Commitments And Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2013
Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies	14. CONTINGENCIES AND COMMITMENTS The Company is a defendant along with a number of other parties in lawsuits alleging that plaintiffs have or may have contracted asbestos-related diseases as a result of exposure to asbestos products or equipment containing asbestos sold by one or more named defendants. These lawsuits relate to the discontinued heat technologies segment which was sold in March 2005. Due to the non-informative nature of the complaints, the Company does not know whether any of the complaints state valid claims against the Company. Certain insurance carriers have informed the Company that the primary policies for the period August 1, 1970-1978 have been exhausted and that the carriers will no longer provide defense and insurance coverage under those policies. However, the Company has other primary and excess insurance policies that the Company believes afford coverage for later years. Some of these other primary insurers have accepted defense and insurance coverage for these suits, and some of them have either ignored the Company’s tender of defense of these cases, or have denied coverage, or have accepted the tenders but asserted a reservation of rights and/or advised the Company that they need to investigate further. Because settlement payments are applied to all years a litigant was deemed to have been exposed to asbestos, the Company believes that it will have funds available for defense and insurance coverage under the non-exhausted primary and excess insurance policies. However, unlike the older policies, the more recent policies have deductible amounts for defense and settlements costs that the Company will be required to pay; accordingly, the Company expects that its litigation costs will increase in the future. Further, many of the policies covering later years (approximately 1984 and thereafter) have exclusions for any asbestos products or operations, and thus do not provide insurance coverage for asbestos-related lawsuits. The Company does not believe that the asserted exhaustion of some of the primary insurance coverage for the 1970-1978 period will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, liquidity, or results of operations. Management believes that the number of insurance carriers involved in the defense of the suits, and the significant number of policy years and policy limits under which these insurance carriers are insuring the Company, make the ultimate disposition of these lawsuits not material to the Company's consolidated financial position or results of operations. The Company’s former wholly owned French subsidiary, Selas SAS, filed for insolvency in France and is being managed by a court appointed judiciary administrator. The Company may be subject to additional litigation or liabilities as a result of the French insolvency proceeding. The Company is also involved in other lawsuits arising in the normal course of business. While it is not possible to predict with certainty the outcome of these matters, management is of the opinion that the disposition of these lawsuits and claims will not materially affect our consolidated financial position, liquidity or results of operations. Total expense for 2013, 2012, and 2011 under leases pertaining primarily to engineering, manufacturing, sales and administrative facilities, with an initial term of one year or more, aggregated $1,480, $1,531, and $1,497, respectively. Remaining payments under such leases are as follows: 2014- $1,284; 2015- $1,296; 2016- $984; and 2017- $17, which includes two leased facilities in Minnesota that expire in 2016, one leased facility in Maine that expires in 2014, one leased facility in California that expires in 2016, one leased facility in Singapore that expires in 2015, one leased facility in Indonesia that expires in 2016 and one leased facility in Germany that expires in 2017. Certain leases contain renewal options as defined in the lease agreements. On October 5, 2007, the Company entered into employment agreements with its executive officers. The agreements call for payments ranging from seven months to two years base salary and unpaid bonus, if any, to the executives should there be a change of control as defined in the agreement and the executives are not retained for a period of at least one year following such change of control. Under the agreements, all stock options granted to the executives would vest immediately and be exercisable in accordance with the terms of such stock options. The Company also agreed that if it enters into an agreement to sell substantially all of its assets, it will obligate the buyer to fulfill its obligations pursuant to the agreements. The agreements terminate, except to the extent that any obligation remains unpaid, upon the earlier of termination of the executive’s employment prior to a change of control or asset sale for any reason or the termination of the executive after a change of control for any reason other than by involuntary termination as defined in the agreements. On July 20, 2008, the Company entered into a strategic alliance agreement with Dynamic Hearing Pty Ltd (“Dynamic Hearing”). Effective October 1, 2008, Dynamic Hearing granted a license to the Company to use certain of Dynamic Hearing‘s technology. The initial term of the agreement was five years from the date of execution with an extension available upon agreement of the parties within two months of the expiration of the initial term; however, either party had ability to terminate the agreement after the second year of the term upon three months notice. The Company agreed to pay Dynamic Hearing: (i) an annual fee for access to the technology licensed pursuant to the agreement and (ii) an additional “second component” fee to maintain exclusive rights granted to the Company with respect to hearing health products. Additionally, IntriCon agreed to make royalty payments on products that incorporate Dynamic Hearing’s technology, and Dynamic Hearing has also agreed to provide the Company with engineering and other services in connection with the licensed technology. Minimal royalty payments were made for the years ended December 31, 2013 2012, and 2011. The Company recorded $1,000 payable to Dynamic Hearing for the first two years of exclusive license fees described above which was paid during 2010. In January of 2011, the strategic alliance agreement was amended to, among other things, remove the “second component” fee for the remainder of the term and extend the date after which either party can terminate the agreement through December 2012. Exclusive rights and engineering and other services were amortized through September 2010. The technology access fee will be amortized through September 2017, the estimated useful life and is included in other assets, net on the balance sheet. The technology access fee asset was $232 and $380 as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively.

