Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Letters of Credit As of September 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, there were $21.0 million and $23.0 million, respectively, of letters of credit issued on the Company’s Senior Unsecured Revolving Credit Facility. Bonds The Company had outstanding surety bonds of $9.0 million and $4.3 million as of September 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, respectively. These bonds were issued primarily in connection with insurance requirements, special real estate assessments and construction obligations. Collective Bargaining Agreements As of September 30, 2020, approximately 47% of the Company’s labor force is covered by collective bargaining agreements. Collective bargaining agreements covering less than 10% of the labor force are set to expire during the remaining three months ended December 31, 2020. Legal Proceedings In assessing loss contingencies related to legal proceedings that are pending against the Company or unasserted claims that may result in such proceedings, the Company and its legal counsel evaluate the merits of any legal proceedings or unasserted claims, as well as the perceived merits of the amount of relief sought or expected to be sought. If the assessment of a contingency suggests that a loss is probable, and the amount can be reasonably estimated, then a loss is recorded. In addition to the matters discussed below, the Company may be subject to litigation and claims arising from the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management, after consultation with legal counsel, the outcome of such matters is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. Kansas Breach of Settlement Agreement Litigation This case was served against the Company in Wyandotte County, Kansas, on January 17, 2013, alleging breach of a 1994 Settlement Agreement reached with customers of our predecessor company, Americold Corporation. The plaintiffs originally brought claims in 1992 arising from a fire the previous year in an underground warehouse facility. In 1994, a settlement was reached whereby Americold Corporation agreed to the entry of a $58.7 million judgment against it and assigned its rights to proceed against its insurer to satisfy the judgment. The settlement agreement contained a standard “cooperation provision” in which Americold Corporation agreed to execute any additional documents necessary to fulfill the intent of the settlement agreement. The plaintiffs then sued Americold Corporation’s insurer to recover on the consent judgment. The case was ultimately dismissed in 2012, and the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the 1994 consent judgment had expired and was not revivable as a matter of law. On September 24, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a separate claim in the district court of Wyandotte County, Kansas, alleging that the Company and one of its subsidiaries, Americold Logistics, LLC, as successors to Americold Corporation, are liable for the full amount of the judgment, based upon the allegation that the Company failed to execute a document or take action to keep the judgment alive and viable. On February 7, 2013, the Company removed the case to the U.S. federal court and ultimately filed a motion for summary judgment, which the plaintiffs vigorously opposed. On October 4, 2013, the court granted the Company’s motion and dismissed the case in full. Only one plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals ordered that the case be remanded to the Kansas State Court and the judgment in favor of Americold be vacated, finding U.S. federal diversity jurisdiction did not exist over the Company. The Company petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari and oral argument occurred on January 19, 2016. On March 7, 2016, the United States Supreme Court ruled that there was no federal diversity jurisdiction. Following the decision, the United States District Court for the District of Kansas entered an Order vacating the summary judgment and remanding the case to Kansas state court. Regardless of the venue, the Company remains confident that its defenses on the merits of plaintiffs’ claims are strong under Kansas law. Following remand to Kansas state court, Plaintiffs initially petitioned the court to amend their complaint to drop their claim for damages and only seek an Order of Specific Performance requiring Americold to sign a new document reinstating the consent judgment assigned in the 1994 Settlement Agreement. Plaintiffs filed a later motion to add back the damages claim, which was granted in February 2018. Since December 31, 2018, the court granted the Company’s motions to dismiss Kraft and Safeway from the case given they did not appeal the District Court’s Order dismissing their claims and are bound by the judgment entered against them. The Kraft and Safeway plaintiffs have appealed their dismissals. The trial court has stayed the proceedings pending the appeal. In addition, the Company has sued the Chubb Group seeking the court’s declaration that Chubb owes coverage of the amounts sought by Plaintiffs and for bad faith damages for denying coverage. Given the status of the proceedings to date, a liability amount cannot be reasonably estimated. The Company believes the ultimate outcome of this matter will not have a material adverse impact on its condensed consolidated financial statements. Preferred Freezer Services, LLC Litigation On February 11, 2019, Preferred Freezer Services, LLC (“PFS”) moved by Order to Show Cause in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, asserting breach of contract and other claims against the Company and seeking to preliminarily enjoin the Company from acting to acquire certain properties leased by PFS. In its complaint and request for preliminary injunctive relief, PFS alleged that the Company breached a confidentiality agreement entered into in connection with the Company’s participation in a bidding process for the sale of PFS by contacting PFS’s landlords and by using confidential PFS information in bidding for the properties leased by PFS (the “PFS Action”). PFS’s request for a preliminary injunction was denied after oral argument on February 26, 2019. On March 1, 2019, PFS filed an application for interim injunctive relief from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, First Judicial