Commitments, Contingencies and Uncertainties	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2020
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments, Contingencies and Uncertainties	8. Commitments, Contingencies and Uncertainties Department of Defense Complaints In December 2018, the United States on behalf of the United States Department of Defense filed a Complaint in Intervention (“Complaint”) against the Company in the U.S. District in the Western District of New York captioned United States ex rel. James Hannum v. YRC Freight, Inc.; Roadway Express, Inc.; and Yellow Transportation, Inc., Civil Action No. 08-0811(A). The Complaint alleges that the Company violated the False Claims Act by overcharging the Department of Defense for freight carrier services by failing to comply with the contractual terms of freight contracts between the Department of Defense and the Company and related government procurement rules. The Complaint also alleges claims for unjust enrichment and breach of contract. Under the False Claims Act, the Complaint seeks treble damages, civil penalties, attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, all in unspecified amounts. The remaining common causes of action seek an undetermined amount for an alleged breach of contract or alternatively causes constituting unjust enrichment or a payment by mistake. The Company has moved to dismiss the case, and the court heard oral arguments on the motion on August 12, 2019. On July 17, 2020, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss in part with respect to one claim and denied it in all other respects. Management believes the Company has meritorious defenses against the remaining counts and intends to vigorously defend this action. We are unable to estimate the possible loss, or range of possible loss, associated with these claims at this time. Class Action Securities Complaint In January 2019, a purported class action lawsuit captioned Christina Lewis v. YRC Worldwide Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00001, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York against the Company and certain of our current and former officers. The complaint was filed on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s publicly traded securities between March 10, 2014 and December 14, 2018. The complaint generally alleged that the defendants had violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements relating to the Company’s freight billing practices as alleged in the Department of Defense complaint described above. The action included claims for damages, including interest, and an award of reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees. The co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 14, 2019, and the defendants moved to dismiss it on July 15, 2019. On March 27, 2020, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss in its entirety and entered judgment closing the case. The co-lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on April 27, 2020. Shareholder Derivative Complaint In May 2019, a putative shareholder filed an action derivatively and on behalf of the Company naming James L. Welch, Jamie G. Pierson, Stephanie D. Fisher, Raymond J. Bromark, Douglas A. Carty, William R. Davidson, Matthew A. Doheny, Robert L. Friedman, James E. Hoffman, Michael J. Kneeland, Patricia M. Nazemetz, and James F. Winestock individually as defendants and the Company as the nominal defendant. In an amended complaint, filed on October 15, 2019, Darren D. Hawkins was added as a defendant. The case, captioned Hastey v. Welch, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-2266-KGG, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. The Complaint alleged that the Company was exposed to harm by the individual defendants’ purported conduct concerning its freight-billing practices as alleged in the Department of Defense Complaint and the Class Action Securities Complaint described above. The Complaint asserted that the individual defendants’ purported conduct violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that they breached their fiduciary duties, were unjustly enriched, and engaged in corporate waste. On March 30, 2020, the Court granted the Company’s and individual defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissing Plaintiff’s Section 14(a) claim with prejudice, and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims and thus dismissing them without prejudice. The Court further denied as moot motions to intervene in the action that had been filed by three putative shareholders. In October 2019, another putative shareholder filed an action derivatively and on behalf of the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware naming the same defendants as did the October 15, 2019 amended complaint in the Hastey case. The case is captioned Broughton v. Hawkins, et al. Case No. 1:19-cv-01958-UNA, and makes claims similar to those made in Hastey. After a motion to dismiss the Broughton Complaint was filed on December 20, 2019, Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for voluntary dismissal of her Complaint without prejudice on February 19, 2020. The court granted the motion on April 20, 2020. Other Legal Matters We are involved in litigation or proceedings that arise in ordinary business activities. When possible, we insure against these risks to the extent we deem prudent, but no assurance can be given that the nature or amount of such insurance will be sufficient to fully indemnify us against liabilities arising out of pending and future legal proceedings. Many of these insurance policies contain self-insured retentions in amounts we deem prudent. Based on our current assessment of information available as of the date of these consolidated financial statements, we believe that our consolidated financial statements include adequate provisions for estimated costs and losses that may be incurred within the litigation and proceedings to which we are a party.

