| Commitments and Contingencies | 3 Months Ended |
| Mar. 31, 2015 |
| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | |
| Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies |
| Off-Balance Sheet Commitments |
| We execute contracts involving indemnifications standard in the relevant industry and indemnifications specific to certain transactions, such as the sale of a business. These indemnifications might include claims relating to the following: environmental matters; intellectual property rights; governmental regulations and employment-related matters; customer, supplier, and other commercial contractual relationships; and financial matters. Performance under these indemnifications would generally be triggered by a breach of terms of the contract or by a third-party claim. Historically, we have experienced only minimal and infrequent losses associated with these indemnifications. Consequently, any future liabilities brought about by these indemnifications cannot reasonably be estimated or accrued. |
| Indemnifications Provided As Part of Contracts and Agreements |
| We are party to the following types of agreements pursuant to which we may be obligated to indemnify a third party with respect to certain matters. |
| Sponsors: Upon the closing of the acquisition of the Sensors and Controls business of Texas Instruments Incorporated ("TI") on April 27, 2006, we entered into customary indemnification agreements with entities associated with Bain Capital Partners, LLC ("Bain Capital") and co-investors (Bain Capital and co-investors are collectively referred to as the “Sponsors”). Pursuant to these indemnification agreements, we agreed to indemnify the Sponsors, either during or after the term of the agreements, against certain liabilities arising out of performance of a consulting agreement between us and each of the Sponsors, and certain other claims and liabilities, including liabilities arising out of financing arrangements and securities offerings. There is no limit to the maximum future payments, if any, under these indemnifications. |
| Officers and Directors: In connection with our initial public offering ("IPO"), we entered into indemnification agreements with each of our board members and executive officers pursuant to which we agreed to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless, and also advance expenses as incurred, to the fullest extent permitted under applicable law, from damages arising from the fact that such person is or was one of our directors or officers or that of any of our subsidiaries. |
| Our articles of association provide for indemnification of directors and officers by us to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, as it now exists or may hereinafter be amended (but, in the case of an amendment, only to the extent such amendment permits broader indemnification rights than permitted prior thereto), against any and all liabilities including all expenses (including attorneys’ fees), judgments, fines, and amounts paid in settlement actually and reasonably incurred by him or her in connection with such action, suit, or proceeding, provided he or she acted in good faith and in a manner he or she reasonably believed to be in, or not opposed to, our best interests, and, with respect to any criminal action or proceeding, had no reasonable cause to believe his or her conduct was unlawful or outside of his or her mandate. The articles do not provide a limit to the maximum future payments, if any, under the indemnification. No indemnification is provided for in respect of any claim, issue, or matter as to which such person has been adjudged to be liable for gross negligence or willful misconduct in the performance of his or her duty on our behalf. |
| In addition, we have a liability insurance policy that insures directors and officers against the cost of defense, settlement, or payment of claims and judgments under some circumstances. Certain indemnification payments may not be covered under our directors’ and officers’ insurance coverage. |
| Underwriters: Pursuant to the terms of the underwriting agreements entered into in connection with our IPO and secondary public equity offerings, we are obligated to indemnify the underwriters against certain liabilities, including liabilities under the Securities Act of 1933, or to contribute to payments the underwriters may be required to make in respect thereof. The underwriting agreements do not provide a limit to the maximum future payments, if any, under these indemnifications. |
| Initial Purchasers of Senior Notes: Pursuant to the terms of the purchase agreements entered into in connection with our private placement senior note offerings, we are obligated to indemnify the initial purchasers of our senior notes against certain liabilities caused by any untrue statement or alleged untrue statement of a material fact in various documents relied upon by such initial purchasers, or to contribute to payments the initial purchasers may be required to make in respect thereof. The purchase agreements do not provide a limit to the maximum future payments, if any, under these indemnifications. |
| Intellectual Property and Product Liability Indemnification: We routinely sell products with a limited intellectual property and product liability indemnification included in the terms of sale. Historically, we have had only minimal and infrequent losses associated with these indemnifications. Consequently, any future liabilities resulting from these indemnifications cannot reasonably be estimated or accrued. |
| Product Warranty Liabilities |
