Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2014
Contingencies
Contingencies	16. Contingencies Ball is subject to numerous lawsuits, claims or proceedings arising out of the ordinary course of business, including actions related to product liability; personal injury; the use and performance of company products; warranty matters; patent, trademark or other intellectual property infringement; contractual liability; the conduct of the company’s business; tax reporting in domestic and foreign jurisdictions; workplace safety; and environmental and other matters. The company has also been identified as a potentially responsible party (PRP) at several waste disposal sites under U.S. federal and related state environmental statutes and regulations and may have joint and several liability for any investigation and remediation costs incurred with respect to such sites. Some of these lawsuits, claims and proceedings involve substantial amounts, including as described below, and some of the environmental proceedings involve potential monetary costs or sanctions that may be material. Ball has denied liability with respect to many of these lawsuits, claims and proceedings and is vigorously defending such lawsuits, claims and proceedings. The company carries various forms of commercial, property and casualty, and other forms of insurance; however, such insurance may not be applicable or adequate to cover the costs associated with a judgment against Ball with respect to these lawsuits, claims and proceedings. The company does not believe that these lawsuits, claims and proceedings are material individually or in the aggregate. While management believes the company has established adequate accruals for expected future liability with respect to pending lawsuits, claims and proceedings, where the nature and extent of any such liability can be reasonably estimated based upon then presently available information, there can be no assurance that the final resolution of any existing or future lawsuits, claims or proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on the liquidity, results of operations or financial condition of the company. As previously reported, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) considers the company a PRP with respect to the Lowry Landfill site located east of Denver, Colorado. In 1992, the company was served with a lawsuit filed by the City and County of Denver (Denver) and Waste Management of Colorado, Inc., seeking contributions from the company and approximately 38 other companies. The company filed its answer denying the allegations of the complaint. Subsequently in 1992, the company was served with a third-party complaint filed by S.W. Shattuck Chemical Company, Inc., seeking contribution from the company and other companies for the costs associated with cleaning up the Lowry Landfill. The company denied the allegations of the complaint. Also in 1992, Ball entered into a settlement and indemnification agreement with Chemical Waste Management, Inc., and Waste Management of Colorado, Inc. (collectively Waste Management) and Denver pursuant to which Waste Management and Denver dismissed their lawsuit against the company, and Waste Management agreed to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the company from claims and lawsuits brought by governmental agencies and other parties relating to actions seeking contributions or remedial costs from the company for the cleanup of the site. Waste Management, Inc., has agreed to guarantee the obligations of Waste Management. Waste Management and Denver may seek additional payments from the company if the response costs related to the site exceed $319 million. In 2003 Waste Management, Inc., indicated that the cost of the site might exceed $319 million in 2030, approximately three years before the projected completion of the project. The company might also be responsible for payments (based on 1992 dollars) for any additional wastes that may have been disposed of by the company at the site but which are identified after the execution of the settlement agreement. While remediating the site, contaminants were encountered, which could add an additional cleanup cost of approximately $10 million. This additional cleanup cost could, in turn, add approximately $1 million to total site costs for the PRP group. At this time, there are no Lowry Landfill actions in which the company is actively involved. Based on the information available to the company at this time, we do not believe that this matter will have a material adverse effect upon the liquidity, results of operations or financial condition of the company. In November 2012, the USEPA wrote to the company asserting that it is one of at least 50 PRPs with respect to the Lower Duwamish site located in Seattle, Washington, based on the company’s ownership of a glass container plant prior to 1995, and notifying the company of a proposed remediation action plan. An allocator has been selected to begin data review on over 30 industrial companies and government entities and at least two PRP groups have begun to discuss various allocation proposals, with this process expected to last approximately three years. Based on the information available to the company at this time, we do not believe that this matter will have a material adverse effect upon the liquidity, results of operations or financial condition of the company. In February 2012, Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp. (BMBCC) filed an action against Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. (Crown) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio seeking a declaratory judgment that the sale and use of certain ends by BMBCC and its customers do not infringe certain claims of Crown’s U.S. patents. Crown subsequently filed a counterclaim alleging infringement of certain claims in these patents seeking unspecified monetary damages, fees and declaratory and injunctive relief. The parties are awaiting a claim construction order from the District Court. Based on the information available to the company at the present time, the company does not believe that this matter will have a material adverse effect upon the liquidity, results of operations or financial condition of the company. The company’s Brazilian joint venture operations are involved in various governmental assessments, principally related to claims for taxes on the internal transfer of inventory, gross revenue taxes and tax incentives. The company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these matters will materially impact Ball Corporation’s results of operations, financial position or cash flows. Under customary local regulations, the joint venture may need to post cash or other collateral if the process to challenge any administrative assessment proceeds to the Brazilian court system; however, the level of any potential cash or collateral required would not significantly impact the liquidity of the joint venture or Ball Corporation.

