Contingencies And Commitments	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2020
Contingencies And Commitments [Abstract]
Contingencies And Commitments	20. CONTINGENCIES AND COMMITMENTS Asbestos Litigation 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. As of December 31, 2020, we recorded $129 and $721 within other accrued liabilities and other long-term liabilities, respectively, within our Consolidated Balance Sheet for estimated future claims. An insurance receivable of $129 and $721 was recorded within other current assets and other assets, net, respectively, within our Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2020 for estimated insurance recoveries. TCPA Litigation On October 9, 2019, plaintiff Mark Hoffman (“Hoffman”) filed a putative class action lawsuit against defendant Hearing Help Express, Inc. (“HHE”), a subsidiary of the Company, in the Federal District Court for the Western District of Washington based on specific provisions of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). HHE’s investigation revealed third-party lead generator Triangular Media Corp. (“Triangular”) provided Hoffman’s information to HHE only after he participated in Triangular’s interactive telephonic screening process. Hoffman claims he did not provide the requisite prior express written consent for autodialed telemarketing calls regarding hearing aids to be placed to his cellphone. He also claims he did not provide the requisite permission for telemarketing calls to his number registered on the Do-Not-Call (“DNC”) registry. Since the initial complaint was filed, Hoffman has amended his complaint several times to add additional parties, including Triangular, Triangular’s alleged owner, an alleged entity related to Triangular called LeadCreations.Com, LLC, Intricon, Inc., and Intricon Corporation. With respect to HHE, Hoffman seeks to certify a class of certain automated outbound telemarketing calls HHE allegedly made without prior consent, or to those numbers on the DNC registry, in the last four years. Hoffman also seeks to hold the Company vicariously liable for all of the calls HHE made without prior consent. The potential exposure under the TCPA is $500 per call, or $1,500 per call if the violation is deemed willful or knowing. The parties were engaged in discovery. However, the case is now stayed pending the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in another TCPA case – Duguid v. Facebook, No. 19-51 (argued Dec. 8, 2020) given the impact the Duguid opinion could have on this case. A ruling by the United States Supreme Court is expected this summer. The Company believes that HHE has strong legal and factual defenses in this proceeding. HHE and the Company intend to continue defending themselves vigorously in the pending lawsuit. While the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this proceeding, the Company believes that the ultimate outcome of this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, liquidity or results of operations. Other Litigation Matters The Company is also involved from time to time 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 the Company’s consolidated financial position, liquidity, or results of operations.

Contingencies And Commitments

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2020

Contingencies And Commitments [Abstract]

20. CONTINGENCIES AND COMMITMENTS

Asbestos Litigation

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. As of December 31, 2020, we recorded $129 and $721 within other accrued liabilities and other long-term liabilities, respectively, within our Consolidated Balance Sheet for estimated future claims. An insurance receivable of $129 and $721 was recorded within other current assets and other assets, net, respectively, within our Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2020 for estimated insurance recoveries.

TCPA Litigation

On October 9, 2019, plaintiff Mark Hoffman (“Hoffman”) filed a putative class action lawsuit against defendant Hearing Help Express, Inc. (“HHE”), a subsidiary of the Company, in the Federal District Court for the Western District of Washington based on specific provisions of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). HHE’s investigation revealed third-party lead generator Triangular Media Corp. (“Triangular”) provided Hoffman’s information to HHE only after he participated in Triangular’s interactive telephonic screening process. Hoffman claims he did not provide the requisite prior express written consent for autodialed telemarketing calls regarding hearing aids to be placed to his cellphone. He also claims he did not provide the requisite permission for telemarketing calls to his number registered on the Do-Not-Call (“DNC”) registry. Since the initial complaint was filed, Hoffman has amended his complaint several times to add additional parties, including Triangular, Triangular’s alleged owner, an alleged entity related to Triangular called LeadCreations.Com, LLC, Intricon, Inc., and Intricon Corporation. With respect to HHE, Hoffman seeks to certify a class of certain automated outbound telemarketing calls HHE allegedly made without prior consent, or to those numbers on the DNC registry, in the last four years. Hoffman also seeks to hold the Company vicariously liable for all of the calls HHE made without prior consent. The potential exposure under the TCPA is $500 per call, or $1,500 per call if the violation is deemed willful or knowing. The parties were engaged in discovery. However, the case is now stayed pending the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in another TCPA case – Duguid v. Facebook, No. 19-51 (argued Dec. 8, 2020) given the impact the Duguid opinion could have on this case. A ruling by the United States Supreme Court is expected this summer. The Company believes that HHE has strong legal and factual defenses in this proceeding. HHE and the Company intend to continue defending themselves vigorously in the pending lawsuit. While the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this proceeding, the Company believes that the ultimate outcome of this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, liquidity or results of operations.

Other Litigation Matters

The Company is also involved from time to time 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 the Company’s consolidated financial position, liquidity, or results of operations.