| Our standard terms of sale provide our customers with a warranty against faulty workmanship and the use of defective materials, which, depending on the product, generally exists for a period of twelve to eighteen months after the date we ship the product to our customer or for a period of twelve months after the date the customer resells our product, whichever comes first. We do not offer separately priced extended warranty or product maintenance contracts. Our liability associated with this warranty is, at our option, to repair the product, replace the product, or provide the customer with a credit. |
| We also sell products to customers under negotiated agreements or where we have accepted the customer’s terms of purchase. In these instances, we may provide additional warranties for longer durations, consistent with differing end-market practices, and where our liability is not limited. In addition, many sales take place in situations where commercial or civil codes, or other laws, would imply various warranties and restrict limitations on liability. |
| In the event a warranty claim based on defective materials exists, we may be able to recover some of the cost of the claim from the vendor from whom the materials were purchased. Our ability to recover some of the costs will depend on the terms and conditions to which we agreed when the materials were purchased. When a warranty claim is made, the only collateral available to us is the return of the inventory from the customer making the warranty claim. Historically, when customers make a warranty claim, we either replace the product or provide the customer with a credit. We generally do not rework the returned product. |
| Our policy is to accrue for warranty claims when a loss is both probable and estimable. This is accomplished by accruing for estimated returns and estimated costs to replace the product at the time the related revenue is recognized. Liabilities for warranty claims have historically not been material. In some instances, customers may make claims for costs they incurred or other damages related to a claim. Any potentially material liabilities associated with these claims are discussed in this Note under the heading Legal Proceedings and Claims. |
| Environmental Remediation Liabilities |
| Our operations and facilities are subject to U.S. and non-U.S. laws and regulations governing the protection of the environment and our employees, including those governing air emissions, water discharges, the management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes, and the cleanup of contaminated sites. We could incur substantial costs, including cleanup costs, fines, civil or criminal sanctions, or third-party property damage or personal injury claims, in the event of violations or liabilities under these laws and regulations, or non-compliance with the environmental permits required at our facilities. Potentially significant expenditures could be required in order to comply with environmental laws that may be adopted or imposed in the future. We are, however, not aware of any threatened or pending material environmental investigations, lawsuits, or claims involving us or our operations. |
| In 2001, TI Brazil was notified by the State of São Paolo, Brazil regarding its potential cleanup liability as a generator of wastes sent to the Aterro Mantovani disposal site, which operated near Campinas from 1972 to 1987. The site is a landfill contaminated with a variety of chemical materials, including petroleum products, allegedly disposed at the site. TI Brazil is one of over 50 companies notified of potential cleanup liability. There have been several lawsuits filed by third parties alleging personal injuries caused by exposure to drinking water contaminated by the disposal site. Our subsidiary, Sensata Technologies Brazil ("ST Brazil"), is the successor in interest to TI Brazil. However, in accordance with the terms of the acquisition agreement entered into in connection with the acquisition of the Sensors and Controls business of TI (the “Acquisition Agreement”), TI retained these liabilities (subject to the limitations set forth in that agreement) and has agreed to indemnify us with regard to these excluded liabilities. Additionally, in 2008, five lawsuits were filed against ST Brazil alleging personal injuries suffered by individuals who were exposed to drinking water allegedly contaminated by the Aterro Mantovani disposal site. These matters are managed and controlled by TI. TI is defending these five lawsuits in the 1st Civil Court of Jaquariuna, São Paolo. Although ST Brazil cooperates with TI in this process, we do not anticipate incurring any non-reimbursable expenses related to the matters described above. Accordingly, no amounts have been accrued for these matters as of March 31, 2015. |
| Control Devices, Inc. (“CDI”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of one of our U.S. operating subsidiaries, Sensata Technologies, Inc., acquired through our acquisition of First Technology Automotive, is party to a post-closure license, along with GTE Operations Support, Inc. (“GTE”), from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection with respect to a closed hazardous waste surface impoundment located on real property owned by CDI in Standish, Maine. The post-closure license obligates GTE to operate a pump and treatment process to reduce the levels of chlorinated solvents in the groundwater under the property. The post-closure license obligates CDI to maintain the property and provide access to GTE. We do not expect the costs to comply with the post-closure license to be material. As a related but separate matter, pursuant to the terms of an environmental agreement dated July 6, 1994, GTE retained liability and agreed to indemnify CDI for certain liabilities related to the soil and groundwater contamination from the surface impoundment and an out-of-service leach field at the Standish, Maine facility, and CDI and GTE have certain obligations related to the property and each other. The site is contaminated primarily with chlorinated solvents. In 2013, CDI subdivided and sold a portion of the property subject to the post-closure license, including a manufacturing building, but retained the portion of the property that contains the closed hazardous waste surface impoundment, for which it and GTE continue to be subject to the obligations of the post closure license. The buyer of the facility is also now subject to certain restrictions of the post-closure license. CDI has agreed to complete an ecological risk assessment on sediments in an unnamed stream crossing the sold and retained land and to indemnify the buyer for certain remediation costs associated with sediments in the unnamed stream. We do not expect the remaining cost associated with addressing the soil and groundwater contamination, or our obligations relating to the indemnification of the buyer of the facility, to be material. |
