Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Commitments and Contingencies	Mar. 31, 2024
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	13. Commitments and Contingencies Litigation The Company is subject to claims and legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. Such matters are inherently uncertain, and there can be no guarantee that the outcome of any such matter will be decided favorably to the Company or that the resolution of any such matter will not have a material adverse effect upon the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements. The Company does not believe that any of such pending claims and legal proceedings will have a material adverse effect on its Consolidated Financial Statements. The Company records a liability in its Consolidated Financial Statements for these matters when a loss is known or considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated as well as any legal costs incurred related to the litigation. The Company reviews these estimates each accounting period as additional information is known and adjusts the loss provision when appropriate. If a matter is both probable to result in a liability and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company estimates and discloses the possible loss or range of loss to the extent necessary for its Consolidated Financial Statements not to be misleading. If the loss is not probable or cannot be reasonably estimated, a liability is not recorded in the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements. Any legal or other expenses associated with the litigation are accrued for as the expenses are incurred. Based on a review of the current facts and circumstances with counsel in each of the matters disclosed, management has provided for what is believed to be a reasonable estimate of loss exposure. While acknowledging the uncertainties of litigation, management believes that the ultimate outcome of litigation will not have a material effect on its financial position and will defend itself vigorously. DTV Derivative Litigation On March 15, 2021, 22 DTV stockholders and eight holders of DTV stock options filed a stockholder class action and derivative complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery in an action styled Bocock, et al., v. HC2 Holdings, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 2021-0224 (Del. Ch.). Plaintiffs named as defendants INNOVATE Corp. (f/k/a HC2 Holdings, Inc.), HC2 Broadcasting Holdings, Inc., HC2 Broadcasting Inc., and Continental General Insurance Corporation (the “INNOVATE Entities”) and certain current and former officers and directors of the INNOVATE Entities and DTV, including Philip Falcone, Michael Sena, Wayne Barr, Jr., Les Levi, Paul Voigt, Ivan Minkov, and Paul Robinson (the “Individual Defendants”). Plaintiffs principally allege that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and/or aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duty by participating in a “scheme” in which the INNOVATE Entities (i) acquired majority voting and operating control over DTV; (ii) exploited that control to misappropriate DTV’s assets and business opportunities for the benefit of the INNOVATE Entities; and (iii) purchased DTV stock at a discount to fair value and diminished the value of DTV stock options. Plaintiffs allege that the Individual Defendants (i) “prompted” the INNOVATE Entities to purchase more than 100 low-power television (“LPTV”) broadcast stations originally identified for potential acquisition by DTV, (ii) allowed the INNOVATE Entities to misappropriate DTV technology, known as “DTV Cast,” (iii) caused DTV to transfer unspecified LPTV broadcasting station licenses to INNOVATE affiliates “without paying any value,” and (iv) transferred to the INNOVATE Entities unspecified DTV broadcasting stations that had been “repacked” by the FCC. Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint on May 19, 2021. On June 23, 2021, plaintiffs amended their complaint. In the amended complaint, plaintiffs assert the same claims they asserted in their initial complaint, added a claim for waste associated with DTV’s purported transfer of licenses and construction permits for less than fair value, and dropped Paul Robinson as a defendant. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety on August 25, 2021, and the parties completed briefing on the motions to dismiss on November 10, 2021. The Court heard argument on the motions to dismiss on March 29, 2022. On June 28, 2022, the Court requested that the parties submit supplemental briefing on the motions to dismiss by July 20, 2022. The parties completed the supplemental briefing on July 20, 2022. On October 28, 2022, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion on Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Complaint. First, the Court dismissed all claims against Continental General Insurance Corporation for lack of personal jurisdiction. Second, the Court dismissed all claims the stockholder plaintiffs purported to assert directly. Third, the Court dismissed as time-barred all claims challenging conduct that occurred before March 15, 2018, including claims challenging (i) the November 2017 acquisition of Azteca America by INNOVATE; (ii) INNOVATE’s purported usurpation of the so-called “DTV Cast” technology; and (iii) the WFWC-CD Station acquisition. Fourth, the Court dismissed claims associated with the INNOVATE Entities’ purported purchases of unidentified broadcasting stations. Fifth, the Court dismissed all claims challenging the Expense Sharing Agreement, and the Right to Use Agreement between INNOVATE and DTV, and certain Stock-Based Compensation Agreements. Sixth, the Court dismissed the aiding and abetting claim against the INNOVATE Entities. Seventh, the Court dismissed the civil conspiracy claim as to all defendants. Lastly, the Court dismissed the option-holders’ claim for tortious interference with prospective business opportunities. Thus, after the Court issued its October 28, 2022 Memorandum Opinion, the only claims to survive