Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Lease Commitments As of September 30, 2015, the Company had approximately $1,739.4 million in future minimum payments required under operating leases for various real estate, double-stack railcars, containers, chassis, tractors, data processing equipment, transportation and office equipment leases that have an initial or remaining non-cancellable lease term. Remaining future minimum payments related to these operating leases amount to approximately $420.0 million, $325.9 million, $266.8 million, $205.0 million, and $521.7 million for the twelve-month periods ending September 30, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 and thereafter, respectively. Actual amounts of operating lease expense may differ from estimated amounts due to changes in foreign currency exchange rates. Rent expense was approximately $200.0 million and $25.1 million for the three-month periods ended September 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively, and $295.9 million and $48.9 million for the nine-month periods ended September 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively. Litigation The Company is involved, and will continue to be involved, in numerous legal proceedings arising out of the conduct of its business. These proceedings may include, among other matters, claims for property damage or personal injury incurred in connection with the transportation of freight and employment-related claims, including claims involving asserted breaches of employee restrictive covenants and tortious interference with contract. These proceedings also include numerous purported class-action lawsuits, multi-plaintiff and individual lawsuits and state tax and other administrative proceedings that claim either that the Company’s owner operators or contract carriers should be treated as employees, rather than independent contractors, or that certain of the Company's drivers were not paid for all compensable time or were not provided with required meal or rest breaks. These lawsuits and proceedings may seek substantial monetary damages (including claims for unpaid wages, overtime, failure to provide meal and rest periods, unreimbursed business expenses and other items), injunctive relief, or both. The Company establishes accruals for specific legal proceedings when it is considered probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Accruals for loss contingencies are reviewed quarterly and adjusted as additional information becomes available. In connection with certain acquisitions of privately-held businesses, the Company has retained purchase price holdbacks to provide security for a negotiated duration with respect to damages incurred in connection with pre-acquisition claims and litigation matters. If a loss is not both probable and reasonably estimable, or if an exposure to loss exists in excess of the amount accrued therefor or the applicable purchase price holdback, the Company assesses whether there is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss, or additional loss, may have been incurred. If there is a reasonable possibility that a loss, or additional loss, may have been incurred, the Company discloses the estimate of the possible loss or range of loss if it is material and an estimate can be made, or states that such an estimate cannot be made. The evaluation as to whether a loss is reasonably possible or probable is based on the Company’s assessment, in conjunction with legal counsel, regarding the ultimate outcome of the matter. The Company believes that it has adequately accrued for the potential impact of loss contingencies that are probable and reasonably estimable. The Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of any matters to which the Company is presently party will have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. However, the results of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty, and an unfavorable resolution of one or more of these matters could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Legal costs incurred related to these matters are expensed as incurred. The Company carries liability and excess umbrella insurance policies that it deems sufficient to cover potential legal claims arising in the normal course of conducting its operations as a transportation company. The liability and excess umbrella insurance policies do not cover the misclassification claims described in this Note. In the event the Company is required to satisfy a legal claim in excess of the coverage provided by this insurance, the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows could be negatively impacted. Intermodal Drayage Classification Claims Certain of the Company’s intermodal drayage subsidiaries received notices from the California Labor Commissioner, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (the “DLSE”), that a total of 153 owner operators contracted with these subsidiaries have filed claims with the DLSE in which they assert that they should be classified as employees, as opposed to independent contractors. These claims seek reimbursement for the owner operators’ business expenses, including fuel, tractor maintenance and tractor lease payments. After a decision was rendered by a DLSE hearing officer in seven of these claims, the Company appealed the decision to California Supreme Court, San Diego, where a de novo trial was held on the merits of those claims. On July 17, 2015, the court issued a final statement of decision finding that the seven claimants were employees rather than independent contractors, and awarding an aggregate of $2.0 million to the claimants. The court’s judgment is subject to appeal, and the Company is evaluating its options with respect to these claims. The Company cannot provide assurance that the Company will determine to pursue an appeal or that an appeal will be successful. The remaining DLSE claims have been transferred to California Superior Court in three separate actions involving approximately 200 claimants, including the 153 claimants mentioned above. These matters are in the initial procedural stages. One of these intermodal drayage subsidiaries also is a party to a putative class action litigation (Manuela Ruelas Mendoza v. Pacer Cartage, Inc.) brought by Edwin Molina in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California on August 19, 2013. Mr. Molina asserts that he should be classified as an employee, as opposed to an independent contractor, and seeks damages for alleged violation of various California wage and hour laws. Mr. Molina seeks to have the litigation certified as a class action involving all owner-operators contracted with this subsidiary at any time from August 2009 to the present, which could involve as many as 600 claimants. Certain of these potential claimants also may have claims under the actions pending in California Superior Court as described above. This matter is in the initial stages of discovery and the court has not yet determined whether to certify the matter as a class action. The Company has reached a tentative agreement to settle this litigation with the claimant, subject to court approval and acceptance by a minimum percentage of members of the purported class. There can be no assurance that the settlement agreement will be finalized and executed, that the court will approve any such settlement agreement or that it will be accepted by the requisite percentage of members of the purported class. One of these intermodal drayage subsidiaries is a party to a putative class action litigation (C. Arevalo v. XPO Port Services, Inc.) brought by Carlos Arevalo in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles Central District filed in August 2015. Mr. Arevalo asserts that he should be classified as an employee, as opposed to an independent contractor, and seeks damages for alleged violation of various California wage and hour laws. Mr. Arevalo seeks to have the litigation certified as a class action involving all owner-operators contracted with this subsidiary at any time from August 2011 to the present. Certain of these potential claimants also may have claims under the actions pending in California Superior Court as described above. This matter is in the initial pleading stage and the court has not yet determined whether to certify the matter as a class action. The Company is unable at this time to estimate the amount of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, that it may incur as a result of this matter. Last Mile Logistics Classification Claims Certain of the Company’s last mile logistics subsidiaries are party to several putative class action litigations brought by independent contract carriers contracted with these subsidiaries in which the contract carriers assert that they should be classified as employees, as opposed to independent contractors. The particular claims asserted vary from case to case, but the claims generally allege unpaid wages, overtime, alleged failure to provide meal and rest periods and seek reimbursement of the contract carriers’ business expenses. Putative class actions against the Company’s subsidiaries are pending in Massachusetts (Celso Martins, Alexandre Rocha, and Calvin Anderson v. 3PD, Inc.), Illinois (Marvin Brandon, Rafael Aguilera, and Aldo Mendez-Etzig v. 3PD, Inc.), Arizona (Dennis Montoya v. 3PD, Inc.), California (Cesar Ardon et al v 3PD, Inc. and Fernando Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics Corp.), New Jersey (Leonardo Alegre v. Atlantic Central Logistics, Simply Logistics, Inc.), Pennsylvania (Victor Reyes v. XPO Logistics, Inc.) and Connecticut (Carlos Taveras v. XPO Last Mile, Inc.). The Company has reached tentative agreements to settle the Massachusetts, Illinois, Arizona and one of the California (Ardon) litigations with the respective claimants, subject to court approval and acceptance by a minimum percentage of members of the respective purported class (except in the Arizona matter, in which the settlement is of Mr. Montoya’s individual claims). There can be no assurance that the settlement agreements will be finalized and executed, that the respective court will approve any such settlement agreement or that it will be accepted by the requisite percentage of members of the respective purported class. The Company believes that it has adequately accrued for the potential impact of loss contingencies relating to the foregoing last mile logistics claims that are probable and reasonably estimable. The Company is unable at this time to estimate the amount of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, that it may incur as a result of the New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Connecticut claims, which are in preliminary stages. For information regarding legal contingencies relating to Con-way, which was acquired by the Company on October 30, 2015, refer to Note 18—Subsequent Events.

