Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Neither PICO nor its subsidiaries are parties to any potentially material pending legal proceedings other than the following. PICO Holdings, Inc: On August 16, 2011 and August 26, 2011, Ronald Dennis and George Assad, respectively, each filed a shareholder derivative complaint, purportedly on behalf of the Company, against the Company's directors in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, (the “Derivative Actions”). The Derivative Actions allege a combination of claims for breach of fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, contribution and indemnification, abuse of control, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment in connection with the May 13, 2011 shareholder advisory vote on the Company's 2010 executive compensation pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and the 2010 executive compensation underlying the vote. The complaints seek monetary damages, equitable relief in the form of disgorgement, attachment, impoundment or imposition of a constructive trust over portions of the 2010 executive compensation, the implementation and administration of certain internal control procedures related to executive compensation, and costs and attorney's fees. The Dennis complaint seeks a declaration that the May 13, 2011 advisory vote rebutted the business judgment regarding the Company's Board of Directors' approval of the 2010 executive compensation. The Company removed each of the Derivative Actions to the United States District Court, Southern District of California and filed motions to dismiss each of the Derivative Actions. The plaintiff in each of the Derivative Actions filed a motion to remand the Derivative Actions to the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. On January 6, 2012, the District Court granted in part the Company's motion to dismiss and granted in part plaintiffs' motions to remand, remanding certain claims to the Superior Court of the State of California. The plaintiffs appealed, and the Company cross-appealed, the federal district courts rulings. On March 29, 2012, the Superior Court of California stayed the Derivative Actions pending the appeal and cross-appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Briefing on the appeal and cross-appeal is complete. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had scheduled oral argument on the appeals and cross-appeals for June 4, 2013. On July 31, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the United States District Court, Southern District of California lacked jurisdiction over the case and, as a result, reversed the partial dismissal ordered by the district court. As a result of the order from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the case was remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego for further proceedings. On September 27, 2013, the Superior Court held a status conference and lifted the stay. On October, 25, 2013, the plaintiffs designated the action filed by George Assad as the operative complaint. On October 28, 2013, the Company filed a demurrer. The plaintiffs opposition to the demurrer is due on November 25, 2013 and the Company’s reply brief in support of the demurrer will be due on December 5, 2013. The Court has scheduled a hearing on the Company’s demurrer for December 13, 2013. An estimate of the possible range or outcome of this litigation cannot be made. However, the Company does not believe this litigation will result in a material impact to the condensed consolidated financial statements. Fish Springs Ranch, LLC: In September 2007, the Company reached a $7.3 million financial settlement with the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians relating to the exportation of water from the properties owned by Fish Springs Ranch, LLC. The settlement is pending ratification by the United States Congress, but we cannot be certain as to when the United States Congress will act on this matter. The Company has paid $3.7 million to the Tribe and accrued $3.6 million for the balance owed. No material developments occurred relating to this dispute or the settlement agreement during the first nine months of 2013. The Company is subject to various other litigation matters that arise in the ordinary course of its business. Because litigation is inherently unpredictable and unfavorable resolutions could occur, assessing contingencies is highly subjective and requires judgments about future events. When evaluating contingencies, we may be unable to provide a meaningful estimate due to a number of factors, including the procedural status of the matter in question, the presence of complex or novel legal theories, and/or the ongoing discovery and development of information important to the matters. In addition, damage amounts claimed in litigation against us may be unsupported, exaggerated or unrelated to possible outcomes, and as such are not meaningful indicators of our potential liability. We regularly review contingencies to determine the adequacy of our accruals and related disclosures. The amount of ultimate loss may differ from these estimates, and it is possible that cash flows or results of operations could be materially affected in any particular period by the unfavorable resolution of one or more of these contingencies. Whether any losses finally determined in any claim, action, investigation or proceeding could reasonably have a material effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows will depend on a number of variables, including: the timing and amount of such losses; the structure and type of any remedies; the significance of the impact any such losses, damages or remedies may have on our condensed consolidated financial statements; and the unique facts and circumstances of the particular matter that may give rise to additional factors.

