Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2018
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 13 - Commitments and contingencies: We are involved in various environmental, contractual, product liability, patent (or intellectual property), employment and other claims and disputes incidental to our business. At least quarterly our management discusses and evaluates the status of any pending litigation to which we are a party. The factors considered in such evaluation include, among other things, the nature of such pending cases, the status of such pending cases, the advice of legal counsel and our experience in similar cases (if any). Based on such evaluation, we make a determination as to whether we believe (i) it is probable a loss has been incurred, and if so if the amount of such loss (or a range of loss) is reasonably estimable, or (ii) it is reasonably possible but not probable a loss has been incurred, and if so if the amount of such loss (or a range of loss) is reasonably estimable, or (iii) the probability a loss has been incurred is remote. In March 2013, we were served with the complaint, Los Gatos Mercantile, Inc. d/b/a Los Gatos Ace Hardware, et al v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company, et al. (United States District Court, for the Northern District of California, Case No. 3:13-cv-01180-SI). The defendants include us, E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Company, Huntsman International LLC and Millennium Inorganic Chemicals, Inc. As amended by plaintiffs’ third amended complaint (Harrison, Jan, et al v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company, et al), plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of indirect purchasers of titanium dioxide in the states of Arizona, Arkansas, California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon and Tennessee that indirectly purchased titanium dioxide from one or more of the defendants on or after March 1, 2002. The complaint alleges that the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price at which titanium dioxide was sold in the United States and engaged in other anticompetitive conduct. In December 2017, the Court preliminarily approved a settlement agreement with the class plaintiffs. In January 2018, without admitting any fault or wrongdoing, we paid an immaterial amount in full settlement of this matter, and in August 2018 the Court issued a final approval of the settlement.

Note 13 - Commitments and contingencies:

We are involved in various environmental, contractual, product liability, patent (or intellectual property), employment and other claims and disputes incidental to our business. At least quarterly our management discusses and evaluates the status of any pending litigation to which we are a party. The factors considered in such evaluation include, among other things, the nature of such pending cases, the status of such pending cases, the advice of legal counsel and our experience in similar cases (if any). Based on such evaluation, we make a determination as to whether we believe (i) it is probable a loss has been incurred, and if so if the amount of such loss (or a range of loss) is reasonably estimable, or (ii) it is reasonably possible but not probable a loss has been incurred, and if so if the amount of such loss (or a range of loss) is reasonably estimable, or (iii) the probability a loss has been incurred is remote.

In March 2013, we were served with the complaint, Los Gatos Mercantile, Inc. d/b/a Los Gatos Ace Hardware, et al v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company, et al. (United States District Court, for the Northern District of California, Case No. 3:13-cv-01180-SI). The defendants include us, E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Company, Huntsman International LLC and Millennium Inorganic Chemicals, Inc. As amended by plaintiffs’ third amended complaint (Harrison, Jan, et al v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company, et al), plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of indirect purchasers of titanium dioxide in the states of Arizona, Arkansas, California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon and Tennessee that indirectly purchased titanium dioxide from one or more of the defendants on or after March 1, 2002. The complaint alleges that the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price at which titanium dioxide was sold in the United States and engaged in other anticompetitive conduct. In December 2017, the Court preliminarily approved a settlement agreement with the class plaintiffs. In January 2018, without admitting any fault or wrongdoing, we paid an immaterial amount in full settlement of this matter, and in August 2018 the Court issued a final approval of the settlement.