16. Contingencies

Ball is subject to numerous lawsuits, claims or proceedings arising out of the ordinary course of business, including actions related to product liability; personal injury; the use and performance of company products; warranty matters; patent, trademark or other intellectual property infringement; contractual liability; the conduct of the company’s business; tax reporting in domestic and foreign jurisdictions; workplace safety; and environmental and other matters. The company has also been identified as a potentially responsible party (PRP) at several waste disposal sites under U.S. federal and related state environmental statutes and regulations and may have joint and several liability for any investigation and remediation costs incurred with respect to such sites. Some of these lawsuits, claims and proceedings involve substantial amounts, including as described below, and some of the environmental proceedings involve potential monetary costs or sanctions that may be material. Ball has denied liability with respect to many of these lawsuits, claims and proceedings and is vigorously defending such lawsuits, claims and proceedings. The company carries various forms of commercial, property and casualty, and other forms of insurance; however, such insurance may not be applicable or adequate to cover the costs associated with a judgment against Ball with respect to these lawsuits, claims and proceedings. The company does not believe that these lawsuits, claims and proceedings are material individually or in the aggregate. While management believes the company has established adequate accruals for expected future liability with respect to pending lawsuits, claims and proceedings, where the nature and extent of any such liability can be reasonably estimated based upon then presently available information, there can be no assurance that the final resolution of any existing or future lawsuits, claims or proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on the liquidity, results of operations or financial condition of the company.

As previously reported, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) considers the company a PRP with respect to the Lowry Landfill site located east of Denver, Colorado. In 1992, the company was served with a lawsuit filed by the City and County of Denver (Denver) and Waste Management of Colorado, Inc., seeking contributions from the company and approximately 38 other companies. The company filed its answer denying the allegations of the complaint. Subsequently in 1992, the company was served with a third-party complaint filed by S.W. Shattuck Chemical Company, Inc., seeking contribution from the company and other companies for the costs associated with cleaning up the Lowry Landfill. The company denied the allegations of the complaint.

Also in 1992, Ball entered into a settlement and indemnification agreement with Chemical Waste Management, Inc., and Waste Management of Colorado, Inc. (collectively Waste Management) and Denver pursuant to which Waste Management and Denver dismissed their lawsuit against the company, and Waste Management agreed to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the company from claims and lawsuits brought by governmental agencies and other parties relating to actions seeking contributions or remedial costs from the company for the cleanup of the site. Waste Management, Inc., has agreed to guarantee the obligations of Waste Management. Waste Management and Denver may seek additional payments from the company if the response costs related to the site exceed $319 million. In 2003 Waste Management, Inc., indicated that the cost of the site might exceed $319 million in 2030, approximately three years before the projected completion of the project. The company might also be responsible for payments (based on 1992 dollars) for any additional wastes that may have been disposed of by the company at the site but which are identified after the execution of the settlement agreement. While remediating the site, contaminants were encountered, which could add an additional cleanup cost of approximately $10 million. This additional cleanup cost could, in turn, add approximately $1 million to total site costs for the PRP group. At this time, there are no Lowry Landfill actions in which the company is actively involved. Based on the information available to the company at this time, we do not believe that this matter will have a material adverse effect upon the liquidity, results of operations or financial condition of the company.

In November 2012, the USEPA wrote to the company asserting that it is one of at least 50 PRPs with respect to the Lower Duwamish site located in Seattle, Washington, based on the company’s ownership of a glass container plant prior to 1995, and notifying the company of a proposed remediation action plan. An allocator has been selected to begin data review on over 30 industrial companies and government entities and at least two PRP groups have begun to discuss various allocation proposals, with this process expected to last approximately three years. Based on the information available to the company at this time, we do not believe that this matter will have a material adverse effect upon the liquidity, results of operations or financial condition of the company.

In February 2012, Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp. (BMBCC) filed an action against Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. (Crown) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio seeking a declaratory judgment that the sale and use of certain ends by BMBCC and its customers do not infringe certain claims of Crown’s U.S. patents. Crown subsequently filed a counterclaim alleging infringement of certain claims in these patents seeking unspecified monetary damages, fees and declaratory and injunctive relief. The parties are awaiting a claim construction order from the District Court. Based on the information available to the company at the present time, the company does not believe that this matter will have a material adverse effect upon the liquidity, results of operations or financial condition of the company.

The company’s Brazilian joint venture operations are involved in various governmental assessments, principally related to claims for taxes on the internal transfer of inventory, gross revenue taxes and tax incentives. The company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these matters will materially impact Ball Corporation’s results of operations, financial position or cash flows. Under customary local regulations, the joint venture may need to post cash or other collateral if the process to challenge any administrative assessment proceeds to the Brazilian court system; however, the level of any potential cash or collateral required would not significantly impact the liquidity of the joint venture or Ball Corporation.