Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Commitments and Contingencies	Dec. 31, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies We are involved, and will continue to be involved, in numerous proceedings arising out of the conduct of our business. These proceedings may include claims for property damage or personal injury incurred in connection with the transportation of freight, claims regarding anti-competitive practices, and employment-related claims, including claims involving asserted breaches of employee restrictive covenants and tortious interference with contracts. These matters also include numerous purported class action, multi-plaintiff and individual lawsuits, and administrative proceedings that claim either that our owner-operators or contract carriers should be treated as employees, rather than independent contractors, or that some of our drivers were not paid for all compensable time or were not provided with required meal or rest breaks. These lawsuits and proceedings may seek substantial monetary damages (including claims for unpaid wages, overtime, failure to provide meal and rest periods, unreimbursed business expenses and other items), injunctive relief, or both. We establish accruals for specific legal proceedings when it is considered probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. We review and adjust accruals for loss contingencies quarterly and as additional information becomes available. If a loss is not both probable and reasonably estimable, or if an exposure to loss exists in excess of the amount accrued, we assess whether there is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss, or additional loss, may have been incurred. If there is a reasonable possibility that a loss, or additional loss, may have been incurred, we disclose the estimate of the possible loss or range of loss if it is material and an estimate can be made, or disclose that such an estimate cannot be made. The determination as to whether a loss can reasonably be considered to be possible or probable is based on our assessment, together with legal counsel, regarding the ultimate outcome of the matter. We believe that we have adequately accrued for the potential impact of loss contingencies that are probable and reasonably estimable. We do not believe that the ultimate resolution of any matters to which we are presently a party will have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. However, the results of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty, and an unfavorable resolution of one or more of these matters could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Legal costs incurred related to these matters are expensed as incurred. We carry liability and excess umbrella insurance policies that we deem sufficient to cover potential legal claims arising in the normal course of conducting our operations as a transportation and logistics company. The liability and excess umbrella insurance policies generally do not cover the misclassification claims described in this note. In the event we are required to satisfy a legal claim outside the scope of the coverage provided by insurance, our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows could be negatively impacted. Intermodal Drayage Classification Claims Certain of our intermodal drayage subsidiaries received notices from the California Labor Commissioner, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (the “DLSE”), that a total of approximately 150 owner-operators contracted with these subsidiaries filed claims in 2012 with the DLSE. These owner-operators asserted that they should be classified as employees, rather than independent contractors. These claims seek reimbursement for the owner-operators’ business expenses, including fuel, tractor maintenance and tractor lease payments. Decisions were rendered in June 2015 by a DLSE hearing officer with respect to claims of five plaintiffs, resulting in awards in an aggregate amount of approximately $1 million, following which we appealed the decisions in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (“Central District Court”). On May 16, 2017, the Central District Court issued judgment finding that the five claimants were employees rather than independent contractors and awarded an aggregate of approximately $1 million plus post-judgment interest and attorneys’ fees to the claimants. We appealed this judgment, but on February 20, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declined to consider the appeal on technical grounds. In addition, separate decisions were rendered in April 2017 by a DLSE hearing officer in claims involving four additional plaintiffs, resulting in an award for the plaintiffs in an aggregate amount of approximately $1 million. We appealed this decision to the California Superior Court, Long Beach, and the court ultimately entered judgment in favor of the four plaintiffs for approximately $812 thousand on September 27, 2019. The remaining DLSE claims (the “Pending DLSE Claims”) were transferred to California Superior Court, Los Angeles in three separate actions involving approximately 170 claimants, including the claimants mentioned above who originally filed claims in 2012. We have reached an agreement to settle the majority of the Pending DLSE Claims, the settlement payment has been made, and the settled claims have been dismissed. In addition, some of our intermodal drayage subsidiaries are party to putative class action litigations, individual and multi-plaintiff lawsuits, and administrative claims in California brought by independent contract carriers who contracted with these subsidiaries. In these matters, the contract carriers assert that they should be classified as employees, rather than independent contractors. We believe that we have adequately accrued for the potential impact of loss contingencies that are probable and reasonably