| Legal Proceedings and Claims |
| We account for litigation and claims losses in accordance with ASC Topic 450, Contingencies (“ASC 450”). Under ASC 450, loss contingency provisions are recorded for probable and estimable losses at our best estimate of a loss or, when a best estimate cannot be made, at our estimate of the minimum loss. These estimates are often developed prior to knowing the amount of the ultimate loss, require the application of considerable judgment, and are refined each accounting period as additional information becomes known. Accordingly, we are often initially unable to develop a best estimate of loss and therefore the minimum amount, which could be an immaterial amount, is recorded. As information becomes known, either the minimum loss amount is increased, or a best estimate can be made, generally resulting in additional loss provisions. A best estimate amount may be changed to a lower amount when events result in an expectation of a more favorable outcome than previously expected. |
| We are regularly involved in a number of claims and litigation matters in the ordinary course of business. Most of our litigation matters are third-party claims for property damage allegedly caused by our products, but some involve allegations of personal injury or wrongful death. We believe that the ultimate resolution of the current litigation matters pending against us, except potentially those matters described below, will not have a material effect on our financial condition or results of operations. |
| Insurance Claims |
| The accounting for insurance claims depends on a variety of factors, including the nature of the claim, the evaluation of coverage, the amount of proceeds (or anticipated proceeds), the ability of an insurer to satisfy the claim, and the timing of the loss and corresponding recovery. In accordance with ASC 450, receipts from insurance up to the amount of loss recognized are considered recoveries. Recoveries are recognized in the financial statements when they are probable of receipt. Insurance proceeds in excess of the amount of loss recognized are considered gains. Gains are recognized in the financial statements in the period in which contingencies related to the claim (or a specific portion of the claim) have been resolved. We classify insurance proceeds in our condensed consolidated statements of operations in a manner consistent with the related losses. |
| Pending Litigation and Claims |
| Ford Speed Control Deactivation Switch Litigation: We are involved in a number of litigation matters relating to a pressure switch that TI sold to Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) for several years until 2002. Ford incorporated the switch into a cruise control deactivation switch system that it installed in certain vehicles. Due to concerns that, in some circumstances, this system and switch may cause fires, Ford and related companies issued numerous separate recalls of vehicles between 1999 and 2009, which covered approximately fourteen million vehicles in the aggregate. |
| As of March 31, 2015, we were a defendant in seven lawsuits in which plaintiffs have alleged property damage and various personal injuries caused by vehicle fires related to the system and switch. For the most part, these cases seek an unspecified amount of compensatory and exemplary damages, however one plaintiff has submitted a demand in the amount of $0.2 million. Ford and TI are co-defendants in each of these lawsuits. In accordance with the terms of the Acquisition Agreement, we are managing and defending these lawsuits on behalf of both parties. |
| Pursuant to the terms of the Acquisition Agreement, and subject to the limitations set forth in that agreement, TI has agreed to indemnify us for certain claims and litigation, including the Ford matter. The Acquisition Agreement provides that when the aggregate amount of costs and/or damages from such claims exceeds $30.0 million, TI will reimburse us for amounts incurred in excess of that threshold up to a cap of $300.0 million. We entered into an agreement with TI, called the Contribution and Cooperation Agreement, dated October 24, 2011, whereby TI acknowledged that amounts we paid through September 30, 2011, plus an additional cash payment, would be deemed to satisfy the $30.0 million threshold. Accordingly, TI will not contest the claims or the amounts claimed through September 30, 2011. Costs that we have incurred since September 30, 2011, or may incur in the future, will be reimbursed by TI up to a cap of $300.0 million less amounts incurred by TI. TI has reimbursed us for expenses incurred through March 31, 2015. We do not believe that aggregate TI and Sensata costs will exceed $300.0 million. |
