Legal Proceedings	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2011
Legal Proceedings and Commitments [Abstract]
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	NOTE 15 — LEGAL PROCEEDINGS The Company is subject to various claims, other pending and possible legal actions for product liability and other damages, and other matters arising out of the conduct of the Company’s business. The Company believes, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that the outcome of such claims and actions will not have an adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations. However, in the event of unexpected future developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of such matters, if unfavorable, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations. The Company has been sued by firefighters seeking damages claiming that exposure to the Company’s sirens has impaired their hearing and that the sirens are therefore defective. There were 33 cases filed during the period 1999-2004, involving a total of 2,443 plaintiffs, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. These cases involved more than 1,800 firefighter plaintiffs from locations outside of Chicago. Beginning in 2009, six additional cases were filed in Cook County, involving 299 Pennsylvania firefighter plaintiffs. The trial of the first 27 of these plaintiffs’ claims occurred in 2008, when a Cook County jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the Company. An additional 40 Chicago firefighter plaintiffs were selected for trial in 2009. Plaintiffs’ counsel later moved to reduce the number of plaintiffs from 40 to 9. The trial for these nine plaintiffs concluded with a verdict returned against the Company and for the plaintiffs in varying amounts totaling $0.4 million. The Company is appealing this verdict. A third consolidated trial involving 8 Chicago firefighter plaintiffs occurred during November 2011. The jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the Company at the conclusion of this trial. Following this last trial, the Court advised the parties that it was considering the possibility of a bifurcated class action trial in which it would consolidate claims of all Chicago Fire Department firefighters and conduct a trial on the issue of whether the Company’s sirens are defective and unreasonably dangerous. On March 12, 2012, after considering briefs and argument submitted by the parties, the Court entered an order certifying a class of the remaining Chicago firefighter plaintiffs for trial on certain issues, including whether Federal Signal sirens were defective and unreasonably dangerous. The Court has scheduled this trial for September 4, 2012. The Company is considering an appeal of this ruling. The Company has also been sued on this issue outside of the Cook County, Illinois venue. Most of these cases have involved lawsuits filed by a single attorney in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. Since September 2007, this attorney filed a total of 71 lawsuits, involving 71 plaintiffs in this jurisdiction. Three of these cases have been dismissed pursuant to pretrial motions filed by the Company. Another case has been voluntarily dismissed. Prior to trial in four cases, the Company paid nominal sums, which included reimbursements of expenses, to obtain dismissals. Three trials have occurred in Philadelphia involving these cases. The first trial involving one of these plaintiffs occurred in 2010, when the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. In particular, the jury found that the Company’s siren was not defectively designed, but that the Company negligently constructed the siren. The jury awarded damages in the amount of $0.1 million, which was subsequently reduced to $0.08 million. The Company appealed this verdict. Another trial, involving 9 Philadelphia firefighter plaintiffs, also occurred in 2010 when the jury returned a defense verdict for the Company as to all claims and all plaintiffs involved in that trial. The third trial, involving 9 Philadelphia firefighter plaintiffs, was completed during 2010 when the jury returned a defense verdict for the Company as to all claims and all plaintiffs involved in that trial. Following defense verdicts in the last two Philadelphia trials, the Company negotiated settlements with respect to all remaining filed cases in Philadelphia as well as other firefighter claimants represented by the attorney who filed the Philadelphia cases. On January 4, 2011, the Company entered into a Global Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) with the law firm of the attorney representing the Philadelphia claimants, on behalf of 1,125 claimants the firm represents (the “Claimants”) and who have asserted product claims against the Company (the “Claims”). Three hundred and eight of these claimants have lawsuits pending against the Company in Cook County, Illinois. The Settlement Agreement, as amended, provided that the Company pay (the “Settlement Payment”) a total amount of $3.8 million to settle the Claims (including the costs, fees and other expenses of the law firm in connection with its representation of the claimants), subject to certain terms, conditions and procedures set forth in the Settlement Agreement. In order for the Company to be required to make the Settlement Payment: (i) each claimant who agreed to settle his or her claims must sign a release acceptable to the Company (a “Release”); (ii) each Claimant who agreed to the settlement and who was a plaintiff in a lawsuit, must dismiss his or her lawsuit, with prejudice; (iii) by April 29, 2011, at least 93% of the claimants identified in Appendix A to the Settlement Agreement must have agreed to settle their claims and provided a signed Release to the Company; and (iv) the law firm shall have withdrawn from representing any claimants who did not agree to the settlement, including those who filed lawsuits. If the conditions to the settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement were met, but less than 100% of the Claimants have agreed to settle their Claims and sign a Release, the Settlement Payment will be reduced by the percentage of Claimants who do not agree to the settlement. On April 22, 2011, the Company confirmed that the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement had been met and made a payment of $3.6 million to conclude the settlement. The amount was based upon the Company’s receipt of 1,069 signed releases provided by claimants, which was 95.02% of all claimants identified in the Settlement Agreement. The Company generally denies the allegations made in the claims and lawsuits and denies that its products caused any injuries to the claimants. Nonetheless, to avoid the expense and uncertainty of further litigation, the Company has entered into the Settlement Agreement for the purpose of minimizing its expenses, including legal fees, and the inconvenience and distraction of the claims and lawsuits. Firefighters have brought hearing loss claims against the Company in jurisdictions other than Philadelphia and Cook County. In particular, cases have been filed in New Jersey, Missouri, Maryland, and New York. All of those cases, however were dismissed prior to trial, including four cases in the Supreme Court of Kings County, New York which were dismissed upon the Company’s motion in 2008. The trail court subsequently denied reconsideration of its ruling. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of these cases. Plaintiffs’ attorneys have threatened to file additional lawsuits. The Company intends to vigorously defend all of these lawsuits. Federal Signal’s ongoing negotiations with CNA over insurance coverage on these claims have resulted in reimbursements of a portion of the Company’s defense costs. In the year ended December 31, 2011, the Company recorded $0.8 million of reimbursements from CNA as a reduction of corporate operating expenses of which $0.8 million has been received as of December 31, 2011. In the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, the Company recorded $0.6 million and $0.7 million, respectively, of CNA reimbursements. On July 29, 2011, Neology, Inc. filed a complaint against the Company for alleged patent infringements in the U.S. District Court of Delaware. The lawsuit demands that the Company cease manufacturing, marketing, importing or selling Radio Frequency Identification systems and products that infringe certain specified patents owned by Neology, and also demands compensation for past alleged infringement. On December 2, 2011, Neology filed a motion for preliminary injunction, requesting that the court enter an order preliminarily enjoining the Company from further alleged infringement of certain Neology patents. The court has scheduled a hearing on the motion on May 1, 2012. The Company has denied the allegations in the complaint and the motion for preliminary injunction and intends to vigorously defend itself in this litigation.