estimable relating to the claims referenced above. We are unable at this time to estimate the amount of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, in excess of our accrued liability that we may incur as a result of these claims given, among other reasons, that the range of potential loss could be impacted substantially by future rulings by the courts involved, including on the merits of the claims. Last Mile Logistics Classification Claims Some of our last mile logistics subsidiaries are party to several putative class action litigations brought by independent contract carriers who contracted with these subsidiaries. In these litigations, the contract carriers, and in some cases the contract carriers’ employees, assert that they should be classified as employees, rather than independent contractors. The particular claims asserted vary from case to case, but the claims generally allege unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, or failure to provide meal and rest periods, and seek reimbursement of the contract carriers’ business expenses. The cases include four related matters pending in the Federal District Court, Northern District of California: Ron Carter, Juan Estrada, Jerry Green, Burl Malmgren, Bill McDonald and Joel Morales v. XPO Logistics, Inc. (“Carter”), filed in March 2016; Ramon Garcia v. Macy’s and XPO Logistics Inc. (“Garcia”), filed in July 2016; Kevin Kramer v. XPO Logistics Inc. (“Kramer”), filed in September 2016; and Hector Ibanez v. XPO Last Mile, Inc. (“Ibanez”), filed in May 2017. We reached agreements to settle the Carter, Garcia, Kramer and Ibanez matters and have accrued the full amount of the settlements. The Carter settlement received final court approval on October 18, 2019, and the settlement has been paid. The parties await final approval of the settlements in the other matters. As for the other pending lawsuits, we believe that we have adequately accrued for the potential impact of loss contingencies that are probable and reasonably estimable. We are unable at this time to estimate the amount of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, in excess of our accrued liability that we may incur as a result of these claims given, among other reasons, that the number and identities of plaintiffs in these lawsuits are uncertain and the range of potential loss could be impacted substantially by future rulings by the courts involved, including on the merits of the claims. Shareholder Litigation On December 14, 2018, two putative class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against us and some of our current and former executives, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, based on alleged material misstatements and omissions in our public filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On January 7, 2019, the plaintiff in one of the class actions, Leeman v. XPO Logistics, Inc. et al., No. 1:18-cv-11741 (S.D.N.Y.), voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice. In the other putative class action, Labul v. XPO Logistics, Inc. et al., No. 3:18-cv-02062 (D. Conn.), which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, on April 2, 2019, the court appointed Local 817 IBT Pension Fund, Local 272 Labor-Management Pension Fund, and Local 282 Pension Trust Fund and Local 282 Welfare Trust Fund (together, the “Pension Funds”) as lead plaintiffs. On June 3, 2019, the Pension Funds, with additional plaintiff Norfolk County Retirement System, filed a consolidated class action complaint against us and some of our current and former executives, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, based on alleged material misstatements and omissions in our public filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint on August 2, 2019. On November 4, 2019, the court dismissed the consolidated class action complaint without prejudice to the filing of an amended complaint. The Pension Funds, on January 3, 2020, filed a first amended consolidated class action complaint against us and a current executive, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Defendants’ deadline to respond to or move against the amended complaint is March 3, 2020. Also, on May 13, 2019, Adriana Jez filed a purported shareholder derivative action captioned Jez v. Jacobs, et al., No. 19-cv-889-RGA (D. Del.) (“Jez complaint”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and violations of the Exchange Act against some of our current and former directors and officers, with the company as a nominal defendant. On May 24, 2019, Erin Candler filed a purported shareholder derivative action with substantially similar claims and allegations against the same parties, captioned Candler v. Jacobs, et al., No. 19-cv-959-CFC (D. Del.), also in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. On June 14, 2019, the two actions were consolidated for all purposes (“consolidated action”). On September 27, 2019, plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a consolidated shareholder derivative complaint. On the same date, Kevin Rose filed a purported shareholder derivative action with substantially similar claims and allegations against the same parties, captioned Rose v. Jacobs, et al., No. 19-cv-1815-RGA (D. Del.), also in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. On December 12, 2019, the court ordered that the Rose action be consolidated into the consolidated action. On January 27, 2020, plaintiffs designated the Jez complaint as the operative complaint in the consolidated cases. Defendants’ deadline to respond to or move against the operative complaint is February 26, 2020. We believe these suits are without merit and we intend to defend the company vigorously against the allegations. We are unable at this time to determine the amount of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, that we may incur as a result of these matters.