LITIGATION	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
LITIGATION	LITIGATION The Company is a party to routine legal proceedings arising out of the normal course of business. Although it is not possible to predict with certainty the outcome of these unresolved legal actions or the range of possible loss, the Company believes at this time that none of these actions, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows of the Company. However, due to the difficult nature of predicting unresolved and future legal claims, the Company cannot anticipate or predict the material adverse effect on its consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows as a result of efforts to comply with or its liabilities pertaining to legal judgments. In early January 2016, Titan, along with the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Worker International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, filed petitions with the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Dept. of Commerce”) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) alleging that imported off-the-road tires from India and Sri Lanka and wheel and tire assemblies from China were being dumped and/or subsidized and were a cause of material injury to the domestic industry. Both the Dept. of Commerce and the ITC have initiated investigations against India and Sri Lanka; but, the ITC did not recommend pursuing the investigation into wheel and tire assemblies from China. If the Dept. of Commerce determines that imports are a cause of material injury (or threat of material injury) to the domestic industry and the Dept. of Commerce finds that imported goods are dumped and/or subsidized, imports will be subject to offsetting duties to neutralize such internationally recognized unfair trade practices. The investigations will likely run through early 2017, although preliminary relief could be provided during the summer of 2016. Two of Titan’s subsidiaries are currently involved in litigation concerning environmental laws and regulations; On October 26, 2010, the United States of America, on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), filed a complaint against Dico, Inc. (“Dico”) and Titan Tire Corporation (“Titan Tire”) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, wherein the EPA sought civil penalties, punitive damages and response costs against Dico and Titan Tire pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA”). On June 11, 2015, Titan Tire and Dico, Inc. appealed the U.S. District Court’s order granting the EPA’s motion for summary judgment that found Dico and Titan Tire liable for civil penalties and response costs for violating CERCLA and Dico liable for civil penalties and punitive damages for violating an EPA Administrative Order. On December 10, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s summary judgment order with respect to “arranger” liability for Titan Tire and Dico under CERCLA and the imposition of punitive damages against Dico for violating the EPA Administrative Order, but affirmed the summary judgment order imposing civil penalties in the amount of $1.62 million against Dico for violating the EPA Administrative Order violation. The case has been remanded to the District Court for trial on the issues of “arranger” liability under CERCLA as to Titan Tire and Dico and whether punitive damages should be imposed upon Dico for alleged violations of the EPA Administrative Order.

LITIGATION

The Company is a party to routine legal proceedings arising out of the normal course of business. Although it is not possible to predict with certainty the outcome of these unresolved legal actions or the range of possible loss, the Company believes at this time that none of these actions, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows of the Company. However, due to the difficult nature of predicting unresolved and future legal claims, the Company cannot anticipate or predict the material adverse effect on its consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows as a result of efforts to comply with or its liabilities pertaining to legal judgments.

In early January 2016, Titan, along with the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Worker International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, filed petitions with the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Dept. of Commerce”) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) alleging that imported off-the-road tires from India and Sri Lanka and wheel and tire assemblies from China were being dumped and/or subsidized and were a cause of material injury to the domestic industry. Both the Dept. of Commerce and the ITC have initiated investigations against India and Sri Lanka; but, the ITC did not recommend pursuing the investigation into wheel and tire assemblies from China. If the Dept. of Commerce determines that imports are a cause of material injury (or threat of material injury) to the domestic industry and the Dept. of Commerce finds that imported goods are dumped and/or subsidized, imports will be subject to offsetting duties to neutralize such internationally recognized unfair trade practices. The investigations will likely run through early 2017, although preliminary relief could be provided during the summer of 2016.

Two of Titan’s subsidiaries are currently involved in litigation concerning environmental laws and regulations;

On October 26, 2010, the United States of America, on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), filed a complaint against Dico, Inc. (“Dico”) and Titan Tire Corporation (“Titan Tire”) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, wherein the EPA sought civil penalties, punitive damages and response costs against Dico and Titan Tire pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA”).

On June 11, 2015, Titan Tire and Dico, Inc. appealed the U.S. District Court’s order granting the EPA’s motion for summary judgment that found Dico and Titan Tire liable for civil penalties and response costs for violating CERCLA and Dico liable for civil penalties and punitive damages for violating an EPA Administrative Order.

On December 10, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s summary judgment order with respect to “arranger” liability for Titan Tire and Dico under CERCLA and the imposition of punitive damages against Dico for violating the EPA Administrative Order, but affirmed the summary judgment order imposing civil penalties in the amount of $1.62 million against Dico for violating the EPA Administrative Order violation.

The case has been remanded to the District Court for trial on the issues of “arranger” liability under CERCLA as to Titan Tire and Dico and whether punitive damages should be imposed upon Dico for alleged violations of the EPA Administrative Order.