Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2018
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 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. Environmental and Legal Matters 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 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. Environmental Matters 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, 2017, 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”). In September 2015, the remedial action work plan (“RAWP”) was approved. The Company paid $0.6 million in the first six months of 2018 implementing the RAWP. The Company estimates the total remaining cost of implementing the RAWP to be $2.9 million at June 30, 2018. As of June 30, 2018, 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, 2018 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. Legal Matters The Company was also involved in litigation in Colorado, Illinois, and Texas filed by PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. (“PrimeSource”) against the Company and eleven of its employees. The complaints alleged, among other things, that certain former employees of PrimeSource had breached their contracts with PrimeSource (including non-competition, non-solicitation and non-disclosure covenants) and fiduciary duties to PrimeSource, and that the former employees had misappropriated, and were using, trade secrets of PrimeSource on behalf of the Company. The complaints sought 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. On December 9, 2017, the United States District Court of the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division (the “Court”) ruled the evidence at the hearing failed to show a likelihood of success on the majority of PrimeSource’s claims against Huttig and the Court denied PrimeSource’s request to shut down the Huttig-Grip expansion, but granted partial injunctive relief restricting four Huttig employees from working in activities related to the Huttig-Grip expansion and in part enjoining Huttig from selling products to a list of customers that were not pre-existing customers prior to November 2016, but allowed Huttig to sell all products to a list of customers that were pre-existing prior to November 2016. The injunction ended May 2018. On June 29, 2018, the Company entered into a confidential agreement with PrimeSource for the settlement and release of all claims between the parties. The agreement does not limit or restrict the future business activities of any of the parties and did not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. During the first six months of 2018, the Company incurred approximately $3.3 million in expenses related to the PrimeSource litigation and settlement.

5. CONTINGENCIES

The Company carries insurance policies on insurable risks with coverage and other terms that it believes to be appropriate. The Company 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.

Environmental and Legal Matters

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 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.

Environmental Matters

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, 2017, 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”). In September 2015, the remedial action work plan (“RAWP”) was approved.

The Company paid $0.6 million in the first six months of 2018 implementing the RAWP. The Company estimates the total remaining cost of implementing the RAWP to be $2.9 million at June 30, 2018. As of June 30, 2018, 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, 2018 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.

Legal Matters

The Company was also involved in litigation in Colorado, Illinois, and Texas filed by PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. (“PrimeSource”) against the Company and eleven of its employees.

The complaints alleged, among other things, that certain former employees of PrimeSource had breached their contracts with PrimeSource (including non-competition, non-solicitation and non-disclosure covenants) and fiduciary duties to PrimeSource, and that the former employees had misappropriated, and were using, trade secrets of PrimeSource on behalf of the Company. The complaints sought 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.

On December 9, 2017, the United States District Court of the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division (the “Court”) ruled the evidence at the hearing failed to show a likelihood of success on the majority of PrimeSource’s claims against Huttig and the Court denied PrimeSource’s request to shut down the Huttig-Grip expansion, but granted partial injunctive relief restricting four Huttig employees from working in activities related to the Huttig-Grip expansion and in part enjoining Huttig from selling products to a list of customers that were not pre-existing customers prior to November 2016, but allowed Huttig to sell all products to a list of customers that were pre-existing prior to November 2016. The injunction ended May 2018.

On June 29, 2018, the Company entered into a confidential agreement with PrimeSource for the settlement and release of all claims between the parties. The agreement does not limit or restrict the future business activities of any of the parties and did not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

During the first six months of 2018, the Company incurred approximately $3.3 million in expenses related to the PrimeSource litigation and settlement.