Legal Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Legal Contingencies	Mar. 31, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Contingencies	LEGAL CONTINGENCIES Halbreiner Matter On December 16, 2016, Elizabeth Halbreiner and Robert Halbreiner (“Plaintiffs”) filed a Second Amended Complaint captioned Elizabeth Halbreiner and Robert Halbreiner, v. Customers Bank, Robert B.White, Richard A. Ehst, Thomas Jastrem, Timothy D. Romig, Andrew Bowman, Michael Fuoco, Saldutti Law Group f/k/a Saldutti, LLC a/k/a Saldutti Law, LLC, Robert L. Saldutti, LLC, Robert L. Saldutti, Esquire, Brian J. Schaffer, Esquire, Robert Lieber, Jr., Esquire, Jay Sidhu, James Zardecki, Zardecki Associates LLC, No. 01419 in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia, Trial Division. In this Second Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs generally allege that Customers Bank, and the other named defendants, conspired to misuse the legal system for improper purposes and it also alleges defamation, false light, tortious interference with contractual relations, infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress and loss of consortium. On January 6, 2017, Customers Bank filed Preliminary Objections to the Complaint seeking dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claims against Customers Bank and the employees of Customers Bank named as co-defendants. On April 6, 2017, the Court dismissed certain counts and determined to allow certain other counts to proceed. Customers Bank intends to vigorously defend itself against these allegations but is currently unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss. Lifestyle Healthcare Group, Inc. Matter On January 9, 2017, Lifestyle Healthcare Group, Inc., et al (“Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint captioned Lifestyle Healthcare Group, Inc.; Fred Rappaport; Victoria Rappaport; Lifestyle Management Group, LLC Trading as Lifestyle Real Estate I, LP; Lifestyle Real Estate I GP, LLC; Daniel Muck; Lifestyle Management Group, LLC; Lifestyle Management Group, LLC Trading as Lifestyle I, LP D/B/A Lifestyle Medspa, Plaintiffs v. Customers Bank, Robert White; Saldutti Law, LLC a/k/a Saldutti Law Group; Robert L. Saldutti, Esquire; and Michael Fuoco, Civil Action No. 01206, in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia. In this Complaint, which is related to the Halbreiner Matter described above, the Plaintiffs generally allege wrongful use of civil proceedings and abuse of process in connection with a case filed and later dismissed in federal court, titled, Customers Bank v. Fred Rappaport, et al., U.S.D.C.E.D. Pa., No. 15-6145. On January 30, 2017, Customers Bank filed Preliminary Objections to the Complaint seeking dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against Customers Bank and Robert White, named as co-defendants. In response to the Preliminary Objections, Lifestyle filed an Amended Complaint against Customers Bank and Robert White. Customers Bank has filed Preliminary Objections to the Second Amended Complaint seeking dismissal of Plaintiff's claim against Customers Bank and Robert White, named as co-defendants. The Court has dismissed certain counts and determined to allow certain other counts to proceed. Customers Bank intends to vigorously defend itself against these allegations but is currently unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss. United States Department of Education Matter In third quarter 2018, Customers received a FPRD letter dated September 5, 2018 from the DOE regarding a focused program review of Higher One's/Customers Bank's administration, as a third party servicer, of the programs authorized pursuant to Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965. The DOE program review covered the award years beginning in 2013 through the FPRD issuance date, including the time period when Higher One was acting as the third party servicer prior to Customers' acquisition of the Disbursement business on June 15, 2016. The FPRD determined that, with respect to students enrolled at specified partner institutions, Higher One/Customers did not provide convenient fee-free access to ATMs or bank branch offices in such locations as required by the DOE’s cash management regulations. Those regulations, which were in effect during the period covered by the program review and were revised during that period, seek, among other purposes, to ensure that students can make fee-free cash withdrawals. The FPRD determined that students incurred prohibited costs in accessing Title IV credit balance funds, and the FPRD classifies those costs as financial liabilities of Customers. The FPRD also requires Customers to take prospective action to increase ATM access for students at certain of its partner institutions. Customers disagrees with the FPRD and has elected to appeal the FPRD, including the asserted financial liabilities of $6.5 million, and a request for review has been submitted to trigger an administrative process before the DOE’s Office of Hearing and Appeals. Customers intends to vigorously defend itself against the financial liabilities established in the FPRD through that administrative appeals process and it further intends to pursue resolution of the FPRD’s prospective action requirements during the appeals resolution process. The matter is in its early stages. Customers is currently unable to predict the outcome of the appeal and resolution efforts, and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss. Customers does not believe that this matter will have a material effect on the consolidated financial statements.