Commitments and Contingencies

Lease Commitments

As of September 30, 2015, the Company had approximately $1,739.4 million in future minimum payments required under operating leases for various real estate, double-stack railcars, containers, chassis, tractors, data processing equipment, transportation and office equipment leases that have an initial or remaining non-cancellable lease term. Remaining future minimum payments related to these operating leases amount to approximately $420.0 million, $325.9 million, $266.8 million, $205.0 million, and $521.7 million for the twelve-month periods ending September 30, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 and thereafter, respectively. Actual amounts of operating lease expense may differ from estimated amounts due to changes in foreign currency exchange rates.

Rent expense was approximately $200.0 million and $25.1 million for the three-month periods ended September 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively, and $295.9 million and $48.9 million for the nine-month periods ended September 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

Litigation

The Company is involved, and will continue to be involved, in numerous legal proceedings arising out of the conduct of its business. These proceedings may include, among other matters, claims for property damage or personal injury incurred in connection with the transportation of freight and employment-related claims, including claims involving asserted breaches of employee restrictive covenants and tortious interference with contract. These proceedings also include numerous purported class-action lawsuits, multi-plaintiff and individual lawsuits and state tax and other administrative proceedings that claim either that the Company’s owner operators or contract carriers should be treated as employees, rather than independent contractors, or that certain of the Company's drivers were not paid for all compensable time or were not provided with required meal or rest breaks. These lawsuits and proceedings may seek substantial monetary damages (including claims for unpaid wages, overtime, failure to provide meal and rest periods, unreimbursed business expenses and other items), injunctive relief, or both.

The Company establishes accruals for specific legal proceedings when it is considered probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Accruals for loss contingencies are reviewed quarterly and adjusted as additional information becomes available. In connection with certain acquisitions of privately-held businesses, the Company has retained purchase price holdbacks to provide security for a negotiated duration with respect to damages incurred in connection with pre-acquisition claims and litigation matters. If a loss is not both probable and reasonably estimable, or if an exposure to loss exists in excess of the amount accrued therefor or the applicable purchase price holdback, the Company assesses whether there is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss, or additional loss, may have been incurred. If there is a reasonable possibility that a loss, or additional loss, may have been incurred, the Company discloses the estimate of the possible loss or range of loss if it is material and an estimate can be made, or states that such an estimate cannot be made. The evaluation as to whether a loss is reasonably possible or probable is based on the Company’s assessment, in conjunction with legal counsel, regarding the ultimate outcome of the matter.

