Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	10. Commitments and Contingencies In the ordinary course of business, the Company is subject to a broad range of claims and legal proceedings that relate to contractual allegations, product liability, tax audits, patent infringement, employment-related matters and environmental matters. The Company establishes accruals for matters which are probable and reasonably estimable. Although it is not possible to predict with certainty the outcome of these matters, the Company is of the opinion that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated results of operations or financial position. As a result of environmental studies performed at the Company’s former facility located in Sarasota, Florida, the Company became aware of soil and groundwater contamination at this site. The Company engaged an environmental engineering consultant to assess the level of contamination and to develop a remediation and monitoring plan for the site. Soil remediation at the site was completed during the year ended December 31, 2010. As the remedial action plan has been approved by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, ground water remediation began in the fourth quarter of 2015. During the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, environmental remediation costs incurred were immaterial. At December 31, 2016 and 2015, the Company had accrued an undiscounted liability of $446 and $532, respectively, related to future remediation. At December 31, 2016 and 2015, $370 and $469, respectively, were recorded as a component of accrued expenses and other current liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets while the remaining amounts were recorded as a component of other long-term liabilities. A majority of the costs associated with the recorded liability are being incurred during the groundwater remediation, with the balance relating to monitoring costs to be incurred over multiple years. The recorded liability is based on assumptions in the remedial action plan. Although the Company sold the Sarasota facility in December 2011, the liability to remediate the site contamination remains the responsibility of the Company. Due to the ongoing site remediation, the closing terms of the sale agreement included a requirement for the Company to maintain a $2,000 letter of credit for the benefit of the buyer. The Company has a legal proceeding, Verde v. Stoneridge, Inc. et al., currently pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Cause No. 6:14-cv-00225- KNM. The plaintiff filed this putative class action against the Company and others on March 26, 2014. Plaintiff alleges that the Company was involved in the vertical chain of manufacture, distribution, and sale of a control device (“CD”) that was incorporated into a Dodge Ram truck purchased by Plaintiff in 2006. Plaintiff alleges that the Company breached express warranties and indemnification provisions by supplying a defective CD that was not capable of performing its intended function. The putative class consists of all Texas residents who own manual transmission Chrysler vehicles model years 1997–2007 equipped with the subject CD. Plaintiff seeks recovery of economic loss damages incurred by him and the putative class members associated with inspecting and replacing the allegedly defective CD, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiff filed his motion for class certification seeking to certify a class of Texas residents who own or lease certain automobiles sold by Chrysler from 1997–2007. Plaintiff alleges this putative class would include approximately 120,000 people. In the motion for class certification, the Plaintiff states that damages are no more than $1 per person. A hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for class certification was held on November 16, 2015. On April 8, 2016, the Magistrate Judge granted the Company’s motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s indemnification claim; that ruling was later adopted by the United States District Court. On November 7, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation Concerning Class certification, in which she recommended denying Plaintiff’s motion for class certification. Plaintiff filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation and motion for reconsideration concerning class certification. The Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation, and plaintiff’s objection and motion for reconsideration are currently before the court pending a ruling from the District Judge. The Company believes the likelihood of loss is not probable or reasonably estimable, and therefore no liability has been recorded for these claims at December 31, 2016. Royal v. Stoneridge, Inc. et al. is another legal proceeding currently pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, Cause No. 5:14-cv-01410-F. Plaintiffs filed this putative class action against the Company, Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc., and others on December 19, 2014. Plaintiff alleges that the Company was involved in the vertical chain of manufacture, distribution, and sale of a CD that was incorporated into Dodge Ram trucks purchased by Plaintiff between 1999 and 2006. Plaintiffs allege that the Company and Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc. breached