Department. On April 2, 2019, while its application to the First Department was pending, PFS voluntarily dismissed its state court action, and First Department application, and re-filed substantially the same claims against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In addition to an order enjoining Americold from making offers to purchase the properties leased by PFS, PFS sought compensatory, consequential and/or punitive damages. The Company filed a motion to require PFS to reimburse the Company for its legal fees it incurred for the state court action before PFS is allowed to proceed in the federal court action. On February 18, 2020, the Court granted Americold’s request for an award of legal fees from PFS but declined to stay the case pending payment of that award. As to the amount of the award, the Company and PFS have entered into a stipulation that PFS will pay Americold $550,000 to reimburse the Company for its legal fees upon the conclusion of the case. PFS has since amended its complaint, and Americold has filed a motion to dismiss that amended complaint. On June 25, 2020, Fenway Polar Representative (“Fenway”), an entity alleging to represent the interests of the former shareholders of PFS, filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County alleging based on similar factual allegations made in the PFS Action it is seeking damages in excess of $400 million due to the Company’s alleged fraudulent and tortious interference in the sale of PFS (the “Fenway Action”). The Company denies the allegations of the PFS Action and the Fenway Action and believes the plaintiffs’ claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations. Given the status of the proceedings to date, a liability cannot be reasonably estimated. The Company believes the ultimate outcome of this matter will not have a material adverse impact on its condensed consolidated financial statements. Employment Putative Class Action On February 22, 2019, a former employee filed a putative class action against the Company in the San Bernardino County Superior Court asserting that the Company: (1) failed to pay minimum wages; (2) failed to pay overtime wages; (3) failed to pay all vacation wages; (4) failed to provide meal periods; (5) failed to provide accurate wage statements; (6) failed to pay wages timely to terminated employees; and (7) violated California unfair business practices. On April 10, 2019, the Company filed an Answer and Affirmative Defenses in response to the complaint and successfully removed the case to federal court in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On May 2, 2019, plaintiff filed a separate lawsuit for civil penalties under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) in the San Bernardino Superior Court against the Company, Case No. CIV-DS-1913525 based on similar factual allegations that are asserted in the complaint. The Company successfully obtained a dismissal of the San Bernardino Superior Court Action. On June 18, 2019, the plaintiff amended his complaint in the pending federal court action to add a rest period violation claim and PAGA penalty claims based on similar allegations that are asserted in the complaint. Plaintiff’s counsel later dismissed plaintiff’s vacation wages claim from his first amended complaint. The Company entered into a settlement agreement in the case for $2.5 million, which was approved by the court on September 21, 2020. Environmental Matters The Company is subject to a wide range of environmental laws and regulations in each of the locations in which the Company operates. Compliance with these requirements can involve significant capital and operating costs. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in civil or criminal fines or sanctions, claims for environmental damages, remediation obligations, the revocation of environmental permits, or restrictions on the Company’s operations. The Company records accruals for environmental matters when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated based on current law and existing technologies. The Company adjusts these accruals periodically as assessment and remediation efforts progress or as additional technical or legal information become available. The Company recorded nominal environmental liabilities in accounts payable and accrued expenses as of September 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019. The Company believes it is in compliance with applicable environmental regulations in all material respects. Under various U.S. federal, state, and local environmental laws, a current or previous owner or operator of real estate may be liable for the entire cost of investigating, removing, and/or remediating hazardous or toxic substances on such property. Such laws often impose liability whether or not the owner or operator knew of, or was responsible for, the contamination. Even if more than one person may have been responsible for the contamination, each person covered by the environmental laws may be held responsible for the entire clean-up cost. There are no material unrecorded liabilities as of September 30, 2020. Most of the Company’s warehouses utilize ammonia as a refrigerant. Ammonia is classified as a hazardous chemical regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency, and an accident or significant release of ammonia from a warehouse could result in injuries, loss of life, and property damage. Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) The Company’s warehouses located in the U.S. are subject to regulation under OSHA, which requires employers to provide employees with an environment free from hazards, such as exposure to toxic chemicals, excessive noise levels, mechanical dangers, heat or cold stress, and unsanitary conditions. The cost of complying with OSHA and similar laws enacted by states and other jurisdictions in which we operate can be substantial, and any failure to comply with these regulations could expose us to substantial penalties and potentially to liabilities to employees who may be injured at our warehouses. The Company records accruals for OSHA matters when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated. The Company believes that it is in substantial compliance with all OSHA regulations and that no material unrecorded liabilities exist as of September 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019.

