Contingencies and Commitments	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2013
Contingencies and Commitments
Contingencies and Commitments	(13) The company and certain of its subsidiaries are involved in various litigation matters. Additionally, the company and certain of its subsidiaries are contingently liable for commitments and performance guarantees arising in the ordinary course of business. The company and certain of its clients have made claims arising from the performance under its contracts. The company recognizes revenue, but not profit, for certain significant claims (including change orders in dispute and unapproved change orders in regard to both scope and price) when it is determined that recovery of incurred costs is probable and the amounts can be reliably estimated. Under ASC 605-35-25, these requirements are satisfied when (a) the contract or other evidence provides a legal basis for the claim, (b) additional costs were caused by circumstances that were unforeseen at the contract date and not the result of deficiencies in the company’s performance, (c) claim-related costs are identifiable and considered reasonable in view of the work performed, and (d) evidence supporting the claim is objective and verifiable. The company periodically evaluates its position and the amounts recognized in revenue with respect to all its claims. Recognized claims against clients amounted to $20 million as of December 31, 2012 and are included in contract work in progress for that period in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. There were no recognized claims against clients as of September 30, 2013. As of September 30, 2013, several matters were in the litigation and dispute resolution process. The following discussion provides a background and current status of these matters: St. Joe Minerals Matters Since 1995, the company has been named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits alleging injuries resulting from the lead business of St. Joe Minerals Corporation (“St. Joe”) and The Doe Run Company (“Doe Run”) in Herculaneum, Missouri, which are discontinued operations. The company was named as a defendant in these lawsuits as a result of its ownership or other interests in St. Joe and Doe Run in the period between 1981 and 1994. In 1994, the company sold its interests in St. Joe and Doe Run, along with all liabilities associated with the lead business, pursuant to a sale agreement in which the buyer agreed to indemnify the company for those liabilities. Until December 2010, substantially all the lawsuits were settled and paid by the buyer; and in all cases the company was fully released. In December 2010, the buyer settled with certain plaintiffs without obtaining a release for the benefit of the company, leaving the company to defend its case with these plaintiffs in the City of St. Louis Circuit Court. In late July 2011, the jury reached an unexpected verdict in this case, ruling in favor of 16 of the plaintiffs and against the company and certain former subsidiaries for $38.5 million in compensatory and economic damages and $320 million in punitive damages. In August 2011, the court entered judgments based on the verdict. In December 2011, the company appealed the judgments of the court. Briefings and oral arguments before the Missouri Court of Appeals (Eastern District) have been completed, and the company is awaiting a decision. The company strongly believes that the judgments are not supported by the facts or the law and that it is probable that such judgments will be overturned. Therefore, based upon the present status of this matter, the company does not believe it is probable that a loss will be incurred. Accordingly, the company has not recorded a charge as a result of the judgments. The company has also taken steps to enforce its rights to the indemnification described above. The company, the buyer and other entities are defendants in 21 additional lawsuits relating to the lead business of St. Joe and Doe Run. The company believes it has strong defenses to these lawsuits and is vigorously defending its position. The company is unable to estimate a range of possible losses in these lawsuits. In addition, the company has filed claims for indemnification under the sale agreement for other matters raised in these lawsuits. While management believes the company will be ultimately successful in these various matters, if the company was unsuccessful in its appeal of the ruling referenced above or in any of the other lawsuits, or in the prosecution of and collection on its indemnity claims, the company could recognize a material charge to its earnings. Embassy Projects The company constructed 11 embassy projects for the U.S. Department of State under fixed-price contracts. Some of these projects were adversely impacted by higher costs due to schedule extensions, scope changes causing material deviations from the Standard Embassy Design, increased costs to meet client requirements for additional security-cleared labor, site conditions at certain locations, subcontractor and teaming partner difficulties and the availability and productivity of construction labor. All embassy projects were completed prior to 2011. During the first quarter of 2012, the company received an adverse judgment from the Board of Contract Appeals (“BCA”) associated with a claim on one embassy project and, as a result, recorded a charge of $13 million. The company filed an appeal, but the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit summarily affirmed the BCA’s decision in September 2013. The company has chosen not to further appeal this matter. A hearing on the final embassy claim was held during the second quarter of 2012, and a decision was rendered during the second quarter of 2013. While the BCA found in favor of Fluor on certain of its claims, the BCA award was less than the company’s demand which resulted in a charge to earnings of approximately $17 million during the second quarter of 2013. The company has chosen not to appeal the BCA’s decision in this matter. Conex International v. Fluor Enterprises, Inc. In November 2006, a Jefferson County, Texas, jury reached an unexpected verdict in the case of Conex International (“Conex”) v. Fluor Enterprises Inc. (“FEI”), ruling in favor of Conex and awarding $99 million in damages related to a 2001 construction project. In 2001, Atofina (now part of Total Petrochemicals Inc.) hired Conex International to be the mechanical contractor on a project at Atofina’s refinery in Port Arthur, Texas. FEI was also hired to provide certain engineering advice to Atofina on the project. There was no contract between Conex and FEI. Later in 2001 after the project was complete, Conex and Atofina negotiated a final settlement for extra work on the project. Conex sued FEI in September 2003, alleging damages for interference and misrepresentation and demanding that FEI should pay Conex the balance of the extra work charges that Atofina did not pay in the settlement. Conex also asserted that FEI interfered with Conex’s contract and business relationship with Atofina. The jury verdict awarded damages for the extra work and the alleged interference. The company appealed the decision and the judgment against the company was reversed in its entirety in December 2008. Both parties appealed the decision to the Texas Supreme Court, and the court denied both petitions. The company requested rehearing on two issues to the Texas Supreme Court, and that request was denied. The Texas Supreme Court remanded the matter back to the trial court for a new trial. The matter was stayed, pending resolution of certain technical issues associated with the 2011 bankruptcy filing by the plaintiff’s parent. These issues have been resolved. The matter has been remanded to the court in Jefferson County, Texas. Based upon the present status of this matter, the company does not believe that there is a reasonable possibility that a loss will be incurred.