various express and implied warranties, including the implied warranty of merchantability. Plaintiffs also seek indemnity from the Company and Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc. The putative class consists of all owners of vehicles equipped with the subject CD, which includes various Dodge Ram trucks and other manual transmission vehicles manufactured from 1997–2007, which Plaintiffs allege is more than one million vehicles. Plaintiffs seeks recovery of economic loss damages associated with inspecting and replacing the allegedly defective CD, diminished value of the subject CDs and the trucks in which they were installed, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The amount of compensatory or other damages sought by Plaintiffs and the putative class members is unknown. The Company is vigorously defending itself against these allegations, and has and will continue to challenge the claims as well as class action certification. The Company believes the likelihood of loss is not probable or reasonably estimable, and therefore no liability has been recorded for these claims at December 31, 2016. In September 2013, two legal proceedings were initiated by Actia Automotive (“Actia”) in a French court (the tribunal de grande instance de Paris) alleging infringement of its patents by the Company’s Electronics segment. The euro (“€”) and U.S. dollar equivalent (“$”) that Actia was seeking has been €7,000 ($7,400) for each claim for injunctive relief and monetary damages resulting from such alleged infringement. The Company believed that its products did not infringe on any of the patents claimed by Actia, and the claims were without merit. The Company vigorously defended itself against these allegations, and challenged certain Actia patents in the European Patent Office. In September 2015, the French court ruled in favor of the Company on one claim, which is subject to appeal by Actia. However, on July 28, 2016 the Company reached a settlement with Actia with regard to both claims. Under the settlement agreement the Company agreed to forego a payment by Actia of €50 ($56) that had been ordered by the French Court and Actia agreed (i) not to appeal the French court’s ruling against it on the first claim and (ii) to dismiss its infringement claims against the Company with respect to the second claim. Under the settlement Actia agreed not to enforce any of the patents in question against the Company, or the Company’s successors and assigns. As a result this matter has been settled and no liability has been recorded for these claims at December 31, 2016. On May 24, 2013, the State Revenue Services of São Paulo issued a tax deficiency notice against PST claiming that the vehicle tracking and monitoring services it provides should be classified as communication services, and therefore subject to the State Value Added Tax – ICMS. The State Revenue Services assessment imposed the 25.0% ICMS tax on all revenues of PST related to the vehicle tracking and monitoring services during the period from January 2009 through December 2010. The Brazilian real (“R$”) and U.S. dollar equivalent (“$”) of the aggregate tax assessment is approximately R$92,500 ($28,400) which is comprised of Value Added Tax – ICMS of R$13,200 ($4,100), interest of R$11,400 ($3,500) and penalties of R$67,900 ($20,800). The Company believes that the vehicle tracking and monitoring services are non-communication services, as defined under Brazilian tax law, subject to the municipal ISS tax, not communication services subject to state ICMS tax as claimed by the State Revenue Services of São Paulo. PST has, and will continue to collect the municipal ISS tax on the vehicle tracking and monitoring services in compliance with Brazilian tax law and will defend its tax position. PST has received a legal opinion that the merits of the case are favorable to PST, determining among other things that the imposition on the subsidiary of the State ICMS by the State Revenue Services of São Paulo is not in accordance with the Brazilian tax code. Management believes, based on the legal opinion of the Company’s Brazilian legal counsel and the results of the Brazil Administrative Court's ruling in favor of another vehicle tracking and monitoring company related to the tax deficiency notice it received, the likelihood of loss is not probable although it may take years to resolve. As a result of the above, as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, no accrual has been recorded with respect to this tax assessment. An unfavorable judgment on this issue for the years assessed and for subsequent years could result in significant costs to PST and adversely affect its results of operations. There have been no significant changes to the facts and circumstances related to this notice for the year ended December 31, 2016. In addition, PST has civil, labor and other non-income tax contingencies for which the likelihood of loss is deemed to be reasonably possible, but not probable, by the Company’s legal advisors in Brazil. As a result, no provision has been recorded with respect to these contingencies, which amounted to R$31,800 ($9,800) and R$25,400 ($6,500) at December, 2016 and 2015, respectively. An unfavorable outcome on these contingencies could result in significant cost to PST and adversely affect its results of operations.