In assessing loss contingencies related to legal proceedings that are pending against the Company or unasserted claims that may result in such proceedings, the Company and its legal counsel evaluate the merits of any legal proceedings or unasserted claims, as well as the perceived merits of the amount of relief sought or expected to be sought. If the assessment of a contingency suggests that a loss is probable, and the amount can be reasonably estimated, then a loss is recorded.

In addition to the matters discussed below, the Company may be subject to litigation and claims arising from the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management, after consultation with legal counsel, the outcome of such matters is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

This case was served against the Company in Wyandotte County, Kansas, on January 17, 2013, alleging breach of a 1994 Settlement Agreement reached with customers of our predecessor company, Americold Corporation. The plaintiffs originally brought claims in 1992 arising from a fire the previous year in an underground warehouse facility.

In 1994, a settlement was reached whereby Americold Corporation agreed to the entry of a $58.7 million judgment against it and assigned its rights to proceed against its insurer to satisfy the judgment. The settlement agreement contained a standard “cooperation provision” in which Americold Corporation agreed to execute any additional documents necessary to fulfill the intent of the settlement agreement. The plaintiffs then sued Americold Corporation’s insurer to recover on the consent judgment. The case was ultimately dismissed in 2012, and the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the 1994 consent judgment had expired and was not revivable as a matter of law.

On September 24, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a separate claim in the district court of Wyandotte County, Kansas, alleging that the Company and one of its subsidiaries, Americold Logistics, LLC, as successors to Americold Corporation, are liable for the full amount of the judgment, based upon the allegation that the Company failed to execute a document or take action to keep the judgment alive and viable.

On February 7, 2013, the Company removed the case to the U.S. federal court and ultimately filed a motion for summary judgment, which the plaintiffs vigorously opposed. On October 4, 2013, the court granted the Company’s motion and dismissed the case in full. Only one plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals ordered that the case be remanded to the Kansas State Court and the judgment in

On March 7, 2016, the United States Supreme Court ruled that there was no federal diversity jurisdiction. Following the decision, the United States District Court for the District of Kansas entered an Order vacating the summary judgment and remanding the case to Kansas state court. Regardless of the venue, the Company remains confident that its defenses on the merits of plaintiffs’ claims are strong under Kansas law.

Following remand to Kansas state court, Plaintiffs initially petitioned the court to amend their complaint to drop their claim for damages and only seek an Order of Specific Performance requiring Americold to sign a new document reinstating the consent judgment assigned in the 1994 Settlement Agreement. Plaintiffs filed a later motion to add back the damages claim, which was granted in February 2018.

Since December 31, 2018, the court granted the Company’s motions to dismiss Kraft and Safeway from the case given they did not appeal the District Court’s Order dismissing their claims and are bound by the judgment entered against them. The Kraft and Safeway plaintiffs have appealed their dismissals. The trial court has stayed the proceedings pending the appeal. In addition, the Company has sued the Chubb Group seeking the court’s declaration that Chubb owes coverage of the amounts sought by Plaintiffs and for bad faith damages for denying coverage. Given the status of the proceedings to date, a liability amount cannot be reasonably estimated. The Company believes the ultimate outcome of this matter will not have a material adverse impact on its condensed consolidated financial statements.

On February 11, 2019, Preferred Freezer Services, LLC (“PFS”) moved by Order to Show Cause in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, asserting breach of contract and other claims against the Company and seeking to preliminarily enjoin the Company from acting to acquire certain properties leased by PFS. In its complaint and request for preliminary injunctive relief, PFS alleged that the Company breached a confidentiality agreement entered into in connection with the Company’s participation in a bidding process for the sale of PFS by contacting PFS’s landlords and by using confidential PFS information in bidding for the properties leased by PFS (the “PFS Action”).

