like many other industrial companies in recent years, we or our subsidiaries are named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos integrated into certain of our products or premises. While we have never manufactured asbestos and no longer incorporate it in any currently-manufactured products, certain of our historical products, like those of many other manufacturers, have contained components incorporating asbestos. A substantial majority of these asbestos-related claims have been covered by insurance or other forms of indemnity or have been dismissed without payment. The remainder of the closed cases have been resolved for amounts that are not material individually or in the aggregate. While insurance coverage litigation is pending against a number of Goodrich insurers, based on information currently available we do not believe that resolution of asbestos-related matters will have a material adverse effect upon our competitive position, results of operations, cash flows or financial condition.

We are involved in a number of other legal proceedings, investigations and other contingency matters, including government audit matters, environmental investigatory, remediation, operating and maintenance costs, performance guarantees, self-insurance programs and matters arising out of the normal course of business. We are also subject to a number of routine lawsuits, investigations and claims (some of which involve substantial amounts) arising out of the ordinary course of our business. Many of these proceedings are at preliminary stages, and many of these cases seek an indeterminate amount of damages. We regularly evaluate the status of legal proceedings in which we are involved, to assess whether a loss is probable and reasonably estimable in light of the facts and circumstances known to us at a particular point in time or there is a reasonable possibility that a loss or additional loss may have been incurred and determine if accruals and related disclosures are appropriate. The Company has established reserves for several hundred of its legal proceedings and other matters. We accrue contingencies based upon a range of possible outcomes. If no amount within this range is a better estimate than any other, then we accrue the minimum amount. With respect to any additional losses that may be incurred in excess of those accrued, either they are considered not material or we do not believe that a range of reasonably possible losses (defined by the relevant accounting literature to include all potential losses other than those deemed “remote”) can be determined. We do not believe that these matters will have a material adverse effect upon our competitive position, results of operations, cash flows or financial condition.

All forward-looking statements concerning the possible or anticipated outcome of environmental, investigatory, litigation proceedings and other contingency matters involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements. For further information as to these risks and uncertainties, see “Cautionary Note Concerning Factors That May Affect Future Results” and Part II, Item 1A, “Risk Factors” in this Form 10-Q.