10. Commitments and Contingencies

In the ordinary course of business, the Company is subject to a broad range of claims and legal proceedings that relate to contractual allegations, product liability, tax audits, patent infringement, employment-related matters and environmental matters. The Company establishes accruals for matters which are probable and reasonably estimable. Although it is not possible to predict with certainty the outcome of these matters, the Company is of the opinion that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated results of operations or financial position.

As a result of environmental studies performed at the Company’s former facility located in Sarasota, Florida, the Company became aware of soil and groundwater contamination at this site. The Company engaged an environmental engineering consultant to assess the level of contamination and to develop a remediation and monitoring plan for the site. Soil remediation at the site was completed during the year ended December 31, 2010. As the remedial action plan has been approved by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, ground water remediation began in the fourth quarter of 2015. During the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, environmental remediation costs incurred were immaterial. At December 31, 2016 and 2015, the Company had accrued an undiscounted liability of $446 and $532, respectively, related to future remediation. At December 31, 2016 and 2015, $370 and $469, respectively, were recorded as a component of accrued expenses and other current liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets while the remaining amounts were recorded as a component of other long-term liabilities. A majority of the costs associated with the recorded liability are being incurred during the groundwater remediation, with the balance relating to monitoring costs to be incurred over multiple years. The recorded liability is based on assumptions in the remedial action plan. Although the Company sold the Sarasota facility in December 2011, the liability to remediate the site contamination remains the responsibility of the Company. Due to the ongoing site remediation, the closing terms of the sale agreement included a requirement for the Company to maintain a $2,000 letter of credit for the benefit of the buyer.

The Company has a legal proceeding, Verde v. Stoneridge, Inc. et al., currently pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Cause No. 6:14-cv-00225- KNM. The plaintiff filed this putative class action against the Company and others on March 26, 2014. Plaintiff alleges that the Company was involved in the vertical chain of manufacture, distribution, and sale of a control device (“CD”) that was incorporated into a Dodge Ram truck purchased by Plaintiff in 2006. Plaintiff alleges that the Company breached express warranties and indemnification provisions by supplying a defective CD that was not capable of performing its intended function. The putative class consists of all Texas residents who own manual transmission Chrysler vehicles model years 1997–2007 equipped with the subject CD. Plaintiff seeks recovery of economic loss damages incurred by him and the putative class members associated with inspecting and replacing the allegedly defective CD, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiff filed his motion for class certification seeking to certify a class of Texas residents who own or lease certain automobiles sold by Chrysler from 1997–2007. Plaintiff alleges this putative class would include approximately 120,000 people. In the motion for class certification, the Plaintiff states that damages are no more than $1 per person. A hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for class certification was held on November 16, 2015. On April 8, 2016, the Magistrate Judge granted the Company’s motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s indemnification claim; that ruling was later adopted by the United States District Court. On November 7, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation Concerning Class certification, in which she recommended denying Plaintiff’s motion for class certification. Plaintiff filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation and motion for reconsideration concerning class certification. The Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation, and plaintiff’s objection and motion for reconsideration are currently before the court pending a ruling from the District Judge. The Company believes the likelihood of loss is not probable or reasonably estimable, and therefore no liability has been recorded for these claims at December 31, 2016.

Royal v. Stoneridge, Inc. et al. is another legal proceeding currently pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, Cause No. 5:14-cv-01410-F. Plaintiffs filed this putative class action against the Company, Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc., and others on December 19, 2014. Plaintiff alleges that the Company was involved in the vertical chain of manufacture, distribution, and sale of a CD that was incorporated into Dodge Ram trucks purchased by Plaintiff between 1999 and 2006. Plaintiffs allege that the Company and Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc. breached various express and implied warranties, including the implied warranty of merchantability. Plaintiffs also seek indemnity from the Company and Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc. The putative class consists of all owners of vehicles equipped with the subject CD, which includes various Dodge Ram trucks and other manual transmission vehicles manufactured from 1997–2007, which Plaintiffs allege is more than one million vehicles. Plaintiffs seeks recovery of economic loss damages associated with inspecting and replacing the allegedly defective CD, diminished value of the subject CDs and the trucks in which they were installed, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The amount of compensatory or other damages sought by Plaintiffs and the putative class members is unknown. The Company is vigorously defending itself against these allegations, and has and will continue to challenge the claims as well as class action certification. The Company believes the likelihood of loss is not probable or reasonably estimable, and therefore no liability has been recorded for these claims at December 31, 2016.