Legal Proceedings

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2011

Legal Proceedings and Commitments [Abstract]

NOTE 15 — LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

The Company is subject to various claims, other pending and possible legal actions for product liability and other damages, and other matters arising out of the conduct of the Company’s business. The Company believes, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that the outcome of such claims and actions will not have an adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations. However, in the event of unexpected future developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of such matters, if unfavorable, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations.

The Company has been sued by firefighters seeking damages claiming that exposure to the Company’s sirens has impaired their hearing and that the sirens are therefore defective. There were 33 cases filed during the period 1999-2004, involving a total of 2,443 plaintiffs, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. These cases involved more than 1,800 firefighter plaintiffs from locations outside of Chicago. Beginning in 2009, six additional cases were filed in Cook County, involving 299 Pennsylvania firefighter plaintiffs. The trial of the first 27 of these plaintiffs’ claims occurred in 2008, when a Cook County jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the Company. An additional 40 Chicago firefighter plaintiffs were selected for trial in 2009. Plaintiffs’ counsel later moved to reduce the number of plaintiffs from 40 to 9. The trial for these nine plaintiffs concluded with a verdict returned against the Company and for the plaintiffs in varying amounts totaling $0.4 million. The Company is appealing this verdict. A third consolidated trial involving 8 Chicago firefighter plaintiffs occurred during November 2011. The jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the Company at the conclusion of this trial. Following this last trial, the Court advised the parties that it was considering the possibility of a bifurcated class action trial in which it would consolidate claims of all Chicago Fire Department firefighters and conduct a trial on the issue of whether the Company’s sirens are defective and unreasonably dangerous. On March 12, 2012, after considering briefs and argument submitted by the parties, the Court entered an order certifying a class of the remaining Chicago firefighter plaintiffs for trial on certain issues, including whether Federal Signal sirens were defective and unreasonably dangerous. The Court has scheduled this trial for September 4, 2012. The Company is considering an appeal of this ruling.