Defendants’ motion to dismiss are (i) a derivative claim against the INNOVATE Entities (other than Continental General), Levi, and Falcone for breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the $0.1 million Frank Digital acquisition; (ii) a derivative claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the INNOVATE Entities (other than Continental General), in their capacities as DTV’s controlling stockholders, relating to the sale of six licenses (for less than $0.5 million) in connection with the Gray Media sale (the "Gray Media Claim"); (iii) a derivative claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the INNOVATE Entities (other than Continental General) and Levi in connection with the transfer of licenses ultimately sold to TV-49 for $0.1 million; and (iv) a derivative claim for waste against Levi and Falcone in connection with the sale of two stations to Lowcountry, which Lowcountry later sold for $0.2 million and $0.4 million, respectively. On February 8, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. The proposed second amended complaint (i) names DTV as a nominal defendant, (ii) removes the Gray Media Claim, and (iii) removes all Plaintiffs other than James Bocock and Stan V. Smith on Behalf of the Stan V. Smith Trust dated April 30, 1993. The Court ordered Plaintiffs to file their second amended complaint on or before February 13, 2024. On February 14, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint. The INNOVATE Entities and Levi answered the second amended complaint on February 26, 2024. On April 22, 2024, the Court entered a case schedule culminating in a three-day trial from February 10-12, 2025. The Company believes these remaining claims are without merit, and the Company intends to vigorously defend this litigation and cannot reasonably estimate any range of potential loss, if any, at this time. Marin Hospital Replacement Litigation On October 20, 2022, McCarthy Building Companies, Inc. (“McCarthy”) filed suit against Schuff Steel Company (“Schuff”), a subsidiary of DBMG, and Quality Assurance Engineering, Inc. dba Consolidated Engineering Laboratories (“CEL”) in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Marin, styled McCarthy Building Companies, Inc. v. Schuff Steel Company; Quality Engineering, Inc. dba Consolidated Engineering Laboratories, et al., Case No. CIV2203963 (the “Action”). In the Action, McCarthy alleges damages and delays caused by alleged failures in fabrication, erection, welding, and quality control by Schuff and improper quality assurance responsibilities by CEL on the Marin General Hospital Replacement Building (the “Project”). McCarthy asserts claims against Schuff for breach of contract, express indemnity, breach of express warranties, negligence, equitable implied indemnity, breach of implied warranties, and declaratory relief. On February 13, 2023, Schuff filed its response denying liability to McCarthy and asserting a Cross-Complaint against McCarthy, and other companies involved in the design, construction, and quality assurance, who potentially are liable for damages and delays alleged by McCarthy on the Project. In the Cross-Complaint, Schuff asserts claims for breach of contract, violation of statute, equitable indemnity apportionment, and contribution and express indemnity (the “Cross-Complaint”). Schuff intends to vigorously defend this Action and aggressively pursue the Cross-Complaint and cannot reasonably estimate any range of potential loss at this time. Meruelo Television Litigation On August 8, 2023, Meruelo Television, LLC (“Plaintiff”) commenced a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles County, with the filing of a complaint naming as defendants HC2 Network, Inc. (“HC2”) and INNOVATE Corp. (“INNOVATE” or the “Company” and, together with HC2, the “Defendants”), and Does 1 through 20, in the matter titled Meruelo Television, LLC v. HC2 Network, Inc., et al. (Cal. Supr. Ct.) Case No. 23ST-cv-18552. On September 29, 2023, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal, removing the case from California state court to federal court in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, where it has been assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-08184-AB-BFM (the "Lawsuit"). On February 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed its present and operative Second Amended Complaint (the “SAC”). The SAC asserts only one cause of action, Count I for breach of the contract, as against both HC2 and the Company. Whereas the Company is a non-party to the contract at issue, the SAC asserts that INNOVATE can be held liable for Count I as the alleged alter ego of HC2. On April 9, 2024, Plaintiff and Defendants filed in the Lawsuit a Stipulation of Dismissal, as so-ordered by the Court on April 16, 2024, whereby Plaintiff dismissed without prejudice its claims as against INNOVATE, while retaining its claim against HC2. HC2 believes that the claim is without merit and intends to vigorously defend the claim. Although Plaintiff’s dismissal against the Company was without prejudice, at this time it appears that there exists a low probability of loss to INNOVATE resulting from this Lawsuit. Other Commitments and Contingencies Letters of Credit and Performance Bonds As of March 31, 2024, DBMG had outstanding letters of credit of $0.1 million under credit and security agreements and performance bonds of $263.9 million. As of December 31, 2023, DBMG had outstanding letters of credit of $0.1 million under credit and security agreements and performance bonds of $360.8 million. DBMG’s contract arrangements with customers sometimes require DBMG to provide performance bonds to partially secure its obligations under its contracts. Bonding requirements typically arise in connection with private contracts and sometimes with respect to certain public work projects. DBMG’s performance bonds are obtained through surety companies and typically cover the entire project price. The ratings of the bonding companies utilized by DBMG are highly rated, ranging from A-, A, A+ and AA.