Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2016
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	5. CONTINGENCIES The Company carries insurance policies on insurable risks with coverage and other terms that it believes to be appropriate. The Company generally has self-insured retention limits and has obtained fully insured layers of coverage above such self-insured retention limits. Accruals for self-insurance losses are made based on claims experience. Liabilities for existing and unreported claims are accrued for when it is probable that future costs will be incurred and can be reasonably estimated. As described in Note 7 — “Commitments and Contingencies” to the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015, the Company was previously identified as a potentially responsible party in connection with the cleanup of contamination at a formerly owned property in Montana. On February 18, 2015, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (the “DEQ”) issued an amendment to the unilateral administrative order of the DEQ outlining the final remediation of the property in its Record of Decision (the “ROD”). Under the ROD, the DEQ estimated the remediation costs of the property to be $8.3 million. The Company submitted a comprehensive final remedial action work plan (the “RAWP”) in September 2015 that was approved by the DEQ. The Company is currently implementing the RAWP and has commenced field work at the Montana site subject to DEQ oversight and approval. At June 30, 2016, the Company estimates the total remaining cost to implement the RAWP to be $7.7 million, as compared to $8.0 million at December 31, 2015. The Company has begun to implement the work plan and pay for the associated remediation costs. As of June 30, 2016, the Company believes the accrual represents a reasonable best estimate of the total remaining remediation costs, based on facts, circumstances, and information currently available to Huttig. However, there are currently unknown variables relating to the actual levels of contaminants and amounts of soil that will ultimately require treatment or removal and as part of the remediation process, additional soil and groundwater sampling, and bench and pilot testing is required to ensure the remediation will achieve the projected outcome required by the DEQ. The ultimate final amount of remediation costs and expenditures are difficult to estimate with certainty and as a result, the amount of actual costs and expenses ultimately incurred by Huttig with respect to this property could be lower than, or exceed the amount accrued as of June 30, 2016 by a material amount and could have a material adverse effect on our liquidity, financial condition or operating results of any fiscal quarter or year in which estimated costs or additional expenses are, or are not incurred. On June 29, 2015, certain private plaintiffs owning properties adjacent to the Montana site sued the Company, Crane Co., and other defendants in the Montana Fourth Judicial District Court seeking remediation of the property in excess of what is contemplated by the ROD and other damages. In October 2015, the lawsuit was amended to include additional plaintiffs and was formally served. Crane Co. asserted its right of indemnification under the Distribution Agreement between the Company and Crane Co. dated December 6, 1999. The Company continues to defend the lawsuit vigorously. In December 2014, the Company filed a declaratory action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri against certain liability insurers seeking, inter alia, defense and indemnification for the costs of implementing the final remediation activities associated with the Montana property and defense and indemnification costs associated with the related lawsuit described above. The Company entered into settlement agreements with certain of the insurers as well as with Crane Co. and all claims against the insurers were dismissed as of July 2016, and Huttig agreed to release Crane Co. of any claims related to the Distribution Agreement, including its rights under Crane Co.’s insurance policies. In addition to the Montana site, some of the Company’s current and former distribution centers are located in areas of current or former industrial activity where environmental contamination may have occurred, and for which the Company, among others, could be held responsible. The Company currently believes that there are no material environmental liabilities at any of its distribution center locations. The Company accrues expenses for contingencies when it is probable that an asset has been impaired or a liability has been incurred and management can reasonably estimate the expense. Contingencies for which the Company has made accruals include environmental, product liability and other legal matters. It is possible, however, that actual expenses could, or could not exceed our accrual by a material amount which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s future liquidity, financial condition or operating results in the period in which any such additional expenses are incurred or recognized.

5. CONTINGENCIES

The Company carries insurance policies on insurable risks with coverage and other terms that it believes to be appropriate. The Company generally has self-insured retention limits and has obtained fully insured layers of coverage above such self-insured retention limits. Accruals for self-insurance losses are made based on claims experience. Liabilities for existing and unreported claims are accrued for when it is probable that future costs will be incurred and can be reasonably estimated.

As described in Note 7 — “Commitments and Contingencies” to the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015, the Company was previously identified as a potentially responsible party in connection with the cleanup of contamination at a formerly owned property in Montana. On February 18, 2015, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (the “DEQ”) issued an amendment to the unilateral administrative order of the DEQ outlining the final remediation of the property in its Record of Decision (the “ROD”). Under the ROD, the DEQ estimated the remediation costs of the property to be $8.3 million.

The Company submitted a comprehensive final remedial action work plan (the “RAWP”) in September 2015 that was approved by the DEQ. The Company is currently implementing the RAWP and has commenced field work at the Montana site subject to DEQ oversight and approval. At June 30, 2016, the Company estimates the total remaining cost to implement the RAWP to be $7.7 million, as compared to $8.0 million at December 31, 2015. The Company has begun to implement the work plan and pay for the associated remediation costs.

As of June 30, 2016, the Company believes the accrual represents a reasonable best estimate of the total remaining remediation costs, based on facts, circumstances, and information currently available to Huttig. However, there are currently unknown variables relating to the actual levels of contaminants and amounts of soil that will ultimately require treatment or removal and as part of the remediation process, additional soil and groundwater sampling, and bench and pilot testing is required to ensure the remediation will achieve the projected outcome required by the DEQ. The ultimate final amount of remediation costs and expenditures are difficult to estimate with certainty and as a result, the amount of actual costs and expenses ultimately incurred by Huttig with respect to this property could be lower than, or exceed the amount accrued as of June 30, 2016 by a material amount and could have a material adverse effect on our liquidity, financial condition or operating results of any fiscal quarter or year in which estimated costs or additional expenses are, or are not incurred.

On June 29, 2015, certain private plaintiffs owning properties adjacent to the Montana site sued the Company, Crane Co., and other defendants in the Montana Fourth Judicial District Court seeking remediation of the property in excess of what is contemplated by the ROD and other damages. In October 2015, the lawsuit was amended to include additional plaintiffs and was formally served. Crane Co. asserted its right of indemnification under the Distribution Agreement between the Company and Crane Co. dated December 6, 1999. The Company continues to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

In December 2014, the Company filed a declaratory action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri against certain liability insurers seeking, inter alia, defense and indemnification for the costs of implementing the final remediation activities associated with the Montana property and defense and indemnification costs associated with the related lawsuit described above. The Company entered into settlement agreements with certain of the insurers as well as with Crane Co. and all claims against the insurers were dismissed as of July 2016, and Huttig agreed to release Crane Co. of any claims related to the Distribution Agreement, including its rights under Crane Co.’s insurance policies.

In addition to the Montana site, some of the Company’s current and former distribution centers are located in areas of current or former industrial activity where environmental contamination may have occurred, and for which the Company, among others, could be held responsible. The Company currently believes that there are no material environmental liabilities at any of its distribution center locations.

The Company accrues expenses for contingencies when it is probable that an asset has been impaired or a liability has been incurred and management can reasonably estimate the expense. Contingencies for which the Company has made accruals include environmental, product liability and other legal matters. It is possible, however, that actual expenses could, or could not exceed our accrual by a material amount which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s future liquidity, financial condition or operating results in the period in which any such additional expenses are incurred or recognized.