Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2017
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 it believes that losses are probable and can be reasonably estimated. 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. Upon approval of the remedial action plan by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, ground water remediation began in the fourth quarter of 2015. During the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, environmental remediation costs incurred were immaterial. At December 31, 2017 and 2016, the Company had accrued an undiscounted liability of $265 and $446, respectively, related to future remediation costs. At December 31, 2017 and 2016, $253 and $370, 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. Costs associated with the recorded liability will be incurred to complete 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. During the third quarter of 2017, the Company resolved a legal proceeding, Verde v. Stoneridge, Inc. et al., that was 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. The Plaintiff had alleged 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 the Plaintiff in 2006. The Plaintiff had alleged that the Company breached express warranties and indemnification provisions by supplying a defective CD that was not capable of performing its intended function. In May 2017, the District Court denied the Plaintiff’s motion for class certification. On October 2, 2017, the Company and Plaintiff agreed to settle this matter, and the proceeding was dismissed with prejudice on November 17, 2017. The settlement amount was $3. Royal v. Stoneridge, Inc. et al. is a legal proceeding currently pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, Case No. 5:14-cv-01410-F. The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action against the Company, Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc., and others on December 19, 2014. The Plaintiffs allege 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 the Plaintiffs between 1999 and 2006. The Plaintiffs allege that the Company and Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc. breached various express and implied warranties, including the implied warranty of merchantability. The 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. The Plaintiffs seek 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. On September 28, 2017, the Company reached an agreement with the Plaintiffs to settle the matter. On January 30, 2018, the Court approved the settlement and entered a final order and judgment consistent with the terms of the settlement agreement. Under the terms of the settlement, the Company will provide a replacement CD to each member of the settlement class who files a claim form with evidence of eligibility to participate. The terms of the settlement do not require the Company to provide members of the settlement class with any cash payments or to reimburse any installation costs associated with replacement of the CDs. Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the settlement class filed a motion with the Court requesting an award of attorneys’ fees and costs in an amount not to exceed $375, and the Company has agreed not to object to any request that does not exceed $375 and to pay the amount of any award that does not exceed $375. Counsel for Plaintiffs and the settlement class filed a motion requesting incentive payments to each of the three named Plaintiffs in an amount not to exceed $5 each, and the Company has agreed not to object to any request that does not exceed $15 total and to pay the amount of any award that does not exceed $15 total. The total cost of the settlement remains uncertain because it is difficult to predict how many members of the proposed settlement class will request a replacement CD. The Company believes the likelihood of loss is probable and reasonably estimable (although not certain), and therefore a liability of $525 for these claims has been recorded as a component of accrued expenses and other current liabilities at December 31, 2017. On May 24, 2013, the State Revenue Services of São Paulo issued a tax deficiency notice against PST claiming that the vehicle tracking and monitoring services it provides should be classified as communication services, and therefore subject to the State Value Added Tax – ICMS. The State Revenue Services assessment imposed the 25.0% ICMS tax on all revenues of PST related to the vehicle tracking and monitoring services during the period from January 2009 through December 2010. The Brazilian real (“R$”) and U.S. dollar equivalent (“$”) of the aggregate tax assessment is approximately R$99,300 ($30,000) at December 31, 2017 which is comprised of Value Added Tax – ICMS of R$13,200 ($4,000), interest of R$74,700 ($22,600) and penalties of R$11,400 ($3,400). 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. The Company believes, based on the legal opinion of the Company’s Brazilian legal counsel, the Brazil Administrative Court’s final ruling on February 27, 2018 in PST’s favor for the period from January 2009 through December 2010, and the results of the Brazilian Administrative Court’s ruling on another vehicle tracking and monitoring company related to the tax deficiency notice it received, the likelihood of loss is not probable. As a result of the above, as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, no accrual has been recorded with respect to the tax assessment. An unfavorable judgment on this issue for the years assessed and for subsequent years could result in significant costs to the Company and adversely affect our results of operations. 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$33,800 ($10,200) and R$31,800 ($9,800) at December, 2017 and 2016, respectively. An unfavorable outcome on these contingencies could result in significant cost to PST and adversely affect its results of operations. Insurance Recoveries The Company incurred losses and incremental costs related to the damage to assets caused by a storm at its Mexican production facility in the fourth quarter of 2016 and is pursuing recovery of such costs under applicable insurance policies. Anticipated proceeds from insurance recoveries related to losses and incremental costs that have been incurred (“loss recoveries”) are recognized when receipt is probable. Anticipated proceeds from insurance recoveries in excess of the net book value of damaged property, plant and equipment (“insurance gain contingencies”) are recognized when all contingencies related to the claim have been resolved. In 2017, loss recoveries related to the damage of inventory and incremental costs included in costs of sales were $189 and loss recoveries and insurance gain contingencies related to the damage of property, plant and equipment included within SG&A expense were $1,923. Cash proceeds related to the damage of inventory and incremental costs of $500 are included in cash flows from operating activities, while cash proceeds related to the damage of property, plant and equipment of $711 are included in cash flows from investing activities. As of December 31, 2017, the Company had confirmation of the open insurance claim and recorded a receivable of $1,644. The cash payment was subsequently collected in January 2018.

