Commitments, Contingencies and Litigation Judgment	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments, Contingencies and Litigation Judgment	Commitments, Contingencies and Litigation Judgment The Company is subject to various pending and threatened legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company records a liability for loss contingencies in the consolidated financial statements when a loss is known or considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. Our provisions are based on historical experience, current information and legal advice, and they may be adjusted in the future based on new developments. Estimating probable losses requires the analysis of multiple forecasted factors that often depend on judgments and potential actions by third parties. Although it is not possible to predict with certainty the ultimate outcome or cost of these matters, the Company believes they will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements. IPSCO Tubulars Inc. d/b/a TMK IPSCO sued Ajax Tocco Magnethermic Corporation (“ATM”), a subsidiary of Park-Ohio Holdings Corporation, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas claiming that equipment supplied by ATM for heat treating certain steel pipe at IPSCO's Blytheville, Arkansas facility did not perform as required by the contract. The complaint alleged causes of action for breach of contract, gross negligence and constructive fraud. IPSCO sought approximately $10.0 million in damages plus an unspecified amount of punitive damages. ATM denied the allegations. ATM subsequently obtained summary judgment on the constructive fraud claim, which was dismissed by the district court prior to trial. The remaining claims were the subject of a bench trial that occurred in May 2013. After IPSCO presented its case, the district court entered partial judgment in favor of ATM, dismissing the gross negligence claim, a portion of the breach of contract claim, and any claim for punitive damages. The trial proceeded with respect to the remainder of IPSCO's claim for breach of contract. In September 2013, the district court issued a judgment in favor of IPSCO in the amount of $5.2 million, which the Company recognized and accrued for at that time. IPSCO subsequently filed a motion seeking to recover $3.8 million in attorneys' fees and costs. The district court reserved ruling on that issue pending an appeal. In October 2013, ATM filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit seeking reversal of the judgment in favor of IPSCO. In November 2013, IPSCO filed a cross-appeal seeking reversal of the dismissal of its claim for gross negligence and punitive damages. The Eighth Circuit issued an opinion in March 2015 affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding the case. It affirmed the district court's determination that ATM was liable for breach of contract. It also affirmed the district court's dismissal of IPSCO's claim for gross negligence and punitive damages. However, the Eighth Circuit reversed nearly all of the damages awarded by the district court and remanded for further findings on the issue of damages, including whether consequential damages are barred under the express language of the contract. Because IPSCO did not appeal the award of $5.2 million in its favor, those damages could be decreased, but could not be increased, on remand. On remand, the district court entered an order once again awarding IPSCO $5.2 million in damages. In December 2015, ATM filed a second appeal with the Eighth Circuit seeking reversal of the damages award. That appeal is pending. In March 2016, the district court issued an order granting, in part, IPSCO's motion for fees and costs and awarding $2.2 million to IPSCO, which the Company accrued for as of December 31, 2015. ATM filed a third appeal of that decision. As of September 30, 2016, the Company had $7.4 million accrued for this matter. Our subsidiaries are involved in a number of contractual and warranty-related disputes. We believe that appropriate liabilities for these contingencies have been recorded; however, actual results may differ materially from our estimates. In August 2013, the Company received a subpoena from the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) in connection with the staff’s investigation of a third party. At that time, the Company also learned that the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) is conducting a criminal investigation of the third party. In connection with its initial response to the staff’s subpoena, the Company disclosed to the staff of the SEC that, in November 2007, the third party participated in a payment on behalf of the Company to a foreign tax official that implicates the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The Board of Directors of the Company formed a special committee to review the Company’s transactions with the third party and to make any recommendations to the Board of Directors with respect thereto. The Company intends to cooperate fully with the SEC and the DOJ in connection with their investigations of the third party and with the SEC in light of the Company’s disclosure. The Company is unable to predict the outcome or impact of the special committee’s investigation or the length, scope or results of the SEC’s review or the impact on its results of operations.

Commitments, Contingencies and Litigation Judgment

The Company is subject to various pending and threatened legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company records a liability for loss contingencies in the consolidated financial statements when a loss is known or considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. Our provisions are based on historical experience, current information and legal advice, and they may be adjusted in the future based on new developments. Estimating probable losses requires the analysis of multiple forecasted factors that often depend on judgments and potential actions by third parties. Although it is not possible to predict with certainty the ultimate outcome or cost of these matters, the Company believes they will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements.

IPSCO Tubulars Inc. d/b/a TMK IPSCO sued Ajax Tocco Magnethermic Corporation (“ATM”), a subsidiary of Park-Ohio Holdings Corporation, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas claiming that equipment supplied by ATM for heat treating certain steel pipe at IPSCO's Blytheville, Arkansas facility did not perform as required by the contract. The complaint alleged causes of action for breach of contract, gross negligence and constructive fraud. IPSCO sought approximately $10.0 million in damages plus an unspecified amount of punitive damages. ATM denied the allegations. ATM subsequently obtained summary judgment on the constructive fraud claim, which was dismissed by the district court prior to trial. The remaining claims were the subject of a bench trial that occurred in May 2013. After IPSCO presented its case, the district court entered partial judgment in favor of ATM, dismissing the gross negligence claim, a portion of the breach of contract claim, and any claim for punitive damages. The trial proceeded with respect to the remainder of IPSCO's claim for breach of contract. In September 2013, the district court issued a judgment in favor of IPSCO in the amount of $5.2 million, which the Company recognized and accrued for at that time. IPSCO subsequently filed a motion seeking to recover $3.8 million in attorneys' fees and costs. The district court reserved ruling on that issue pending an appeal. In October 2013, ATM filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit seeking reversal of the judgment in favor of IPSCO. In November 2013, IPSCO filed a cross-appeal seeking reversal of the dismissal of its claim for gross negligence and punitive damages. The Eighth Circuit issued an opinion in March 2015 affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding the case. It affirmed the district court's determination that ATM was liable for breach of contract. It also affirmed the district court's dismissal of IPSCO's claim for gross negligence and punitive damages. However, the Eighth Circuit reversed nearly all of the damages awarded by the district court and remanded for further findings on the issue of damages, including whether consequential damages are barred under the express language of the contract. Because IPSCO did not appeal the award of $5.2 million in its favor, those damages could be decreased, but could not be increased, on remand. On remand, the district court entered an order once again awarding IPSCO $5.2 million in damages. In December 2015, ATM filed a second appeal with the Eighth Circuit seeking reversal of the damages award. That appeal is pending. In March 2016, the district court issued an order granting, in part, IPSCO's motion for fees and costs and awarding $2.2 million to IPSCO, which the Company accrued for as of December 31, 2015. ATM filed a third appeal of that decision. As of September 30, 2016, the Company had $7.4 million accrued for this matter.

Our subsidiaries are involved in a number of contractual and warranty-related disputes. We believe that appropriate liabilities for these contingencies have been recorded; however, actual results may differ materially from our estimates.

In August 2013, the Company received a subpoena from the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) in connection with the staff’s investigation of a third party. At that time, the Company also learned that the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) is conducting a criminal investigation of the third party. In connection with its initial response to the staff’s subpoena, the Company disclosed to the staff of the SEC that, in November 2007, the third party participated in a payment on behalf of the Company to a foreign tax official that implicates the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The Board of Directors of the Company formed a special committee to review the Company’s transactions with the third party and to make any recommendations to the Board of Directors with respect thereto. The Company intends to cooperate fully with the SEC and the DOJ in connection with their investigations of the third party and with the SEC in light of the Company’s disclosure. The Company is unable to predict the outcome or impact of the special committee’s investigation or the length, scope or results of the SEC’s review or the impact on its results of operations.