Commitments and Contingencies

Neither PICO nor its subsidiaries are parties to any potentially material pending legal proceedings other than the following.

PICO Holdings, Inc:

On August 16, 2011 and August 26, 2011, Ronald Dennis and George Assad, respectively, each filed a shareholder derivative complaint, purportedly on behalf of the Company, against the Company's directors in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, (the “Derivative Actions”). The Derivative Actions allege a combination of claims for breach of fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, contribution and indemnification, abuse of control, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment in connection with the May 13, 2011 shareholder advisory vote on the Company's 2010 executive compensation pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and the 2010 executive compensation underlying the vote. The complaints seek monetary damages, equitable relief in the form of disgorgement, attachment, impoundment or imposition of a constructive trust over portions of the 2010 executive compensation, the implementation and administration of certain internal control procedures related to executive compensation, and costs and attorney's fees. The Dennis complaint seeks a declaration that the May 13, 2011 advisory vote rebutted the business judgment regarding the Company's Board of Directors' approval of the 2010 executive compensation.

The Company removed each of the Derivative Actions to the United States District Court, Southern District of California and filed motions to dismiss each of the Derivative Actions. The plaintiff in each of the Derivative Actions filed a motion to remand the Derivative Actions to the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego.

On January 6, 2012, the District Court granted in part the Company's motion to dismiss and granted in part plaintiffs' motions to remand, remanding certain claims to the Superior Court of the State of California. The plaintiffs appealed, and the Company cross-appealed, the federal district courts rulings. On March 29, 2012, the Superior Court of California stayed the Derivative Actions pending the appeal and cross-appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Briefing on the appeal and cross-appeal is complete. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had scheduled oral argument on the appeals and cross-appeals for June 4, 2013. On July 31, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the United States District Court, Southern District of California lacked jurisdiction over the case and, as a result, reversed the partial dismissal ordered by the district court. As a result of the order from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the case was remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego for further proceedings. On September 27, 2013, the Superior Court held a status conference and lifted the stay. On October, 25, 2013, the plaintiffs designated the action filed by George Assad as the operative complaint. On October 28, 2013, the Company filed a demurrer. The plaintiffs opposition to the demurrer is due on November 25, 2013 and the Company’s reply brief in support of the demurrer will be due on December 5, 2013. The Court has scheduled a hearing on the Company’s demurrer for December 13, 2013. An estimate of the possible range or outcome of this litigation cannot be made. However, the Company does not believe this litigation will result in a material impact to the condensed consolidated financial statements.

Fish Springs Ranch, LLC:

In September 2007, the Company reached a $7.3 million financial settlement with the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians relating to the exportation of water from the properties owned by Fish Springs Ranch, LLC. The settlement is pending ratification by the United States Congress, but we cannot be certain as to when the United States Congress will act on this matter. The Company has paid $3.7 million to the Tribe and accrued $3.6 million for the balance owed. No material developments occurred relating to this dispute or the settlement agreement during the first nine months of 2013.

The Company is subject to various other litigation matters that arise in the ordinary course of its business. Because litigation is inherently unpredictable and unfavorable resolutions could occur, assessing contingencies is highly subjective and requires judgments about future events. When evaluating contingencies, we may be unable to provide a meaningful estimate due to a number of factors, including the procedural status of the matter in question, the presence of complex or novel legal theories, and/or the ongoing discovery and development of information important to the matters. In addition, damage amounts claimed in litigation against us may be unsupported, exaggerated or unrelated to possible outcomes, and as such are not meaningful indicators of our potential liability. We regularly review contingencies to determine the adequacy of our accruals and related disclosures. The amount of ultimate loss may differ from these estimates, and it is possible that cash flows or results of operations could be materially affected in any particular period by the unfavorable resolution of one or more of these contingencies.

Whether any losses finally determined in any claim, action, investigation or proceeding could reasonably have a material effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows will depend on a number of variables, including: the timing and amount of such losses; the structure and type of any remedies; the significance of the impact any such losses, damages or remedies may have on our condensed consolidated financial statements; and the unique facts and circumstances of the particular matter that may give rise to additional factors.