(13) The company and certain of its subsidiaries are involved in various litigation matters. Additionally, the company and certain of its subsidiaries are contingently liable for commitments and performance guarantees arising in the ordinary course of business. The company and certain of its clients have made claims arising from the performance under its contracts. The company recognizes revenue, but not profit, for certain significant claims (including change orders in dispute and unapproved change orders in regard to both scope and price) when it is determined that recovery of incurred costs is probable and the amounts can be reliably estimated. Under ASC 605-35-25, these requirements are satisfied when (a) the contract or other evidence provides a legal basis for the claim, (b) additional costs were caused by circumstances that were unforeseen at the contract date and not the result of deficiencies in the company’s performance, (c) claim-related costs are identifiable and considered reasonable in view of the work performed, and (d) evidence supporting the claim is objective and verifiable. The company periodically evaluates its position and the amounts recognized in revenue with respect to all its claims. Recognized claims against clients amounted to $20 million as of December 31, 2012 and are included in contract work in progress for that period in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. There were no recognized claims against clients as of September 30, 2013.

As of September 30, 2013, several matters were in the litigation and dispute resolution process. The following discussion provides a background and current status of these matters:

St. Joe Minerals Matters

Since 1995, the company has been named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits alleging injuries resulting from the lead business of St. Joe Minerals Corporation (“St. Joe”) and The Doe Run Company (“Doe Run”) in Herculaneum, Missouri, which are discontinued operations. The company was named as a defendant in these lawsuits as a result of its ownership or other interests in St. Joe and Doe Run in the period between 1981 and 1994. In 1994, the company sold its interests in St. Joe and Doe Run, along with all liabilities associated with the lead business, pursuant to a sale agreement in which the buyer agreed to indemnify the company for those liabilities. Until December 2010, substantially all the lawsuits were settled and paid by the buyer; and in all cases the company was fully released.

