Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Litigation From time to time, the Company is involved in various legal proceedings and other matters arising in the normal course of business. Corrosion, hydrogen embrittlement, cracking, material hardness, wood pressure-treating chemicals, misinstallations, misuse, design and assembly flaws, manufacturing defects, labeling defects, product formula defects, inaccurate chemical mixes, adulteration, environmental conditions, or other factors can contribute to failure of fasteners, connectors, anchors, adhesives, specialty chemicals, such as fiber reinforced polymers, and tool products. In addition, inaccuracies may occur in product information, descriptions and instructions found in catalogs, packaging, data sheets, and the Company’s website. As of the date of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, the Company is not a party to any legal proceedings, which the Company expects individually or in the aggregate to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, cash flows or results of operations. Nonetheless, the resolution of any claim or litigation is subject to inherent uncertainty and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, cash flows or results of operations. Gentry Homes, Ltd.v. Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-cv-00566, was filed in federal district court in Hawaii against Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc. and Simpson Manufacturing, Inc. on November 20, 2017. The Gentry case is a product of a previous state court class action, Nishimura v. Gentry Homes, Ltd.,et al. which is now closed. The Nishimura case concerned alleged corrosion of the Company’s galvanized strap-tie holdowns and mudsill anchor products used in a residential project in Honolulu, Hawaii, Ewa by Gentry. In the Nishimura case, the plaintiff homeowners and the developer, Gentry, arbitrated their dispute and agreed on a settlement in the amount of $90 million, with $54 million going to repair costs and $36 million going to attorney fees. In the Gentry case, Gentry alleges breach of warranty and negligent misrepresentation related to the Company’s “hurricane strap” and mudsill anchor products. Gentry is demanding general, special, and consequential damages from the Company in an amount to be proven at trial. Gentry also seeks pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, and other relief. The Company admits no liability and will vigorously defend the claims bought against it. At this time, the Company cannot reasonably ascertain the likelihood that it will be found responsible for substantial damages to Gentry. Based on the facts currently known, and subject to future events and circumstances, the Company believes that all or part of the claims may be covered by its insurance policies. Potential Third-Party Claims Charles Vitale, et al. v. D.R. Horton, Inc. and D.R. Horton-Schuler Homes, LLC, Civil No. 15-1-1347-07, a putative class action lawsuit, was filed in the Hawaii First Circuit on July 13, 2015, in which homeowner plaintiffs allege that all homes built by D.R Horton/D.R. Horton-Schuler Homes (collectively "Horton Homes") in the State of Hawaii have strap-tie holdowns that are suffering premature corrosion. The complaint alleges that various manufacturers make strap-tie holdowns that suffer from such corrosion, but does not identify the Company’s products specifically. The Company is not currently a party to the Vitale lawsuit, but the lawsuit in the future could potentially involve the Company’s strap-tie holdowns. If claims are asserted against the Company in the Vitale case, it will vigorously defend any such claims, whether brought by the plaintiff homeowners, or third party claims by Horton Homes. Based on facts currently known to the Company and subject to future events and circumstances, the Company believes that all or part of any claims that any party might seek to allege against it related to the Vitale case may be covered by its insurance policies. Given the nature and the complexities involved in the Vitale proceeding the Company is unable to estimate reasonably a likelihood of possible loss or range of possible loss until the Company knows, among other factors, (i) whether it will be named in the lawsuit by any party; (ii) the specific claims and the legal theories on which they are based (iii) what claims, if any, might be dismissed without trial, (iv) the extent of the claims, including the size of any potential class, particularly as damages are not specified or are indeterminate, (v) how the discovery process will affect the litigation, (vi) the settlement posture of the other parties to the litigation, (vii) the extent to which the Company’s insurance policies will cover the claims or any part thereof, if at all, (viii) whether class treatment is appropriate; and (ix) any other factors that may have a material effect on the litigation. While it is not feasible to predict the outcome of proceedings to which the Company is not currently a party, or reasonably estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss for the Company related to such matters, in the opinion of the Company, either the likelihood of loss from such proceedings is remote or any reasonably possible loss associated with the resolution of such proceedings is not expected to be material to the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows either individually or in the aggregate. Nonetheless, the resolution of any claim or litigation is subject to inherent uncertainty and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, cash flows or results of operations.

Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation

From time to time, the Company is involved in various legal proceedings and other matters arising in the normal course of business. Corrosion, hydrogen embrittlement, cracking, material hardness, wood pressure-treating chemicals, misinstallations, misuse, design and assembly flaws, manufacturing defects, labeling defects, product formula defects, inaccurate chemical mixes, adulteration, environmental conditions, or other factors can contribute to failure of fasteners, connectors, anchors, adhesives, specialty chemicals, such as fiber reinforced polymers, and tool products. In addition, inaccuracies may occur in product information, descriptions and instructions found in catalogs, packaging, data sheets, and the Company’s website.

As of the date of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, the Company is not a party to any legal proceedings, which the Company expects individually or in the aggregate to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, cash flows or results of operations. Nonetheless, the resolution of any claim or litigation is subject to inherent uncertainty and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, cash flows or results of operations.

Gentry Homes, Ltd.v. Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-cv-00566, was filed in federal district court in Hawaii against Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc. and Simpson Manufacturing, Inc. on November 20, 2017. The Gentry case is a product of a previous state court class action, Nishimura v. Gentry Homes, Ltd.,et al. which is now closed. The Nishimura case concerned alleged corrosion of the Company’s galvanized strap-tie holdowns and mudsill anchor products used in a residential project in Honolulu, Hawaii, Ewa by Gentry. In the Nishimura case, the plaintiff homeowners and the developer, Gentry, arbitrated their dispute and agreed on a settlement in the amount of $90 million, with $54 million going to repair costs and $36 million going to attorney fees. In the Gentry case, Gentry alleges breach of warranty and negligent misrepresentation related to the Company’s “hurricane strap” and mudsill anchor products. Gentry is demanding general, special, and consequential damages from the Company in an amount to be proven at trial. Gentry also seeks pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, and other relief. The Company admits no liability and will vigorously defend the claims bought against it. At this time, the Company cannot reasonably ascertain the likelihood that it will be found responsible for substantial damages to Gentry. Based on the facts currently known, and subject to future events and circumstances, the Company believes that all or part of the claims may be covered by its insurance policies.

Potential Third-Party Claims

Charles Vitale, et al. v. D.R. Horton, Inc. and D.R. Horton-Schuler Homes, LLC, Civil No. 15-1-1347-07, a putative class action lawsuit, was filed in the Hawaii First Circuit on July 13, 2015, in which homeowner plaintiffs allege that all homes built by D.R Horton/D.R. Horton-Schuler Homes (collectively "Horton Homes") in the State of Hawaii have strap-tie holdowns that are suffering premature corrosion. The complaint alleges that various manufacturers make strap-tie holdowns that suffer from such corrosion, but does not identify the Company’s products specifically. The Company is not currently a party to the Vitale lawsuit, but the lawsuit in the future could potentially involve the Company’s strap-tie holdowns.

If claims are asserted against the Company in the Vitale case, it will vigorously defend any such claims, whether brought by the plaintiff homeowners, or third party claims by Horton Homes. Based on facts currently known to the Company and subject to future events and circumstances, the Company believes that all or part of any claims that any party might seek to allege against it related to the Vitale case may be covered by its insurance policies.

Given the nature and the complexities involved in the Vitale proceeding the Company is unable to estimate reasonably a likelihood of possible loss or range of possible loss until the Company knows, among other factors, (i) whether it will be named in the lawsuit by any party; (ii) the specific claims and the legal theories on which they are based (iii) what claims, if any, might be dismissed without trial, (iv) the extent of the claims, including the size of any potential class, particularly as damages are not specified or are indeterminate, (v) how the discovery process will affect the litigation, (vi) the settlement posture of the other parties to the litigation, (vii) the extent to which the Company’s insurance policies will cover the claims or any part thereof, if at all, (viii) whether class treatment is appropriate; and (ix) any other factors that may have a material effect on the litigation.

While it is not feasible to predict the outcome of proceedings to which the Company is not currently a party, or reasonably estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss for the Company related to such matters, in the opinion of the Company, either the likelihood of loss from such proceedings is remote or any reasonably possible loss associated with the resolution of such proceedings is not expected to be material to the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows either individually or in the aggregate. Nonetheless, the resolution of any claim or litigation is subject to inherent uncertainty and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, cash flows or results of operations.