Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2020
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	15) Commitments and Contingencies On April 18, 2017, a civil action was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, entitled M. Norman Donnenfeld v. Petro, Inc., Civil Action Number 2:17-cv-2310-JFB-SIL, against Petro, Inc. By amended complaint filed on August 15, 2017, the Plaintiff alleged he did not receive expected contractual benefits under his protected price plan contract when oil prices fell and asserted various claims for relief including breach of contract, violation of the New York General Business Law and fraudulent inducement. The Plaintiff also sought to have a class certified of similarly situated Petro customers who entered into protected price plan contracts and were denied the same contractual benefits. The Plaintiff sought compensatory, punitive and other damages in unspecified amounts. On September 15, 2017, Petro filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint as time-barred and for failure to state a cause of action. On September 12, 2018, the district court granted in part and denied in part Petro's motion to dismiss. The district court dismissed the Plaintiff's claims for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and fraudulent inducement, but declined to dismiss the Plaintiff's remaining claims. The district court granted the Plaintiff leave to amend to attempt to replead his fraudulent inducement claim. On October 10, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. The second amended complaint attempted to replead a fraudulent inducement claim and was otherwise substantially similar or identical to the prior complaint. On November 13, 2018, Petro moved to dismiss the fraudulent inducement and unjust enrichment claims in the second amended complaint. On January 31, 2019, the court granted the motion and dismissed the fraudulent inducement and unjust enrichment claims with prejudice. On February 22, 2019, counsel for Petro and the Plaintiff participated in a mediation which, after arms-length negotiations, resulted in a memorandum of understanding to settle the litigation, subject to the completion of confirmatory discovery, negotiation of a final settlement agreement and court approval. In an order dated March 27, 2019, the district court stayed all discovery deadlines in light of the pending settlement. On October 4, 2019, upon consent of all parties, Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf assigned the action to Magistrate Judge Steve I. Locke for final disposition. On March 26, 2020, the court granted final approval of the class action settlement, certified the class for settlement purposes only and dismissed the action with prejudice. On March 26, 2020, the court also granted Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for fees, expenses and named plaintiff service award. The settlement is not an admission of liability or breach to any customers by Petro and, the Company continues to believe the allegations lack merit. The Company’s operations are subject to the operating hazards and risks normally incidental to handling, storing and transporting and otherwise providing for use by consumers hazardous liquids such as home heating oil and propane. In the ordinary course of business, the Company is a defendant in various legal proceedings and litigation. The Company records a liability when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount is reasonably estimable. We do not believe these matters, when considered individually or in the aggregate, could reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, financial position or liquidity. The Company maintains insurance policies with insurers in amounts and with coverages and deductibles we believe are reasonable and prudent. However, the Company cannot assure that this insurance will be adequate to protect it from all material expenses related to current and potential future claims, legal proceedings and litigation, including the above mentioned action, as certain types of claims may be excluded from our insurance coverage. If we incur substantial liability and the damages are not covered by insurance, or are in excess of policy limits, or if we incur liability at a time when we are not able to obtain liability insurance, then our business, results of operations and financial condition could be materially adversely affected.

Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2020

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

15) Commitments and Contingencies

On April 18, 2017, a civil action was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, entitled M. Norman Donnenfeld v. Petro, Inc., Civil Action Number 2:17-cv-2310-JFB-SIL, against Petro, Inc. By amended complaint filed on August 15, 2017, the Plaintiff alleged he did not receive expected contractual benefits under his protected price plan contract when oil prices fell and asserted various claims for relief including breach of contract, violation of the New York General Business Law and fraudulent inducement. The Plaintiff also sought to have a class certified of similarly situated Petro customers who entered into protected price plan contracts and were denied the same contractual benefits. The Plaintiff sought compensatory, punitive and other damages in unspecified amounts. On September 15, 2017, Petro filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint as time-barred and for failure to state a cause of action. On September 12, 2018, the district court granted in part and denied in part Petro's motion to dismiss. The district court dismissed the Plaintiff's claims for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and fraudulent inducement, but declined to dismiss the Plaintiff's remaining claims. The district court granted the Plaintiff leave to amend to attempt to replead his fraudulent inducement claim. On October 10, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. The second amended complaint attempted to replead a fraudulent inducement claim and was otherwise substantially similar or identical to the prior complaint. On November 13, 2018, Petro moved to dismiss the fraudulent inducement and unjust enrichment claims in the second amended complaint. On January 31, 2019, the court granted the motion and dismissed the fraudulent inducement and unjust enrichment claims with prejudice. On February 22, 2019, counsel for Petro and the Plaintiff participated in a mediation which, after arms-length negotiations, resulted in a memorandum of understanding to settle the litigation, subject to the completion of confirmatory discovery, negotiation of a final settlement agreement and court approval. In an order dated March 27, 2019, the district court stayed all discovery deadlines in light of the pending settlement. On October 4, 2019, upon consent of all parties, Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf assigned the action to Magistrate Judge Steve I. Locke for final disposition. On March 26, 2020, the court granted final approval of the class action settlement, certified the class for settlement purposes only and dismissed the action with prejudice. On March 26, 2020, the court also granted Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for fees, expenses and named plaintiff service award. The settlement is not an admission of liability or breach to any customers by Petro and, the Company continues to believe the allegations lack merit.

The Company’s operations are subject to the operating hazards and risks normally incidental to handling, storing and transporting and otherwise providing for use by consumers hazardous liquids such as home heating oil and propane. In the ordinary course of business, the Company is a defendant in various legal proceedings and litigation. The Company records a liability when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount is reasonably estimable. We do not believe these matters, when considered individually or in the aggregate, could reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, financial position or liquidity.

The Company maintains insurance policies with insurers in amounts and with coverages and deductibles we believe are reasonable and prudent. However, the Company cannot assure that this insurance will be adequate to protect it from all material expenses related to current and potential future claims, legal proceedings and litigation, including the above mentioned action, as certain types of claims may be excluded from our insurance coverage. If we incur substantial liability and the damages are not covered by insurance, or are in excess of policy limits, or if we incur liability at a time when we are not able to obtain liability insurance, then our business, results of operations and financial condition could be materially adversely affected.