Note 4 - Commitments, Contingencies and Obligations	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	Note 4. Commitments, Contingencies and Obligations General We follow the FASB Accounting Standards Codification guidance in determining our accruals and disclosures with respect to loss contingencies, and evaluate such accruals and contingencies for each reporting period. Accordingly, estimated losses from loss contingencies are accrued by a charge to income when information available prior to issuance of the financial statements indicates that it is probable that a liability could be incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Legal expenses associated with the contingency are expensed as incurred. If a loss contingency is not probable or reasonably estimable, disclosure of the loss contingency is made in the financial statements when it is at least reasonably possible that a material loss could be incurred. Rio Grande Silver Guaranty Our wholly-owned subsidiary, Rio Grande Silver Inc. (“Rio”), is party to a joint venture with Emerald Mining & Leasing, LLC (“EML”) and certain other parties with respect to a land package in the Creede Mining District of Colorado that is adjacent to other land held by Rio. Rio holds a 70% interest in the joint venture. In connection with the joint venture, we are required to guarantee certain environmental remediation-related obligations of EML to a third party up to a maximum liability to us of $2.5 million. As of June 30, 2015, we have not been required to make any payments pursuant to the guaranty. We may be required to make payments in the future, limited to the $2.5 million maximum liability, should EML fail to meet its obligations to the third party. However, to the extent that any payments are made by us under the guaranty, EML, in addition to other parties, have jointly and severally agreed to reimburse and indemnify us for any such payments. We have not recorded a liability relating to the guaranty as of June 30, 2015. Lucky Friday Water Permit Matters Over the last several years, the Lucky Friday unit has experienced several regulatory issues relating to its water discharge permits and water management more generally. In December 2013, the EPA issued to Hecla Limited a notice of violation (“2013 NOV”) alleging certain storm water reporting violations under Lucky Friday’s Clean Water Act Multi-Sector General Stormwater Permit for Industrial Activities. The 2013 NOV also contained a request for information under Section 308 of the Clean Water Act directing Hecla Limited to undertake a comprehensive groundwater investigation of Lucky Friday’s tailings pond no. 3 to evaluate whether the pond is causing the discharge of pollutants via seepage to groundwater that is discharging to surface water. On June 24, 2015, Hecla Limited settled with the United States all past alleged permit exceedances and unpermitted discharges at the Lucky Friday unit, including those alleged in the 2013 NOV, by agreeing to pay a civil penalty of $600,000. We have not completed the investigation called for by the request for information contained in the 2013 NOV, and thus we do not know what the impact of the investigation will be. Hecla Limited strives to maintain its water discharges at the Lucky Friday unit in full compliance with its permits and applicable laws; however, we cannot provide assurance that in the future it will be able to fully comply with the permit limits and other regulatory requirements regarding water management. Johnny M Mine Area near San Mateo, McKinley County, New Mexico In May 2011, the EPA made a formal request to Hecla Mining Company for information regarding the Johnny M Mine Area near San Mateo, McKinley County, New Mexico, and asserted that Hecla Mining Company may be responsible under CERCLA for environmental remediation and past costs the EPA has incurred at the site. Mining at the Johnny M was conducted for a limited period of time by a predecessor of our subsidiary, Hecla Limited. In August 2012, Hecla Limited and the EPA entered into a Settlement Agreement and Administrative Order on Consent for Removal Action (“Consent Order”), pursuant to which Hecla Limited agreed to pay (i) $1.1 million to the EPA for its past response costs at the site and (ii) any future response costs at the site under the Consent Order, in exchange for a covenant not to sue by the EPA. Hecla Limited paid the approximately $1.1 million to the EPA for its past response costs and in December 2014, submitted to EPA the Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis (“EE/CA”) for the site. The EE/CA evaluates three alternative response actions: 1) no action, 2) off-site disposal, and 3) on-site disposal. The range in estimated costs of these alternatives is $0 to $221 million. In the EE/CA, Hecla Limited recommended that EPA approve on-site disposal, which is currently estimated to cost $5.6 million, on the basis that it is the most appropriate response action under CERCLA. In June 2015, the EPA approved the EE/CA, with a few minor conditions. The EPA still needs to publish the EE/CA for public notice and comment, and the agency will not make a final decision on the appropriate response action until the public comment process is complete. EPA anticipates that Hecla Limited will implement the selected response action pursuant to an amendment to the Consent Order or a new order to be negotiated with HeclaLimited. Based on the foregoing, we believe it is probable that Hecla Limited will incur a liability for remediation at the site, and our best estimate of that liability as of the