Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2017
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, 2016, 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. During the process of finalizing the RAWP in the third quarter of 2015 the Company considered a multitude of factors including, but not limited to, consultation with third party experts, the evaluation of remedial action alternatives, and discussions with the DEQ. The culmination of the information, data, and risk analysis resulted in excluding certain potential cost saving remedial action alternatives from the final RAWP that had been previously proposed for inclusion in the RAWP. Eliminating these potential cost savings remedial action alternatives from the final RAWP caused the Company to reassess the total estimated remediation costs of the project. The Company is currently implementing the RAWP and has commenced field work at the Montana site subject to DEQ oversight and approval. The Company spent $1.7 million in the first six months of 2017 implementing the RAWP. The Company estimates the total remaining cost of implementing the RAWP to be $5.4 million at June 30, 2017 with respect to the contingent liability, as compared to $7.1 million at December 31, 2016. As of June 30, 2017, 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. Potential indemnification or other claims we may be able to assert against third parties and possible insurance coverage have also been considered but any potential recoveries have not been recognized at this time. 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, 2017 by a material amount. If actual costs are materially higher, the incremental expenses over the amount currently accrued could have a material adverse effect on our liquidity, financial condition and operating results. In addition, 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 is also involved in litigation in Colorado, Illinois, and Texas filed by PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. (“PrimeSource”) against the Company and eleven of its employees in December 2016. The complaints allege, among other things, that certain former employees of PrimeSource have breached their contracts with PrimeSource (including non-competition, non‑interference and non-disclosure covenants) and fiduciary duties to PrimeSource, and that the former employees have misappropriated, and are using, trade secrets of PrimeSource on behalf of Huttig. The complaints seek injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and with respect to certain counts, punitive damages. On July 26, 2017, the Company and certain of the employee defendants filed counterclaims in the Illinois cases alleging, among others things, that PrimeSource has asserted and is maintaining its trade secret misappropriation claims in bad faith, tortiously interfered with the Company’s business relationships, and filed sham litigation and engaged in other exclusionary and predatory conduct in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. While it is not possible at this time to predict with any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of this litigation, and the Company is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, that could result from any unfavorable outcome, the Company believes that PrimeSource’s claims lack merit. The Company has retained outside counsel, and is vigorously defending itself against the lawsuits. As of June 30, 2017, the Company incurred approximately $1.6 million in expenses related to the PrimeSource litigation, and expects to continue to incur such litigation expenses. 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 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, 2016, 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. During the process of finalizing the RAWP in the third quarter of 2015 the Company considered a multitude of factors including, but not limited to, consultation with third party experts, the evaluation of remedial action alternatives, and discussions with the DEQ. The culmination of the information, data, and risk analysis resulted in excluding certain potential cost saving remedial action alternatives from the final RAWP that had been previously proposed for inclusion in the RAWP. Eliminating these potential cost savings remedial action alternatives from the final RAWP caused the Company to reassess the total estimated remediation costs of the project. The Company is currently implementing the RAWP and has commenced field work at the Montana site subject to DEQ oversight and approval.

The Company spent $1.7 million in the first six months of 2017 implementing the RAWP. The Company estimates the total remaining cost of implementing the RAWP to be $5.4 million at June 30, 2017 with respect to the contingent liability, as compared to $7.1 million at December 31, 2016.

As of June 30, 2017, 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. Potential indemnification or other claims we may be able to assert against third parties and possible insurance coverage have also been considered but any potential recoveries have not been recognized at this time. 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, 2017 by a material amount. If actual costs are materially higher, the incremental expenses over the amount currently accrued could have a material adverse effect on our liquidity, financial condition and operating results.

In addition, 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 is also involved in litigation in Colorado, Illinois, and Texas filed by PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. (“PrimeSource”) against the Company and eleven of its employees in December 2016.

The complaints allege, among other things, that certain former employees of PrimeSource have breached their contracts with PrimeSource (including non-competition, non‑interference and non-disclosure covenants) and fiduciary duties to PrimeSource, and that the former employees have misappropriated, and are using, trade secrets of PrimeSource on behalf of Huttig. The complaints seek injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and with respect to certain counts, punitive damages.

On July 26, 2017, the Company and certain of the employee defendants filed counterclaims in the Illinois cases alleging, among others things, that PrimeSource has asserted and is maintaining its trade secret misappropriation claims in bad faith, tortiously interfered with the Company’s business relationships, and filed sham litigation and engaged in other exclusionary and predatory conduct in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

While it is not possible at this time to predict with any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of this litigation, and the Company is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, that could result from any unfavorable outcome, the Company believes that PrimeSource’s claims lack merit. The Company has retained outside counsel, and is vigorously defending itself against the lawsuits. As of June 30, 2017, the Company incurred approximately $1.6 million in expenses related to the PrimeSource litigation, and expects to continue to incur such litigation expenses.

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 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.