2.4.0.81070 - Disclosure - CONTINGENCIEStruefalsefalse1false falsefalseD2013Q2YTDhttp://www.sec.gov/CIK0000892986duration2013-01-01T00:00:002013-06-30T00:00:001true 1us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstractus-gaap_truenadurationfalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalse1falsefalsefalse00falsefalsefalsexbrli:stringItemTypestringfalse0CONTINGENCIES2false 2us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlockus-gaap_truenadurationfalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalseterseLabel1falsefalsefalse00<div style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times New Roman;"> NOTE G—CONTINGENCIES   In 2005, Warren recorded a provision for $1.8 million relating to a contingent liability that the Company may face as a result of a lawsuit originally filed in 1998 by Gotham Insurance Company in the 81st Judicial District Court of Frio County, Texas (Gotham Insurance Company v. Pedeco, Inc., et al.,) seeking a refund of approximately $1.8 million paid by Gotham and other insurers under an insurance policy issued for a well blow-out that occurred in 1997. After several appeals to the Texas Court of Appeals and the Texas Supreme Court, the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Both parties filed Motions for Summary Judgment in mid-2009, and on November 19, 2009, the trial court heard oral arguments on both Motions for Summary Judgment. On January 22, 2010, the court granted Gotham’s Motion for Summary Judgment for restitution in the amount of $1,823,156 and also awarded prejudgment interest at the rate of 5% per annum in the amount of $976,011. As a result of the January 2010 Summary Judgment, Warren recorded an additional provision of $1.3 million in the fourth quarter of 2009 relating to this contingent liability. On July 7, 2010, Warren E&P posted a supersedeas bond with the court and commenced to appeal the order of the trial court to the Texas Court of Appeals. The San Antonio Court of Appeals assigned and transferred this appeal to the El Paso Court of Appeals. On March 14, 2011, Warren filed its appellate brief with the El Paso Court of Appeals. The El Paso Court of Appeals held oral arguments of the case on January 12, 2012. On April 18, 2012 the Texas Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court and rendered its appellate decision in favor of Warren ruling that Gotham Insurance take nothing against Warren. Additionally, the Texas Court of Appeals ordered that Warren can recover all costs of the appeal from Gotham Insurance. In response to the April 18, 2012 ruling, on June 4, 2012, Gotham filed a petition with the Texas Supreme Court seeking a review of the ruling. On September 26, 2012, Warren filed a reply brief in opposition to Gotham’s petition. The Court asked for further briefing and on December 18, 2012 Gotham filed a brief on the merits of their appeal. On February 6, 2013, Warren filed its brief in response to Gotham’s brief. On April 19, 2013, the Supreme Court granted Gotham’s petition for a review of the Court of Appeals ruling. The Court has set oral arguments on the merits of the appeal for October 8, 2013. We do not anticipate a decision or order from the Texas Supreme Court until mid-2014. In the event the Texas Supreme Court reverses the Texas Court of Appeals ruling and finds in Gotham’s favor, Warren would be responsible for the final judgment in the amount of $2,967,070.10, plus post-judgment interest, and potentially court costs and attorney’s fees.   The Company is a party to various other matters of litigation arising in the normal course of business. Management believes that the ultimate outcome of the matters will not have a material effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations. </div>falsefalsefalsenonnum:textBlockItemTypenaThe entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name FASB Interpretation (FIN) -Number 14 -Paragraph 3 -LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy. Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6952336&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 6: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 Reference 7: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) -Number 5 -Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12 -LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy. false0CONTINGENCIESfalseCONTINGENCIESUnKnownUnKnownUnKnownUnKnowntruefalsefalseSheethttp://www.warrenresources.com/role/DisclosureContingencies12