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 it believes that losses are probable and can be reasonably estimated. 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. Upon approval of the remedial action plan by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, ground water remediation began in the fourth quarter of 2015. During the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, environmental remediation costs incurred were immaterial. At December 31, 2017 and 2016, the Company had accrued an undiscounted liability of $265 and $446, respectively, related to future remediation costs. At December 31, 2017 and 2016, $253 and $370, 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. Costs associated with the recorded liability will be incurred to complete 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.

During the third quarter of 2017, the Company resolved a legal proceeding, Verde v. Stoneridge, Inc. et al., that was 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. The Plaintiff had alleged 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 the Plaintiff in 2006. The Plaintiff had alleged that the Company breached express warranties and indemnification provisions by supplying a defective CD that was not capable of performing its intended function. In May 2017, the District Court denied the Plaintiff’s motion for class certification. On October 2, 2017, the Company and Plaintiff agreed to settle this matter, and the proceeding was dismissed with prejudice on November 17, 2017. The settlement amount was $3.

Royal v. Stoneridge, Inc. et al. is a legal proceeding currently pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, Case No. 5:14-cv-01410-F. The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action against the Company, Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc., and others on December 19, 2014. The Plaintiffs allege 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 the Plaintiffs between 1999 and 2006. The Plaintiffs allege that the Company and Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc. breached various express and implied warranties, including the implied warranty of merchantability. The 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. The Plaintiffs seek 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. On September 28, 2017, the Company reached an agreement with the Plaintiffs to settle the matter. On January 30, 2018, the Court approved the settlement and entered a final order and judgment consistent with the terms of the settlement agreement. Under the terms of the settlement, the Company will provide a replacement CD to each member of the settlement class who files a claim form with evidence of eligibility to participate. The terms of the settlement do not require the Company to provide members of the settlement class with any cash payments or to reimburse any installation costs associated with replacement of the CDs. Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the settlement class filed a motion with the Court requesting an award of attorneys’ fees and costs in an amount not to exceed $375, and the Company has agreed not to object to any request that does not exceed $375 and to pay the amount of any award that does not exceed $375. Counsel for Plaintiffs and the settlement class filed a motion requesting incentive payments to each of the three named Plaintiffs in an amount not to exceed $5 each, and the Company has agreed not to object to any request that does not exceed $15 total and to pay the amount of any award that does not exceed $15 total. The total cost of the settlement remains uncertain because it is difficult to predict how many members of the proposed settlement class will request a replacement CD. The Company believes the likelihood of loss is probable and reasonably estimable (although not certain), and therefore a liability of $525 for these claims has been recorded as a component of accrued expenses and other current liabilities at December 31, 2017.

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$99,300 ($30,000) at December 31, 2017 which is comprised of Value Added Tax – ICMS of R$13,200 ($4,000), interest of R$74,700 ($22,600) and penalties of R$11,400 ($3,400).

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. The Company believes, based on the legal opinion of the Company’s Brazilian legal counsel, the Brazil Administrative Court’s final ruling on February 27, 2018 in PST’s favor for the period from January 2009 through December 2010, and the results of the Brazilian Administrative Court’s ruling on another vehicle tracking and monitoring company related to the tax deficiency notice it received, the likelihood of loss is not probable. As a result of the above, as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, no accrual has been recorded with respect to the tax assessment. An unfavorable judgment on this issue for the years assessed and for subsequent years could result in significant costs to the Company and adversely affect our results of operations.

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$33,800 ($10,200) and R$31,800 ($9,800) at December, 2017 and 2016, respectively. An unfavorable outcome on these contingencies could result in significant cost to PST and adversely affect its results of operations.

Insurance Recoveries

The Company incurred losses and incremental costs related to the damage to assets caused by a storm at its Mexican production facility in the fourth quarter of 2016 and is pursuing recovery of such costs under applicable insurance policies. Anticipated proceeds from insurance recoveries related to losses and incremental costs that have been incurred (“loss recoveries”) are recognized when receipt is probable. Anticipated proceeds from insurance recoveries in excess of the net book value of damaged property, plant and equipment (“insurance gain contingencies”) are recognized when all contingencies related to the claim have been resolved.

In 2017, loss recoveries related to the damage of inventory and incremental costs included in costs of sales were $189 and loss recoveries and insurance gain contingencies related to the damage of property, plant and equipment included within SG&A expense were $1,923. Cash proceeds related to the damage of inventory and incremental costs of $500 are included in cash flows from operating activities, while cash proceeds related to the damage of property, plant and equipment of $711 are included in cash flows from investing activities. As of December 31, 2017, the Company had confirmation of the open insurance claim and recorded a receivable of $1,644. The cash payment was subsequently collected in January 2018.