In December 2010, the buyer settled with certain plaintiffs without obtaining a release for the benefit of the company, leaving the company to defend its case with these plaintiffs in the City of St. Louis Circuit Court. In late July 2011, the jury reached an unexpected verdict in this case, ruling in favor of 16 of the plaintiffs and against the company and certain former subsidiaries for $38.5 million in compensatory and economic damages and $320 million in punitive damages. In August 2011, the court entered judgments based on the verdict.

In December 2011, the company appealed the judgments of the court. Briefings and oral arguments before the Missouri Court of Appeals (Eastern District) have been completed, and the company is awaiting a decision. The company strongly believes that the judgments are not supported by the facts or the law and that it is probable that such judgments will be overturned. Therefore, based upon the present status of this matter, the company does not believe it is probable that a loss will be incurred. Accordingly, the company has not recorded a charge as a result of the judgments. The company has also taken steps to enforce its rights to the indemnification described above.

The company, the buyer and other entities are defendants in 21 additional lawsuits relating to the lead business of St. Joe and Doe Run. The company believes it has strong defenses to these lawsuits and is vigorously defending its position. The company is unable to estimate a range of possible losses in these lawsuits. In addition, the company has filed claims for indemnification under the sale agreement for other matters raised in these lawsuits. While management believes the company will be ultimately successful in these various matters, if the company was unsuccessful in its appeal of the ruling referenced above or in any of the other lawsuits, or in the prosecution of and collection on its indemnity claims, the company could recognize a material charge to its earnings.

Embassy Projects

The company constructed 11 embassy projects for the U.S. Department of State under fixed-price contracts. Some of these projects were adversely impacted by higher costs due to schedule extensions, scope changes causing material deviations from the Standard Embassy Design, increased costs to meet client requirements for additional security-cleared labor, site conditions at certain locations, subcontractor and teaming partner difficulties and the availability and productivity of construction labor. All embassy projects were completed prior to 2011.

During the first quarter of 2012, the company received an adverse judgment from the Board of Contract Appeals (“BCA”) associated with a claim on one embassy project and, as a result, recorded a charge of $13 million. The company filed an appeal, but the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit summarily affirmed the BCA’s decision in September 2013. The company has chosen not to further appeal this matter.

A hearing on the final embassy claim was held during the second quarter of 2012, and a decision was rendered during the second quarter of 2013. While the BCA found in favor of Fluor on certain of its claims, the BCA award was less than the company’s demand which resulted in a charge to earnings of approximately $17 million during the second quarter of 2013. The company has chosen not to appeal the BCA’s decision in this matter.

Conex International v. Fluor Enterprises, Inc.

In November 2006, a Jefferson County, Texas, jury reached an unexpected verdict in the case of Conex International (“Conex”) v. Fluor Enterprises Inc. (“FEI”), ruling in favor of Conex and awarding $99 million in damages related to a 2001 construction project.

In 2001, Atofina (now part of Total Petrochemicals Inc.) hired Conex International to be the mechanical contractor on a project at Atofina’s refinery in Port Arthur, Texas. FEI was also hired to provide certain engineering advice to Atofina on the project. There was no contract between Conex and FEI. Later in 2001 after the project was complete, Conex and Atofina negotiated a final settlement for extra work on the project. Conex sued FEI in September 2003, alleging damages for interference and misrepresentation and demanding that FEI should pay Conex the balance of the extra work charges that Atofina did not pay in the settlement. Conex also asserted that FEI interfered with Conex’s contract and business relationship with Atofina. The jury verdict awarded damages for the extra work and the alleged interference.

The company appealed the decision and the judgment against the company was reversed in its entirety in December 2008. Both parties appealed the decision to the Texas Supreme Court, and the court denied both petitions. The company requested rehearing on two issues to the Texas Supreme Court, and that request was denied. The Texas Supreme Court remanded the matter back to the trial court for a new trial. The matter was stayed, pending resolution of certain technical issues associated with the 2011 bankruptcy filing by the plaintiff’s parent. These issues have been resolved. The matter has been remanded to the court in Jefferson County, Texas. Based upon the present status of this matter, the company does not believe that there is a reasonable possibility that a loss will be incurred.