date of this report is $5.6 million. There can be no assurance that Hecla Limited’s liability will not be more than $5.6 million, or that its ultimate liability will not have a material adverse effect on Hecla Limited’s or our results from operations or financial position. Carpenter Snow Creek Site, Cascade County, Montana In July 2010, the EPA made a formal request to Hecla Mining Company for information regarding the Carpenter Snow Creek Superfund Site located in Cascade County, Montana. The Carpenter Snow Creek Site is located in a historic mining district, and in the early 1980s Hecla Limited leased 6 mining claims and performed limited exploration activities at the site. Hecla Limited terminated the mining lease in 1988. In June 2011, the EPA informed Hecla Limited that it believes Hecla Limited, among several other viable companies, may be liable for cleanup of the site or for costs incurred by the EPA in cleaning up the site. The EPA stated in the June 2011 letter that it has incurred approximately $4.5 million in response costs and estimated that total remediation costs may exceed $100 million. Hecla Limited cannot with reasonable certainty estimate the amount or range of liability, if any, relating to this matter because of, among other reasons, the lack of information concerning the site. South Dakota and Colorado Superfund Sites Related to CoCa Mines, Inc. In 1991, Hecla Limited acquired all of the outstanding common stock of CoCa Mines, Inc. (“CoCa”). CoCa is alleged to have prior property interests at the Gilt Edge Mine Superfund site in Lawrence County, South Dakota, and to have been engaged in exploration and mining activities at or near the Nelson Tunnel/Commodore Waste Rock Pile Superfund site in Creede, Colorado. The United States has alleged that CoCa, along with other parties, is a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) at each of the sites. The United States bases its claims of liability on allegations of CoCa’s historical relationship to each site, and that CoCa has succeeded to the liabilities of one or more predecessor entities that may have held certain property interests at the sites or undertaken certain activities. The United States alleges that estimated total costs associated with the Gilt Edge site may exceed $225 million, including both past and future response costs. For the Nelson Tunnel/Commodore site, the EPA is seeking a total of approximately $5 million for past response costs, plus an undetermined amount of interest from CoCa, Hecla Limited, and other PRPs. The EPA stated that it is continuing its remedial investigation/feasibility study at the Nelson Tunnel/Commodore site, and once that is complete, it will begin remedial design and remedial action for the site. Presumably, the EPA also could seek reimbursement of at least some of those costs from viable PRPs. We believe that it is reasonably possible that CoCa faces some liability under CERCLA based on its historical relationship to the Gilt Edge and Nelson Tunnel/Commodore sites. In the event CoCa incurs a liability at either site, it has limited assets with which to satisfy any claim. Because of this, we believe that it is possible that the United States will seek to recover some of the alleged costs associated with the sites from Hecla Limited, as the sole stockholder of CoCa. However, we believe Hecla Limited has strong defenses and would vigorously defend against any such claim. Settlement negotiations with the United States have been ongoing since 2010 with respect to the Gilt Edge site and since 2014 with respect to the Nelson Tunnel/Commodore site. Although we have not reached a final settlement with the United States, based on the current status of negotiations we believe it is probable that CoCa will incur a settlement liability for response costs at the sites. Our best estimate of that net liability as of the date of this report, after payments from insurance proceeds and from another party to the Gilt Edge settlement, is $9.9 million. We have accrued that net amount by recording a liability for the total estimated amount that would be paid by CoCa and an asset for the estimated amount that would be recovered by CoCa from insurers and the other party to the settlement. There can be no assurance that we will be able to resolve these matters through settlement. Similarly, despite efforts to reasonably estimate potential liability at the Gilt Edge and Nelson Tunnel/Commodore sites, there can be no assurance that we have accurately estimated such liability, or that the accrual actually represents the total amount for which CoCa or Hecla Limited could be found liable in the event these matters are not settled but instead litigated. Accordingly, in the event these matters are not settled, our accrual could change, perhaps rapidly and materially. Senior Notes On April 12, 2013, we completed an offering of $500 million aggregate principal amount of 6.875% Senior Notes ("Notes") due 2021. The net proceeds from the offering of the Notes were used to partially fund the acquisition of Aurizon Mines Ltd. ("Aurizon") and for general corporate purposes, including expenses related to the Aurizon acquisition. In 2014, we completed additional issuances of our Notes in the aggregate principal amount of $6.5 million, which were contributed to our pension plan to satisfy the funding requirement for 2014. Interest on the Notes is payable on May 1 and November 1 of each year, commencing November 1, 2013. See Note 9 for more information. Other Commitments Our contractual obligations as of June 30, 2015 included approximately $28.4 million for various costs. In addition, our open purchase orders at June 30, 2015 included approximately $6.9 million, $2.4 million, and $0.7 million, respectively, for various capital items at the Greens Creek, Lucky Friday, and Casa Berardi units, and approximately $6.6 million, $1.5 million and $1.7 million, for various non-capital costs at the Greens Creek, Lucky Friday and Casa Berardi units. We also have total commitments of approximately $22.7 million relating to scheduled payments on capital leases, including interest, primarily for equipment at our Greens Creek, Lucky Friday and Casa Berardi units (see Note 9 for more information). As part of our ongoing business and operations, we are required to provide surety bonds, bank letters of credit, and restricted deposits for various purposes, including financial support for environmental reclamation obligations and workers compensation programs. As of June 30, 2015, we had surety bonds totaling $94.3 million in place as financial support for future reclamation and closure of the Greens Creek and Troy mines, self insurance, and employee benefit plans. In addition, we had letters of credit for approximately $8.0 million outstanding as of June 30, 2015 for environmental reclamation and workers' compensation insurance bonding. We also held a $6.5 million restricted deposit at June 30, 2015 as financial support for reclamation of the Troy mine acquired as part of the Revett acquisition. The obligations associated with these instruments are generally related to performance requirements that we address through ongoing operations. As the requirements are met, the beneficiary of the associated instruments cancels or returns the instrument to the issuing entity. Certain of these instruments are associated with operating sites with long-lived assets and will remain outstanding until closure of the sites. We believe we are in compliance with all applicable bonding and will be able to satisfy future bonding requirements as they arise. Other Contingencies In March 2012, Hecla Limited received notice of a complaint filed against it by the United Steel Workers, Local 5114, with the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission ("FMSHRC") for compensation for bargaining unit workers at the Lucky Friday mine idled as a result of the temporary suspension of production at the mine. The complaint alleged the bargaining unit workers were entitled to compensation under Section 111 of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 the "Mine Act") from November 16, 2011 - the date an order was issued by the Mine Safety Health Administration (“MSHA”) to Hecla Limited - until June 12, 2013 - the date the order was terminated. On February 4, 2015, the judge hearing the case issued an Order finding the applicable period of time for compensation under Section 111 of the Mine Act to be approximately 8 days and the compensation owed to the employees to be approximately $13,000, plus interest. On March 4, 2015, the Union filed an appeal for discretionary review with the FMSHRC. On March 12, 2015, the FMSHRC issued a notice granting discretionary review. We believe the claim is without merit, and that all wages due under Section 111, which was an immaterial amount, have already been paid. Therefore, we have not recorded a liability relating to the claim as of June 30, 2015. The value of the union's claim is estimated to be in the range of $0 to $10 million. On April 12, 2013, the family of Larry Marek, an employee of Hecla Limited who was fatally injured in an April 2011 accident, filed a lawsuit against us and certain of our officers and employees seeking damages for, among other claims, wrongful death and infliction of emotional distress. No dollar amount of damages is specified in the complaint, which was filed in state court in Idaho (Kootenai County District Court). On April 21, 2015, the judge hearing the case granted Hecla’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. The plaintiffs have filed a motion for reconsideration and also appealed the decision to the Idaho Supreme Court. We cannot reasonably predict the outcome of this matter, however, we believe the case is without merit and are vigorously defending this lawsuit. On December 11, 2013, four employees of Hecla Limited who were injured in a December 2011 rock burst filed a lawsuit against us and certain of our employees seeking damages for, among other claims, intentional and willful injury and infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiffs seek damages in excess of $1,000,000, as claimed in the complaint, which was filed in state court in Idaho (Kootenai County District Court). We cannot reasonably predict the outcome of this matter, however, we believe the case is without merit and intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit. We also have certain other contingencies resulting from litigation, claims, EPA investigations, and other commitments and are subject to a variety of environmental and safety laws and regulations incident to the ordinary course of business. We currently expect that the resolution of such contingencies will not materially affect our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, in the future, there may be changes to these contingencies, and additional contingencies may occur as well, any of which might result in an accrual or a change in the estimated accruals recorded by us, and there can be no assurance that their ultimate disposition will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Note 4 - Commitments, Contingencies and Obligations