Commitments, Contingencies and Uncertainties

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2020

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments, Contingencies and Uncertainties

8. Commitments, Contingencies and Uncertainties

Department of Defense Complaints

In December 2018, the United States on behalf of the United States Department of Defense filed a Complaint in Intervention (“Complaint”) against the Company in the U.S. District in the Western District of New York captioned United States ex rel. James Hannum v. YRC Freight, Inc.; Roadway Express, Inc.; and Yellow Transportation, Inc., Civil Action No. 08-0811(A). The Complaint alleges that the Company violated the False Claims Act by overcharging the Department of Defense for freight carrier services by failing to comply with the contractual terms of freight contracts between the Department of Defense and the Company and related government procurement rules. The Complaint also alleges claims for unjust enrichment and breach of contract. Under the False Claims Act, the Complaint seeks treble damages, civil penalties, attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, all in unspecified amounts. The remaining common causes of action seek an undetermined amount for an alleged breach of contract or alternatively causes constituting unjust enrichment or a payment by mistake. The Company has moved to dismiss the case, and the court heard oral arguments on the motion on August 12, 2019. On July 17, 2020, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss in part with respect to one claim and denied it in all other respects. Management believes the Company has meritorious defenses against the remaining counts and intends to vigorously defend this action. We are unable to estimate the possible loss, or range of possible loss, associated with these claims at this time.

Class Action Securities Complaint

In January 2019, a purported class action lawsuit captioned Christina Lewis v. YRC Worldwide Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00001, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York against the Company and certain of our current and former officers. The complaint was filed on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s publicly traded securities between March 10, 2014 and December 14, 2018. The complaint generally alleged that the defendants had violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements relating to the Company’s freight billing practices as alleged in the Department of Defense complaint described above. The action included claims for damages, including interest, and an award of reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees. The co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 14, 2019, and the defendants moved to dismiss it on July 15, 2019. On March 27, 2020, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss in its entirety and entered judgment closing the case. The co-lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on April 27, 2020.

Shareholder Derivative Complaint

In May 2019, a putative shareholder filed an action derivatively and on behalf of the Company naming James L. Welch, Jamie G. Pierson, Stephanie D. Fisher, Raymond J. Bromark, Douglas A. Carty, William R. Davidson, Matthew A. Doheny, Robert L. Friedman, James E. Hoffman, Michael J. Kneeland, Patricia M. Nazemetz, and James F. Winestock individually as defendants and the Company as the nominal defendant. In an amended complaint, filed on October 15, 2019, Darren D. Hawkins was added as a defendant. The case, captioned Hastey v. Welch, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-2266-KGG, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. The Complaint alleged that the Company was exposed to harm by the individual defendants’ purported conduct concerning its freight-billing practices as alleged in the Department of Defense Complaint and the Class Action Securities Complaint described above. The Complaint asserted that the individual defendants’ purported conduct violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that they breached their fiduciary duties, were unjustly enriched, and engaged in corporate waste. On March 30, 2020, the Court granted the Company’s and individual defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissing Plaintiff’s Section 14(a) claim with prejudice, and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims and thus dismissing them without prejudice. The Court further denied as moot motions to intervene in the action that had been filed by three putative shareholders.

In October 2019, another putative shareholder filed an action derivatively and on behalf of the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware naming the same defendants as did the October 15, 2019 amended complaint in the Hastey case. The case is captioned Broughton v. Hawkins, et al. Case No. 1:19-cv-01958-UNA, and makes claims similar to those made in Hastey. After a motion to dismiss the Broughton Complaint was filed on December 20, 2019, Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for voluntary dismissal of her Complaint without prejudice on February 19, 2020. The court granted the motion on April 20, 2020.

Other Legal Matters

We are involved in litigation or proceedings that arise in ordinary business activities. When possible, we insure against these risks to the extent we deem prudent, but no assurance can be given that the nature or amount of such insurance will be sufficient to fully indemnify us against liabilities arising out of pending and future legal proceedings. Many of these insurance policies contain self-insured retentions in amounts we deem prudent. Based on our current assessment of information available as of the date of these consolidated financial statements, we believe that our consolidated financial statements include adequate provisions for estimated costs and losses that may be incurred within the litigation and proceedings to which we are a party.