On April 2, 2019, while its application to the First Department was pending, PFS voluntarily dismissed its state court action, and First Department application, and re-filed substantially the same claims against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In addition to an order enjoining Americold from making offers to purchase the properties leased by PFS, PFS sought compensatory, consequential and/or punitive damages. The Company filed a motion to require PFS to reimburse the Company for its legal fees it incurred for the state court action before PFS is allowed to proceed in the federal court action. On February 18, 2020, the Court granted Americold’s request for an award of legal fees from PFS but declined to stay the case pending payment of that award. As to the amount of the award, the Company and PFS have entered into a stipulation that PFS will pay Americold $550,000 to reimburse the Company for its legal fees upon the conclusion of the case. PFS has since amended its complaint, and Americold has filed a motion to dismiss that amended complaint.

On June 25, 2020, Fenway Polar Representative (“Fenway”), an entity alleging to represent the interests of the former shareholders of PFS, filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County alleging based on similar factual allegations made in the PFS Action it is seeking damages in excess of $400 million due to the Company’s alleged fraudulent and tortious interference in the sale of PFS (the “Fenway Action”).

The Company denies the allegations of the PFS Action and the Fenway Action and believes the plaintiffs’ claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations. Given the status of the proceedings to date, a liability cannot be reasonably estimated. The Company believes the ultimate outcome of this matter will not have a material adverse impact on its condensed consolidated financial statements.

On February 22, 2019, a former employee filed a putative class action against the Company in the San Bernardino County Superior Court asserting that the Company: (1) failed to pay minimum wages; (2) failed to pay overtime wages; (3) failed to pay all vacation wages; (4) failed to provide meal periods; (5) failed to provide accurate wage statements; (6) failed to pay wages timely to terminated employees; and (7) violated California unfair business practices. On April 10, 2019, the Company filed an Answer and Affirmative Defenses in response to the complaint and successfully removed the case to federal court in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On May 2, 2019, plaintiff filed a separate lawsuit for civil penalties under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) in the San Bernardino Superior Court against the Company, Case No. CIV-DS-1913525 based on similar factual allegations that are asserted in the complaint. The Company successfully obtained a dismissal of the San Bernardino Superior Court Action. On June 18, 2019, the plaintiff amended his complaint in the pending federal court action to add a rest period violation claim and PAGA penalty claims based on similar allegations that are asserted in the complaint. Plaintiff’s counsel later dismissed plaintiff’s vacation wages claim from his first amended complaint.

The Company is subject to a wide range of environmental laws and regulations in each of the locations in which the Company operates. Compliance with these requirements can involve significant capital and operating costs. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in civil or criminal fines or sanctions, claims for environmental damages, remediation obligations, the revocation of environmental permits, or restrictions on the Company’s operations.

The Company records accruals for environmental matters when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated based on current law and existing technologies. The Company adjusts these accruals periodically as assessment and remediation efforts progress or as additional technical or legal information become available. The Company recorded nominal environmental liabilities in accounts payable and accrued expenses as of September 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019. The Company believes it is in compliance with applicable environmental regulations in all material respects. Under various U.S. federal, state, and local environmental laws, a current or previous owner or operator of real estate may be liable for the entire cost of investigating, removing, and/or remediating hazardous or toxic substances on such property. Such laws often impose liability whether or not the owner or operator knew of, or was responsible for, the contamination. Even if more than one person may have been responsible for the contamination, each person

covered by the environmental laws may be held responsible for the entire clean-up cost. There are no material unrecorded liabilities as of September 30, 2020. Most of the Company’s warehouses utilize ammonia as a refrigerant. Ammonia is classified as a hazardous chemical regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency, and an accident or significant release of ammonia from a warehouse could result in injuries, loss of life, and property damage.

The Company’s warehouses located in the U.S. are subject to regulation under OSHA, which requires employers to provide employees with an environment free from hazards, such as exposure to toxic chemicals, excessive noise levels, mechanical dangers, heat or cold stress, and unsanitary conditions. The cost of complying with OSHA and similar laws enacted by states and other jurisdictions in which we operate can be substantial, and any failure to comply with these regulations could expose us to substantial penalties and potentially to liabilities to employees who may be injured at our warehouses. The Company records accruals for OSHA matters when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated. The Company believes that it is in substantial compliance with all OSHA regulations and that no material unrecorded liabilities exist as of September 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019.