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2015

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

Note 4. Commitments, Contingencies and Obligations

General

We follow the FASB Accounting Standards Codification guidance in determining our accruals and disclosures with respect to loss contingencies, and evaluate such accruals and contingencies for each reporting period. Accordingly, estimated losses from loss contingencies are accrued by a charge to income when information available prior to issuance of the financial statements indicates that it is probable that a liability could be incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Legal expenses associated with the contingency are expensed as incurred. If a loss contingency is not probable or reasonably estimable, disclosure of the loss contingency is made in the financial statements when it is at least reasonably possible that a material loss could be incurred.

Rio Grande Silver Guaranty

Our wholly-owned subsidiary, Rio Grande Silver Inc. (“Rio”), is party to a joint venture with Emerald Mining & Leasing, LLC (“EML”) and certain other parties with respect to a land package in the Creede Mining District of Colorado that is adjacent to other land held by Rio. Rio holds a 70% interest in the joint venture. In connection with the joint venture, we are required to guarantee certain environmental remediation-related obligations of EML to a third party up to a maximum liability to us of $2.5 million. As of June 30, 2015, we have not been required to make any payments pursuant to the guaranty. We may be required to make payments in the future, limited to the $2.5 million maximum liability, should EML fail to meet its obligations to the third party. However, to the extent that any payments are made by us under the guaranty, EML, in addition to other parties, have jointly and severally agreed to reimburse and indemnify us for any such payments. We have not recorded a liability relating to the guaranty as of June 30, 2015.

Lucky Friday Water Permit Matters

Over the last several years, the Lucky Friday unit has experienced several regulatory issues relating to its water discharge permits and water management more generally. In December 2013, the EPA issued to Hecla Limited a notice of violation (“2013 NOV”) alleging certain storm water reporting violations under Lucky Friday’s Clean Water Act Multi-Sector General Stormwater Permit for Industrial Activities. The 2013 NOV also contained a request for information under Section 308 of the Clean Water Act directing Hecla Limited to undertake a comprehensive groundwater investigation of Lucky Friday’s tailings pond no. 3 to evaluate whether the pond is causing the discharge of pollutants via seepage to groundwater that is discharging to surface water.

On June 24, 2015, Hecla Limited settled with the United States all past alleged permit exceedances and unpermitted discharges at the Lucky Friday unit, including those alleged in the 2013 NOV, by agreeing to pay a civil penalty of $600,000. We have not completed the investigation called for by the request for information contained in the 2013 NOV, and thus we do not know what the impact of the investigation will be.

Hecla Limited strives to maintain its water discharges at the Lucky Friday unit in full compliance with its permits and applicable laws; however, we cannot provide assurance that in the future it will be able to fully comply with the permit limits and other regulatory requirements regarding water management.

Johnny M Mine Area near San Mateo, McKinley County, New Mexico

In May 2011, the EPA made a formal request to Hecla Mining Company for information regarding the Johnny M Mine Area near San Mateo, McKinley County, New Mexico, and asserted that Hecla Mining Company may be responsible under CERCLA for environmental remediation and past costs the EPA has incurred at the site. Mining at the Johnny M was conducted for a limited period of time by a predecessor of our subsidiary, Hecla Limited. In August 2012, Hecla Limited and the EPA entered into a Settlement Agreement and Administrative Order on Consent for Removal Action (“Consent Order”), pursuant to which Hecla Limited agreed to pay (i) $1.1 million to the EPA for its past response costs at the site and (ii) any future response costs at the site under the Consent Order, in exchange for a covenant not to sue by the EPA. Hecla Limited paid the approximately $1.1 million to the EPA for its past response costs and in December 2014, submitted to EPA the Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis (“EE/CA”) for the site. The EE/CA evaluates three alternative response actions: 1) no action, 2) off-site disposal, and 3) on-site disposal. The range in estimated costs of these alternatives is $0 to $221 million. In the EE/CA, Hecla Limited recommended that EPA approve on-site disposal, which is currently estimated to cost $5.6 million, on the basis that it is the most appropriate response action under CERCLA. In June 2015, the EPA approved the EE/CA, with a few minor conditions. The EPA still needs to publish the EE/CA for public notice and comment, and the agency will not make a final decision on the appropriate response action until the public comment process is complete. EPA anticipates that Hecla Limited will implement the selected response action pursuant to an amendment to the Consent Order or a new order to be negotiated with HeclaLimited. Based on the foregoing, we believe it is probable that Hecla Limited will incur a liability for remediation at the site, and our best estimate of that liability as of the date of this report is $5.6 million. There can be no assurance that Hecla Limited’s liability will not be more than $5.6 million, or that its ultimate liability will not have a material adverse effect on Hecla Limited’s or our results from operations or financial position.