| SGL Italia: Our subsidiaries, Sensata Technologies B.V. and Sensata Technologies Italia, are defendants in a lawsuit, Luigi Lavazza s.p.a. and SGL Italia s.r.l. v. Sensata Technologies Italia s.r.l., Sensata Technologies, B.V., and Komponent s.r.l., Court of Milan, bench 7, brought in the court in Milan, Italy. The lawsuit alleges defects in one of our electromechanical control products. The plaintiffs had alleged €4.2 million in damages. We filed our most recent answer to the lawsuit in November 2012, denying liability. On February 14, 2014 the court appointed an independent technical expert and this expert submitted its final report to the court. The court reviewed this report at a hearing held in November 2014. On December 4, 2014, the court issued an order finding Sensata responsible for 30% to 40% of damages. The court held a hearing on March 5, 2015 at which it appointed an independent accounting expert to review the cost data and subsequently issue a report. The court-appointed accounting expert has informed us that SGL Italia has submitted documents allegedly supporting costs of €5.0 million. The court-appointed accounting expert is still in the process of reviewing these documents to ultimately issue an opinion on the proper size of the damages. We believe that a loss is probable. As of March 31, 2015, we have recorded an accrual of $0.3 million, which represents the low end of the estimated range of loss. |
| Automotive Customers: In the fourth quarter of 2013, one of our automotive customers alleged defects in certain of our sensor products installed in the customer's vehicles during 2013. In the first quarter of 2014, another customer alleged similar defects. The alleged defects are not safety related. In the third quarter of 2014, we made a contribution to one of the customers in the amount of $0.7 million. We continue to work with these customers towards a final resolution of these matters and consider a loss to be probable. As of March 31, 2015, we have recorded an accrual of $1.1 million, representing our best estimate of the potential loss. |
| U.S. Automaker: A U.S. automaker has alleged non-safety related defects in certain of our sensor products installed in its vehicles from 2009 through 2011. In January 2015, the customer informed us that future repairs will involve up to 150,000 vehicles over an estimated ten year period, and that it would seek reimbursement of these costs (or a portion thereof). On March 26, 2015, we entered into a settlement agreement with the customer in which we agreed to reimburse it for 50% of its future costs, with a maximum contribution by us of $4.0 million. As of March 31, 2015, we have recorded an immaterial accrual related to this matter, which represents the low end of the estimated range of loss. |
| Korean Supplier: In the first quarter of 2014, one of our Korean suppliers, Yukwang Co. Ltd. ("Yukwang"), notified us that it was terminating its existing agreement with us and stopped shipping product to us. We brought legal proceedings against Yukwang in Seoul Central District Court, seeking an injunction to protect Sensata-owned manufacturing equipment physically at Yukwang’s facility. Yukwang countered that we were in breach of contract and alleged damages of approximately $7.6 million. We are litigating these proceedings. The Seoul Central District Court granted our request for an injunction ordering Yukwang not to destroy any of our assets physically located at Yukwang’s facility, but on August 25, 2014 did not grant injunctive relief requiring Yukwang to return equipment and inventory to us. We have filed an appeal of the adverse decision and intend to aggressively pursue our claims and to defend against Yukwang’s counter claims. |
| In the first quarter of 2014, Yukwang filed a complaint against us with the Small and Medium Business Administration (the “SMBA”), a Korean government agency charged with protecting the interests of small and medium sized businesses. The SMBA attempted to mediate the dispute between us and Yukwang, but its efforts failed. We believe that the SMBA has abandoned its efforts to mediate the dispute. |
| On May 27, 2014, Yukwang filed a patent infringement action against us and our equipment supplier with the Suwon district court seeking a preliminary injunction for infringement of Korean patent number 847,738. Yukwang also filed a patent scope action on the same patent with the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal ("KIPT") and sought police investigation into the alleged infringement. Yukwang is seeking unspecified damages as well as an injunction barring us from using parts covered by the patent in the future. On October 8, 2014, the Suwon district court entered an order dismissing the patent infringement action on invalidity grounds. Yukwang filed an appeal of that decision on October 14, 2014, and that appeal will be heard by the Seoul High Court (an intermediate appellate court), a process that could take between six and twelve months. The Seoul High Court held a first hearing on the appeal on March 10, 2015. Additionally, the KIPT proceeding continued with a hearing on February 12, 2015. We continue to vigorously defend ourselves against these actions. |
| In August 2014, the Korean Fair Trade Commission (the “KFTC”) opened investigations into allegations made by Yukwang that our indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary, Sensata Technologies Korea Limited, engaged in unfair trade practices and violated a Korean law relating to subcontractors. We have responded to information requests from the KFTC. If its investigation determines that our subsidiary has violated Korean law, the KFTC can order injunctions, award damages of up to 2% of impacted revenue for unfair trade practices, and award damages of up to two times the value of the relevant subcontract for violations of the subcontractor law. Damages could cover up to the entire period, which is several years, during which Sensata or any of its current subsidiaries had been operating in Korea. In addition, the KFTC has the authority to prosecute criminally. |
| We are responding to these various actions by Yukwang. We do not believe that a loss is probable, and as of March 31, 2015, we have not recorded an accrual for these matters. |
| Brazil Local Tax: Schrader International Brasil Ltda. is involved in litigation with the Tax Department of the State of São Paulo, Brazil (the “São Paulo Tax Department”), which is claiming underpayment of state taxes. The total amount claimed is approximately $25.0 million, which includes penalties and interest. It is our understanding that the courts have denied the São Paulo Tax Department’s claim, a decision which has been appealed. Although we do not believe that a loss is probable in this matter, Schrader International Brasil Ltda. has been requested to pledge certain of its assets as collateral for the disputed amount while the case is heard. Certain of our subsidiaries have been indemnified by Tomkins Limited (a previous owner of Schrader) for any potential loss relating to this issue, and Tomkins Limited is responsible for and is currently managing the defense of this matter. As of March 31, 2015, we have not recorded an accrual for this matter. |
| Bridgestone: On May 2, 2013, Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC (“Bridgestone”) filed a lawsuit, Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC v. Schrader-Bridgestone International, Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-00763, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that Schrader-Bridgeport International, Inc. d/b/a Schrader International, Inc., Schrader Electronics Ltd., and Schrader Electronics, Inc. (collectively, “Schrader Electronics”) infringed on certain of its patents (U.S. Patent Numbers 5,562,787, 6,630,885, and 7,161,476) concerning original equipment and original equipment replacement tire pressure monitoring sensors ("TPMS"). Bridgestone is seeking a permanent injunction preventing Schrader Electronics from making, using, importing, offering to sell, or selling any devices that infringe or contribute to the infringement of any claim of the asserted patents, or from inducing others to infringe any claim of the asserted patents; judgment for money damages, interest, costs, and other damages; and the award of a compulsory ongoing licensing fee. A claim construction hearing was held in December 2014, expert discovery was completed on March 31, 2015, and a trial is scheduled for June 1, 2015. On April 15, 2015, the court denied our request to file motion for summary judgment. We expect the case to go to trial as currently scheduled. Bridgestone has also filed a patent infringement lawsuit in Germany, Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations LLC v. Schrader International Inc., District Court Munich I, alleging that Schrader Electronics’ TPMS products sold in Germany are infringing on one of its German counterparts’ patents (the German part of European Patent Office patent No. 1309460 B1). On July 12, 2014, the German court rendered a judgment in favor of Bridgestone on the issue of infringement. We are filing an appeal of this decision. We have also filed a nullity action in the German patent court seeking a finding of invalidity of the patent. A hearing on that matter is expected in 2015. Bridgestone is asserting damages related to these various matters in excess of $45.0 million. We do not believe that a loss is probable, and as of March 31, 2015, we have not recorded an accrual for these matters. |
| Hassett Class Action Lawsuit: On March 19, 2015, two named plaintiffs filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against Chrysler and Schrader-Bridgeport International, Inc., styled Hassett v. FCA US, LLC et al., case number 2:2015cv11030 (E.D. Michigan). Process was served on our agent on March 25, 2015 and received by us on March 27, 2015. The lawsuit alleges that faulty valve stems were used in Schrader TPMS installed on Chrysler vehicles model years 2007 through 2014. It alleges breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Michigan consumer protection act and the federal Magnuson-Moss warranty act, and is seeking compensatory and punitive damages. Both the size of the class and the damages sought are unspecified. We have received an extension for filing an answer, which is now due May 15, 2015. We do not believe a loss is probable, and accordingly, as of March 31, 2015, we have not recorded an accrual related to this matter. |
| FCPA Voluntary Disclosure |
| In 2010, an internal investigation was conducted under the direction of the Audit Committee of our Board of Directors to determine whether any laws, including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the “FCPA”), may have been violated in connection with a certain business relationship entered into by one of our operating subsidiaries involving business in China. We believe the amount of payments and the business involved was immaterial. We discontinued the specific business relationship, and our investigation has not identified any other suspect transactions. We contacted the United States Department of Justice (the "DOJ") and the SEC to make a voluntary disclosure of the possible violations, the investigation, and the initial findings. We have been fully cooperating with their review. During 2012, the DOJ informed us that it has closed its inquiry into the matter but indicated that it could reopen its inquiry in the future in the event it were to receive additional information or evidence. We have not received an update from the SEC concerning the status of its inquiry. The FCPA (and related statutes and regulations) provides for potential monetary penalties, criminal and civil sanctions, and other remedies. We are unable to estimate the potential penalties and/or sanctions, if any, that might be assessed and, accordingly, no provision has been made in the condensed consolidated financial statements. |