In September 2013, two legal proceedings were initiated by Actia Automotive (“Actia”) in a French court (the tribunal de grande instance de Paris) alleging infringement of its patents by the Company’s Electronics segment. The euro (“€”) and U.S. dollar equivalent (“$”) that Actia was seeking has been €7,000 ($7,400) for each claim for injunctive relief and monetary damages resulting from such alleged infringement. The Company believed that its products did not infringe on any of the patents claimed by Actia, and the claims were without merit. The Company vigorously defended itself against these allegations, and challenged certain Actia patents in the European Patent Office. In September 2015, the French court ruled in favor of the Company on one claim, which is subject to appeal by Actia. However, on July 28, 2016 the Company reached a settlement with Actia with regard to both claims. Under the settlement agreement the Company agreed to forego a payment by Actia of €50 ($56) that had been ordered by the French Court and Actia agreed (i) not to appeal the French court’s ruling against it on the first claim and (ii) to dismiss its infringement claims against the Company with respect to the second claim. Under the settlement Actia agreed not to enforce any of the patents in question against the Company, or the Company’s successors and assigns. As a result this matter has been settled and no liability has been recorded for these claims at December 31, 2016.

On May 24, 2013, the State Revenue Services of São Paulo issued a tax deficiency notice against PST claiming that the vehicle tracking and monitoring services it provides should be classified as communication services, and therefore subject to the State Value Added Tax – ICMS. The State Revenue Services assessment imposed the 25.0% ICMS tax on all revenues of PST related to the vehicle tracking and monitoring services during the period from January 2009 through December 2010. The Brazilian real (“R$”) and U.S. dollar equivalent (“$”) of the aggregate tax assessment is approximately R$92,500 ($28,400) which is comprised of Value Added Tax – ICMS of R$13,200 ($4,100), interest of R$11,400 ($3,500) and penalties of R$67,900 ($20,800).

The Company believes that the vehicle tracking and monitoring services are non-communication services, as defined under Brazilian tax law, subject to the municipal ISS tax, not communication services subject to state ICMS tax as claimed by the State Revenue Services of São Paulo. PST has, and will continue to collect the municipal ISS tax on the vehicle tracking and monitoring services in compliance with Brazilian tax law and will defend its tax position. PST has received a legal opinion that the merits of the case are favorable to PST, determining among other things that the imposition on the subsidiary of the State ICMS by the State Revenue Services of São Paulo is not in accordance with the Brazilian tax code. Management believes, based on the legal opinion of the Company’s Brazilian legal counsel and the results of the Brazil Administrative Court's ruling in favor of another vehicle tracking and monitoring company related to the tax deficiency notice it received, the likelihood of loss is not probable although it may take years to resolve. As a result of the above, as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, no accrual has been recorded with respect to this tax assessment. An unfavorable judgment on this issue for the years assessed and for subsequent years could result in significant costs to PST and adversely affect its results of operations. There have been no significant changes to the facts and circumstances related to this notice for the year ended December 31, 2016.

In addition, PST has civil, labor and other non-income tax contingencies for which the likelihood of loss is deemed to be reasonably possible, but not probable, by the Company’s legal advisors in Brazil. As a result, no provision has been recorded with respect to these contingencies, which amounted to R$31,800 ($9,800) and R$25,400 ($6,500) at December, 2016 and 2015, respectively. An unfavorable outcome on these contingencies could result in significant cost to PST and adversely affect its results of operations.