Carpenter Snow Creek Site, Cascade County, Montana

In July 2010, the EPA made a formal request to Hecla Mining Company for information regarding the Carpenter Snow Creek Superfund Site located in Cascade County, Montana. The Carpenter Snow Creek Site is located in a historic mining district, and in the early 1980s Hecla Limited leased 6 mining claims and performed limited exploration activities at the site. Hecla Limited terminated the mining lease in 1988.

In June 2011, the EPA informed Hecla Limited that it believes Hecla Limited, among several other viable companies, may be liable for cleanup of the site or for costs incurred by the EPA in cleaning up the site. The EPA stated in the June 2011 letter that it has incurred approximately $4.5 million in response costs and estimated that total remediation costs may exceed $100 million. Hecla Limited cannot with reasonable certainty estimate the amount or range of liability, if any, relating to this matter because of, among other reasons, the lack of information concerning the site.

South Dakota and Colorado Superfund Sites Related to CoCa Mines, Inc.

In 1991, Hecla Limited acquired all of the outstanding common stock of CoCa Mines, Inc. (“CoCa”). CoCa is alleged to have prior property interests at the Gilt Edge Mine Superfund site in Lawrence County, South Dakota, and to have been engaged in exploration and mining activities at or near the Nelson Tunnel/Commodore Waste Rock Pile Superfund site in Creede, Colorado. The United States has alleged that CoCa, along with other parties, is a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) at each of the sites. The United States bases its claims of liability on allegations of CoCa’s historical relationship to each site, and that CoCa has succeeded to the liabilities of one or more predecessor entities that may have held certain property interests at the sites or undertaken certain activities.

The United States alleges that estimated total costs associated with the Gilt Edge site may exceed $225 million, including both past and future response costs. For the Nelson Tunnel/Commodore site, the EPA is seeking a total of approximately $5 million for past response costs, plus an undetermined amount of interest from CoCa, Hecla Limited, and other PRPs. The EPA stated that it is continuing its remedial investigation/feasibility study at the Nelson Tunnel/Commodore site, and once that is complete, it will begin remedial design and remedial action for the site. Presumably, the EPA also could seek reimbursement of at least some of those costs from viable PRPs.

We believe that it is reasonably possible that CoCa faces some liability under CERCLA based on its historical relationship to the Gilt Edge and Nelson Tunnel/Commodore sites. In the event CoCa incurs a liability at either site, it has limited assets with which to satisfy any claim. Because of this, we believe that it is possible that the United States will seek to recover some of the alleged costs associated with the sites from Hecla Limited, as the sole stockholder of CoCa. However, we believe Hecla Limited has strong defenses and would vigorously defend against any such claim.

Settlement negotiations with the United States have been ongoing since 2010 with respect to the Gilt Edge site and since 2014 with respect to the Nelson Tunnel/Commodore site. Although we have not reached a final settlement with the United States, based on the current status of negotiations we believe it is probable that CoCa will incur a settlement liability for response costs at the sites. Our best estimate of that net liability as of the date of this report, after payments from insurance proceeds and from another party to the Gilt Edge settlement, is $9.9 million. We have accrued that net amount by recording a liability for the total estimated amount that would be paid by CoCa and an asset for the estimated amount that would be recovered by CoCa from insurers and the other party to the settlement.

There can be no assurance that we will be able to resolve these matters through settlement. Similarly, despite efforts to reasonably estimate potential liability at the Gilt Edge and Nelson Tunnel/Commodore sites, there can be no assurance that we have accurately estimated such liability, or that the accrual actually represents the total amount for which CoCa or Hecla Limited could be found liable in the event these matters are not settled but instead litigated. Accordingly, in the event these matters are not settled, our accrual could change, perhaps rapidly and materially.

Senior Notes

On April 12, 2013, we completed an offering of $500 million aggregate principal amount of 6.875% Senior Notes ("Notes") due 2021. The net proceeds from the offering of the Notes were used to partially fund the acquisition of Aurizon Mines Ltd. ("Aurizon") and for general corporate purposes, including expenses related to the Aurizon acquisition. In 2014, we completed additional issuances of our Notes in the aggregate principal amount of $6.5 million, which were contributed to our pension plan to satisfy the funding requirement for 2014. Interest on the Notes is payable on May 1 and November 1 of each year, commencing November 1, 2013. See Note 9 for more information.