The Company has also been sued on this issue outside of the Cook County, Illinois venue. Most of these cases have involved lawsuits filed by a single attorney in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. Since September 2007, this attorney filed a total of 71 lawsuits, involving 71 plaintiffs in this jurisdiction. Three of these cases have been dismissed pursuant to pretrial motions filed by the Company. Another case has been voluntarily dismissed. Prior to trial in four cases, the Company paid nominal sums, which included reimbursements of expenses, to obtain dismissals. Three trials have occurred in Philadelphia involving these cases. The first trial involving one of these plaintiffs occurred in 2010, when the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. In particular, the jury found that the Company’s siren was not defectively designed, but that the Company negligently constructed the siren. The jury awarded damages in the amount of $0.1 million, which was subsequently reduced to $0.08 million. The Company appealed this verdict. Another trial, involving 9 Philadelphia firefighter plaintiffs, also occurred in 2010 when the jury returned a defense verdict for the Company as to all claims and all plaintiffs involved in that trial. The third trial, involving 9 Philadelphia firefighter plaintiffs, was completed during 2010 when the jury returned a defense verdict for the Company as to all claims and all plaintiffs involved in that trial.

Following defense verdicts in the last two Philadelphia trials, the Company negotiated settlements with respect to all remaining filed cases in Philadelphia as well as other firefighter claimants represented by the attorney who filed the Philadelphia cases. On January 4, 2011, the Company entered into a Global Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) with the law firm of the attorney representing the Philadelphia claimants, on behalf of 1,125 claimants the firm represents (the “Claimants”) and who have asserted product claims against the Company (the “Claims”). Three hundred and eight of these claimants have lawsuits pending against the Company in Cook County, Illinois.

The Settlement Agreement, as amended, provided that the Company pay (the “Settlement Payment”) a total amount of $3.8 million to settle the Claims (including the costs, fees and other expenses of the law firm in connection with its representation of the claimants), subject to certain terms, conditions and procedures set forth in the Settlement Agreement. In order for the Company to be required to make the Settlement Payment: (i) each claimant who agreed to settle his or her claims must sign a release acceptable to the Company (a “Release”); (ii) each Claimant who agreed to the settlement and who was a plaintiff in a lawsuit, must dismiss his or her lawsuit, with prejudice; (iii) by April 29, 2011, at least 93% of the claimants identified in Appendix A to the Settlement Agreement must have agreed to settle their claims and provided a signed Release to the Company; and (iv) the law firm shall have withdrawn from representing any claimants who did not agree to the settlement, including those who filed lawsuits. If the conditions to the settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement were met, but less than 100% of the Claimants have agreed to settle their Claims and sign a Release, the Settlement Payment will be reduced by the percentage of Claimants who do not agree to the settlement.

On April 22, 2011, the Company confirmed that the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement had been met and made a payment of $3.6 million to conclude the settlement. The amount was based upon the Company’s receipt of 1,069 signed releases provided by claimants, which was 95.02% of all claimants identified in the Settlement Agreement.

The Company generally denies the allegations made in the claims and lawsuits and denies that its products caused any injuries to the claimants. Nonetheless, to avoid the expense and uncertainty of further litigation, the Company has entered into the Settlement Agreement for the purpose of minimizing its expenses, including legal fees, and the inconvenience and distraction of the claims and lawsuits.

Firefighters have brought hearing loss claims against the Company in jurisdictions other than Philadelphia and Cook County. In particular, cases have been filed in New Jersey, Missouri, Maryland, and New York. All of those cases, however were dismissed prior to trial, including four cases in the Supreme Court of Kings County, New York which were dismissed upon the Company’s motion in 2008. The trail court subsequently denied reconsideration of its ruling. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of these cases. Plaintiffs’ attorneys have threatened to file additional lawsuits. The Company intends to vigorously defend all of these lawsuits.

Federal Signal’s ongoing negotiations with CNA over insurance coverage on these claims have resulted in reimbursements of a portion of the Company’s defense costs. In the year ended December 31, 2011, the Company recorded $0.8 million of reimbursements from CNA as a reduction of corporate operating expenses of which $0.8 million has been received as of December 31, 2011. In the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, the Company recorded $0.6 million and $0.7 million, respectively, of CNA reimbursements.

On July 29, 2011, Neology, Inc. filed a complaint against the Company for alleged patent infringements in the U.S. District Court of Delaware. The lawsuit demands that the Company cease manufacturing, marketing, importing or selling Radio Frequency Identification systems and products that infringe certain specified patents owned by Neology, and also demands compensation for past alleged infringement. On December 2, 2011, Neology filed a motion for preliminary injunction, requesting that the court enter an order preliminarily enjoining the Company from further alleged infringement of certain Neology patents. The court has scheduled a hearing on the motion on May 1, 2012. The Company has denied the allegations in the complaint and the motion for preliminary injunction and intends to vigorously defend itself in this litigation.