LEGAL CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
LEGAL CONTINGENCIES	LEGAL CONTINGENCIES Eaton is subject to a broad range of claims, administrative and legal proceedings such as lawsuits that relate to contractual allegations, tax audits, patent infringement, personal injuries, antitrust matters, and employment-related matters. Eaton is also subject to asbestos claims from historic products which may have contained asbestos. Insurance may cover some of the costs associated with these claims and proceedings. Although it is not possible to predict with certainty the outcome or cost of these matters, the Company believes they will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial statements. In December 2011, Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan Bottling Company, Inc. (“Pepsi”) filed an action against (a) Cooper Industries, LLC, Cooper Industries, Ltd., Cooper Holdings, Ltd., Cooper US, Inc., and Cooper Industries plc (collectively, “Cooper”), (b) M&F Worldwide Corp., Mafco Worldwide Corp., Mafco Consolidated Group LLC, and PCT International Holdings, Inc. (collectively, “Mafco”), and (c) the Pneumo Abex Asbestos Claims Settlement Trust (the “Trust”) in Texas state court. Pepsi alleged that it was harmed by a 2011 settlement agreement (“2011 Settlement”) among Cooper, Mafco, and Pneumo Abex, LLC (“Pneumo,” which prior to the 2011 Settlement was a Mafco subsidiary), which settlement resolved litigation that Pneumo had previously brought against Cooper involving, among other things, a guaranty related to Pneumo’s friction products business. In November 2015, after a Texas court ruled that Pepsi's claims should be heard in arbitration, Pepsi filed a demand for arbitration against Cooper, Mafco, the Trust, and Pneumo. Pepsi subsequently dropped claims against all parties except Cooper. An arbitration under the auspices of the American Arbitration Association commenced in October 2017. Pepsi’s experts have opined, among other things, that the value contributed to the Trust for a release of the guaranty was below reasonably equivalent value, and that an inability of Pneumo to satisfy future liabilities may result in plaintiffs suing Pepsi under various theories. Cooper submitted various expert reports and, among other things, Cooper’s experts have opined that Pepsi has no basis to seek any damages and that Cooper paid reasonably equivalent value for the release of its indemnity obligations under the guaranty. The arbitration proceedings closed in December 2017. On July 11, 2018, the arbitration panel made certain findings and concluded that the value contributed to the Trust did not constitute reasonably equivalent value, but ordered the parties to recalculate the amount that should have been contributed to the Trust as of the date of the 2011 transaction. Based on the findings made by the panel and the recalculation ordered by the panel, Cooper believes that no additional amount should be contributed. Pepsi argued that an additional $347 should be contributed. Cooper and its expert disagree with Pepsi’s argument and believe that Pepsi’s recalculation is flawed and fails to comply with the instructions of the panel. Based on its calculation, the Company continues to believe that the ultimate resolution of this matter will not have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

LEGAL CONTINGENCIES

Eaton is subject to a broad range of claims, administrative and legal proceedings such as lawsuits that relate to contractual allegations, tax audits, patent infringement, personal injuries, antitrust matters, and employment-related matters. Eaton is also subject to asbestos claims from historic products which may have contained asbestos. Insurance may cover some of the costs associated with these claims and proceedings. Although it is not possible to predict with certainty the outcome or cost of these matters, the Company believes they will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial statements.

In December 2011, Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan Bottling Company, Inc. (“Pepsi”) filed an action against (a) Cooper Industries, LLC, Cooper Industries, Ltd., Cooper Holdings, Ltd., Cooper US, Inc., and Cooper Industries plc (collectively, “Cooper”), (b) M&F Worldwide Corp., Mafco Worldwide Corp., Mafco Consolidated Group LLC, and PCT International Holdings, Inc. (collectively, “Mafco”), and (c) the Pneumo Abex Asbestos Claims Settlement Trust (the “Trust”) in Texas state court. Pepsi alleged that it was harmed by a 2011 settlement agreement (“2011 Settlement”) among Cooper, Mafco, and Pneumo Abex, LLC (“Pneumo,” which prior to the 2011 Settlement was a Mafco subsidiary), which settlement resolved litigation that Pneumo had previously brought against Cooper involving, among other things, a guaranty related to Pneumo’s friction products business. In November 2015, after a Texas court ruled that Pepsi's claims should be heard in arbitration, Pepsi filed a demand for arbitration against Cooper, Mafco, the Trust, and Pneumo. Pepsi subsequently dropped claims against all parties except Cooper. An arbitration under the auspices of the American Arbitration Association commenced in October 2017. Pepsi’s experts have opined, among other things, that the value contributed to the Trust for a release of the guaranty was below reasonably equivalent value, and that an inability of Pneumo to satisfy future liabilities may result in plaintiffs suing Pepsi under various theories. Cooper submitted various expert reports and, among other things, Cooper’s experts have opined that Pepsi has no basis to seek any damages and that Cooper paid reasonably equivalent value for the release of its indemnity obligations under the guaranty. The arbitration proceedings closed in December 2017. On July 11, 2018, the arbitration panel made certain findings and concluded that the value contributed to the Trust did not constitute reasonably equivalent value, but ordered the parties to recalculate the amount that should have been contributed to the Trust as of the date of the 2011 transaction. Based on the findings made by the panel and the recalculation ordered by the panel, Cooper believes that no additional amount should be contributed. Pepsi argued that an additional $347 should be contributed. Cooper and its expert disagree with Pepsi’s argument and believe that Pepsi’s recalculation is flawed and fails to comply with the instructions of the panel. Based on its calculation, the Company continues to believe that the ultimate resolution of this matter will not have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.