Other Commitments

Our contractual obligations as of June 30, 2015 included approximately $28.4 million for various costs. In addition, our open purchase orders at June 30, 2015 included approximately $6.9 million, $2.4 million, and $0.7 million, respectively, for various capital items at the Greens Creek, Lucky Friday, and Casa Berardi units, and approximately $6.6 million, $1.5 million and $1.7 million, for various non-capital costs at the Greens Creek, Lucky Friday and Casa Berardi units. We also have total commitments of approximately $22.7 million relating to scheduled payments on capital leases, including interest, primarily for equipment at our Greens Creek, Lucky Friday and Casa Berardi units (see Note 9 for more information). As part of our ongoing business and operations, we are required to provide surety bonds, bank letters of credit, and restricted deposits for various purposes, including financial support for environmental reclamation obligations and workers compensation programs. As of June 30, 2015, we had surety bonds totaling $94.3 million in place as financial support for future reclamation and closure of the Greens Creek and Troy mines, self insurance, and employee benefit plans. In addition, we had letters of credit for approximately $8.0 million outstanding as of June 30, 2015 for environmental reclamation and workers' compensation insurance bonding. We also held a $6.5 million restricted deposit at June 30, 2015 as financial support for reclamation of the Troy mine acquired as part of the Revett acquisition. The obligations associated with these instruments are generally related to performance requirements that we address through ongoing operations. As the requirements are met, the beneficiary of the associated instruments cancels or returns the instrument to the issuing entity. Certain of these instruments are associated with operating sites with long-lived assets and will remain outstanding until closure of the sites. We believe we are in compliance with all applicable bonding and will be able to satisfy future bonding requirements as they arise.

Other Contingencies

In March 2012, Hecla Limited received notice of a complaint filed against it by the United Steel Workers, Local 5114, with the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission ("FMSHRC") for compensation for bargaining unit workers at the Lucky Friday mine idled as a result of the temporary suspension of production at the mine. The complaint alleged the bargaining unit workers were entitled to compensation under Section 111 of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 the "Mine Act") from November 16, 2011 - the date an order was issued by the Mine Safety Health Administration (“MSHA”) to Hecla Limited - until June 12, 2013 - the date the order was terminated. On February 4, 2015, the judge hearing the case issued an Order finding the applicable period of time for compensation under Section 111 of the Mine Act to be approximately 8 days and the compensation owed to the employees to be approximately $13,000, plus interest. On March 4, 2015, the Union filed an appeal for discretionary review with the FMSHRC. On March 12, 2015, the FMSHRC issued a notice granting discretionary review. We believe the claim is without merit, and that all wages due under Section 111, which was an immaterial amount, have already been paid. Therefore, we have not recorded a liability relating to the claim as of June 30, 2015. The value of the union's claim is estimated to be in the range of $0 to $10 million.

On April 12, 2013, the family of Larry Marek, an employee of Hecla Limited who was fatally injured in an April 2011 accident, filed a lawsuit against us and certain of our officers and employees seeking damages for, among other claims, wrongful death and infliction of emotional distress. No dollar amount of damages is specified in the complaint, which was filed in state court in Idaho (Kootenai County District Court). On April 21, 2015, the judge hearing the case granted Hecla’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. The plaintiffs have filed a motion for reconsideration and also appealed the decision to the Idaho Supreme Court. We cannot reasonably predict the outcome of this matter, however, we believe the case is without merit and are vigorously defending this lawsuit.

On December 11, 2013, four employees of Hecla Limited who were injured in a December 2011 rock burst filed a lawsuit against us and certain of our employees seeking damages for, among other claims, intentional and willful injury and infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiffs seek damages in excess of $1,000,000, as claimed in the complaint, which was filed in state court in Idaho (Kootenai County District Court). We cannot reasonably predict the outcome of this matter, however, we believe the case is without merit and intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit.

We also have certain other contingencies resulting from litigation, claims, EPA investigations, and other commitments and are subject to a variety of environmental and safety laws and regulations incident to the ordinary course of business. We currently expect that the resolution of such contingencies will not materially affect our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, in the future, there may be changes to these contingencies, and additional contingencies may occur as well, any of which might result in an accrual or a change in the estimated accruals recorded by us, and there can be no assurance that their ultimate disposition will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.