14. CONTINGENCIES AND COMMITMENTS

The Company is a defendant along with a number of other parties in lawsuits alleging that plaintiffs have or may have contracted asbestos-related diseases as a result of exposure to asbestos products or equipment containing asbestos sold by one or more named defendants. These lawsuits relate to the discontinued heat technologies segment which was sold in March 2005. Due to the non-informative nature of the complaints, the Company does not know whether any of the complaints state valid claims against the Company. Certain insurance carriers have informed the Company that the primary policies for the period August 1, 1970-1978 have been exhausted and that the carriers will no longer provide defense and insurance coverage under those policies. However, the Company has other primary and excess insurance policies that the Company believes afford coverage for later years. Some of these other primary insurers have accepted defense and insurance coverage for these suits, and some of them have either ignored the Company’s tender of defense of these cases, or have denied coverage, or have accepted the tenders but asserted a reservation of rights and/or advised the Company that they need to investigate further. Because settlement payments are applied to all years a litigant was deemed to have been exposed to asbestos, the Company believes that it will have funds available for defense and insurance coverage under the non-exhausted primary and excess insurance policies. However, unlike the older policies, the more recent policies have deductible amounts for defense and settlements costs that the Company will be required to pay; accordingly, the Company expects that its litigation costs will increase in the future. Further, many of the policies covering later years (approximately 1984 and thereafter) have exclusions for any asbestos products or operations, and thus do not provide insurance coverage for asbestos-related lawsuits. The Company does not believe that the asserted exhaustion of some of the primary insurance coverage for the 1970-1978 period will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, liquidity, or results of operations. Management believes that the number of insurance carriers involved in the defense of the suits, and the significant number of policy years and policy limits under which these insurance carriers are insuring the Company, make the ultimate disposition of these lawsuits not material to the Company's consolidated financial position or results of operations.

The Company’s former wholly owned French subsidiary, Selas SAS, filed for insolvency in France and is being managed by a court appointed judiciary administrator. The Company may be subject to additional litigation or liabilities as a result of the French insolvency proceeding.

The Company is also involved in other lawsuits arising in the normal course of business. While it is not possible to predict with certainty the outcome of these matters, management is of the opinion that the disposition of these lawsuits and claims will not materially affect our consolidated financial position, liquidity or results of operations.

Total expense for 2013, 2012, and 2011 under leases pertaining primarily to engineering, manufacturing, sales and administrative facilities, with an initial term of one year or more, aggregated $1,480, $1,531, and $1,497, respectively. Remaining payments under such leases are as follows: 2014- $1,284; 2015- $1,296; 2016- $984; and 2017- $17, which includes two leased facilities in Minnesota that expire in 2016, one leased facility in Maine that expires in 2014, one leased facility in California that expires in 2016, one leased facility in Singapore that expires in 2015, one leased facility in Indonesia that expires in 2016 and one leased facility in Germany that expires in 2017. Certain leases contain renewal options as defined in the lease agreements.

On October 5, 2007, the Company entered into employment agreements with its executive officers. The agreements call for payments ranging from seven months to two years base salary and unpaid bonus, if any, to the executives should there be a change of control as defined in the agreement and the executives are not retained for a period of at least one year following such change of control. Under the agreements, all stock options granted to the executives would vest immediately and be exercisable in accordance with the terms of such stock options. The Company also agreed that if it enters into an agreement to sell substantially all of its assets, it will obligate the buyer to fulfill its obligations pursuant to the agreements. The agreements terminate, except to the extent that any obligation remains unpaid, upon the earlier of termination of the executive’s employment prior to a change of control or asset sale for any reason or the termination of the executive after a change of control for any reason other than by involuntary termination as defined in the agreements.

On July 20, 2008, the Company entered into a strategic alliance agreement with Dynamic Hearing Pty Ltd (“Dynamic Hearing”). Effective October 1, 2008, Dynamic Hearing granted a license to the Company to use certain of Dynamic Hearing‘s technology. The initial term of the agreement was five years from the date of execution with an extension available upon agreement of the parties within two months of the expiration of the initial term; however, either party had ability to terminate the agreement after the second year of the term upon three months notice. The Company agreed to pay Dynamic Hearing: (i) an annual fee for access to the technology licensed pursuant to the agreement and (ii) an additional “second component” fee to maintain exclusive rights granted to the Company with respect to hearing health products. Additionally, IntriCon agreed to make royalty payments on products that incorporate Dynamic Hearing’s technology, and Dynamic Hearing has also agreed to provide the Company with engineering and other services in connection with the licensed technology. Minimal royalty payments were made for the years ended December 31, 2013 2012, and 2011. The Company recorded $1,000 payable to Dynamic Hearing for the first two years of exclusive license fees described above which was paid during 2010. In January of 2011, the strategic alliance agreement was amended to, among other things, remove the “second component” fee for the remainder of the term and extend the date after which either party can terminate the agreement through December 2012. Exclusive rights and engineering and other services were amortized through September 2010. The technology access fee will be amortized through September 2017, the estimated useful life and is included in other assets, net on the balance sheet. The technology access fee asset was $232 and $380 as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively.