Litigation, Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2019
Litigation, Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
Litigation, Commitments and Contingencies	Note T - Litigation, Commitments and Contingencies In the ordinary, regular and routine course of their business, the Company and its Insurance Subsidiaries are frequently involved in various matters of litigation relating principally to claims for insurance coverage provided. No currently pending matter is deemed by management to be material to the Company, other than as noted below. Personnel Staffing Group Litigation In July 2019, Protective Insurance Company (“Protective”) was named as a defendant in an action brought by a former insured, Personnel Staffing Group d/b/a MVP Staffing (“PSG”), in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (the “California Action”) alleging that Protective had breached its workers’ compensation insurance policy and had breached the duties of good faith and fair dealing. Protective provided workers’ compensation insurance to PSG from January 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018, which was subject to a $500 per claim deductible to be paid by PSG. No specific damages were included in the complaint. In August 2019, Protective filed a motion to dismiss or stay the action, which remains pending. The Company intends to vigorously defend these claims; however, the ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined. In August 2019, Protective filed a lawsuit against PSG in Marion County Superior Court, in Indianapolis, Indiana (the “Court”) alleging breach of contract, breach of the parties' collateral agreement, breach of the parties' indemnity agreement, and seeking a declaratory judgment regarding PSG’s obligation to fund its ongoing claim deductible obligations and adequately collateralize Protective’s current and ongoing claims exposure pursuant to terms of the parties' agreements. In October 2019, Protective amended the complaint to include allegations of misrepresentation as to source of coverage, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and racketeering and seeking injunctive relief. In November 2019, PSG filed a motion to dismiss on the basis of comity with the California Action, claiming that California was the proper forum for Protective’s claims. In February 2020, the Court issued an order dismissing the Protective lawsuit without prejudice; the Court declined to rule on the legal effect of the forum selection clause in the parties’ agreements, finding that any interpretation should be addressed by the court in the California Action. As the determination of jurisdiction and proper forum remains pending in the California Action, we intend to vigorously pursue our claims against PSG. Pursuant to the terms of the workers’ compensation policies, Protective has a duty to adjust and pay claims arising under the policies regardless of whether PSG makes payments to Protective for deductible obligations under the policies. Under its contractual obligations to Protective, PSG is required to maintain a “loss fund” for the payment of claims, the balance of which is to remain at or above $4,000; in addition, PSG is required to provide collateral in an amount equal to 110% of Protective’s current open case reserves on workers’ compensation claims arising under the policies. As of December 31, 2019, Protective had approximately $10,800 in deductible receivables on claims arising under PSG’s workers’ compensation policies and had exhausted all collateral provided by PSG. Protective continues to pay claims settlements under the policies without reimbursement from PSG. For the past six months, the average monthly deductible invoices have been approximately $1,500. PSG’s estimated ultimate obligation under the agreements is approximately $44,600 as of December 31, 2019 (inclusive of the $10,800 in deductible receivables noted above). At December 31, 2019, based on the Company's assessment that PSG will continue to operate as a business and that the terms of the agreement with PSG will be legally enforceable, the Company believes that it will fully collect all current and future amounts due from PSG relating to this matter and, therefore, has not recorded a provision for any potential loss. In the event that PSG files bankruptcy or that the agreements are found to be unenforceable, Protective will likely incur a charge up to the then-estimated amount of PSG’s ultimate obligation. The Company included this matter in its assessment of the impact of adopting the accounting guidance amending ASC Topic 326, the credit losses standard, which is discussed in Note A, and has included an expected credit loss in the range of impacts related to the adoption of this guidance.

Note T - Litigation, Commitments and Contingencies

In the ordinary, regular and routine course of their business, the Company and its Insurance Subsidiaries are frequently involved in various matters of litigation relating principally to claims for insurance coverage provided. No currently pending matter is deemed by management to be material to the Company, other than as noted below.

Personnel Staffing Group Litigation

In July 2019, Protective Insurance Company (“Protective”) was named as a defendant in an action brought by a former insured, Personnel Staffing Group d/b/a MVP Staffing (“PSG”), in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (the “California Action”) alleging that Protective had breached its workers’ compensation insurance policy and had breached the duties of good faith and fair dealing. Protective provided workers’ compensation insurance to PSG from January 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018, which was subject to a $500 per claim deductible to be paid by PSG. No specific damages were included in the complaint. In August 2019, Protective filed a motion to dismiss or stay the action, which remains pending. The Company intends to vigorously defend these claims; however, the ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined.

In August 2019, Protective filed a lawsuit against PSG in Marion County Superior Court, in Indianapolis, Indiana (the “Court”) alleging breach of contract, breach of the parties' collateral agreement, breach of the parties' indemnity agreement, and seeking a declaratory judgment regarding PSG’s obligation to fund its ongoing claim deductible obligations and adequately collateralize Protective’s current and ongoing claims exposure pursuant to terms of the parties' agreements. In October 2019, Protective amended the complaint to include allegations of misrepresentation as to source of coverage, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and racketeering and seeking injunctive relief. In November 2019, PSG filed a motion to dismiss on the basis of comity with the California Action, claiming that California was the proper forum for Protective’s claims. In February 2020, the Court issued an order dismissing the Protective lawsuit without prejudice; the Court declined to rule on the legal effect of the forum selection clause in the parties’ agreements, finding that any interpretation should be addressed by the court in the California Action. As the determination of jurisdiction and proper forum remains pending in the California Action, we intend to vigorously pursue our claims against PSG.

Pursuant to the terms of the workers’ compensation policies, Protective has a duty to adjust and pay claims arising under the policies regardless of whether PSG makes payments to Protective for deductible obligations under the policies. Under its contractual obligations to Protective, PSG is required to maintain a “loss fund” for the payment of claims, the balance of which is to remain at or above $4,000; in addition, PSG is required to provide collateral in an amount equal to 110% of Protective’s current open case reserves on workers’ compensation claims arising under the policies.

As of December 31, 2019, Protective had approximately $10,800 in deductible receivables on claims arising under PSG’s workers’ compensation policies and had exhausted all collateral provided by PSG. Protective continues to pay claims settlements under the policies without reimbursement from PSG. For the past six months, the average monthly deductible invoices have been approximately $1,500. PSG’s estimated ultimate obligation under the agreements is approximately $44,600 as of December 31, 2019 (inclusive of the $10,800 in deductible receivables noted above). At December 31, 2019, based on the Company's assessment that PSG will continue to operate as a business and that the terms of the agreement with PSG will be legally enforceable, the Company believes that it will fully collect all current and future amounts due from PSG relating to this matter and, therefore, has not recorded a provision for any potential loss. In the event that PSG files bankruptcy or that the agreements are found to be unenforceable, Protective will likely incur a charge up to the then-estimated amount of PSG’s ultimate obligation.

The Company included this matter in its assessment of the impact of adopting the accounting guidance amending ASC Topic 326, the credit losses standard, which is discussed in Note A, and has included an expected credit loss in the range of impacts related to the adoption of this guidance.