The Company believes that it has adequately accrued for the potential impact of loss contingencies that are probable and reasonably estimable. The Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of any matters to which the Company is presently party will have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. However, the results of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty, and an unfavorable resolution of one or more of these matters could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Legal costs incurred related to these matters are expensed as incurred.

The Company carries liability and excess umbrella insurance policies that it deems sufficient to cover potential legal claims arising in the normal course of conducting its operations as a transportation company. The liability and excess umbrella insurance policies do not cover the misclassification claims described in this Note. In the event the Company is required to satisfy a legal claim in excess of the coverage provided by this insurance, the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows could be negatively impacted.

Intermodal Drayage Classification Claims

Certain of the Company’s intermodal drayage subsidiaries received notices from the California Labor Commissioner, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (the “DLSE”), that a total of 153 owner operators contracted with these subsidiaries have filed claims with the DLSE in which they assert that they should be classified as employees, as opposed to independent contractors. These claims seek reimbursement for the owner operators’ business expenses, including fuel, tractor maintenance and tractor lease payments. After a decision was rendered by a DLSE hearing officer in seven of these claims, the Company appealed the decision to California Supreme Court, San Diego, where a de novo trial was held on the merits of those claims. On July 17, 2015, the court issued a final statement of decision finding that the seven claimants were employees rather than independent contractors, and awarding an aggregate of $2.0 million to the claimants. The court’s judgment is subject to appeal, and the Company is evaluating its options with respect to these claims. The Company cannot provide assurance that the Company will determine to pursue an appeal or that an appeal will be successful. The remaining DLSE claims have been transferred to California Superior Court in three separate actions involving approximately 200 claimants, including the 153 claimants mentioned above. These matters are in the initial procedural stages.

One of these intermodal drayage subsidiaries also is a party to a putative class action litigation (Manuela Ruelas Mendoza v. Pacer Cartage, Inc.) brought by Edwin Molina in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California on August 19, 2013. Mr. Molina asserts that he should be classified as an employee, as opposed to an independent contractor, and seeks damages for alleged violation of various California wage and hour laws. Mr. Molina seeks to have the litigation certified as a class action involving all owner-operators contracted with this subsidiary at any time from August 2009 to the present, which could involve as many as 600 claimants. Certain of these potential claimants also may have claims under the actions pending in California Superior Court as described above. This matter is in the initial stages of discovery and the court has not yet determined whether to certify the matter as a class action. The Company has reached a tentative agreement to settle this litigation with the claimant, subject to court approval and acceptance by a minimum percentage of members of the purported class. There can be no assurance that the settlement agreement will be finalized and executed, that the court will approve any such settlement agreement or that it will be accepted by the requisite percentage of members of the purported class.

One of these intermodal drayage subsidiaries is a party to a putative class action litigation (C. Arevalo v. XPO Port Services, Inc.) brought by Carlos Arevalo in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles Central District filed in August 2015. Mr. Arevalo asserts that he should be classified as an employee, as opposed to an independent contractor, and seeks damages for alleged violation of various California wage and hour laws. Mr. Arevalo seeks to have the litigation certified as a class action involving all owner-operators contracted with this subsidiary at any time from August 2011 to the present. Certain of these potential claimants also may have claims under the actions pending in California Superior Court as described above. This matter is in the initial pleading stage and the court has not yet determined whether to certify the matter as a class action. The Company is unable at this time to estimate the amount of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, that it may incur as a result of this matter.

Last Mile Logistics Classification Claims

Certain of the Company’s last mile logistics subsidiaries are party to several putative class action litigations brought by independent contract carriers contracted with these subsidiaries in which the contract carriers assert that they should be classified as employees, as opposed to independent contractors. The particular claims asserted vary from case to case, but the claims generally allege unpaid wages, overtime, alleged failure to provide meal and rest periods and seek reimbursement of the contract carriers’ business expenses. Putative class actions against the Company’s subsidiaries are pending in Massachusetts (Celso Martins, Alexandre Rocha, and Calvin Anderson v. 3PD, Inc.), Illinois (Marvin Brandon, Rafael Aguilera, and Aldo Mendez-Etzig v. 3PD, Inc.), Arizona (Dennis Montoya v. 3PD, Inc.), California (Cesar Ardon et al v 3PD, Inc. and Fernando Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics Corp.), New Jersey (Leonardo Alegre v. Atlantic Central Logistics, Simply Logistics, Inc.), Pennsylvania (Victor Reyes v. XPO Logistics, Inc.) and Connecticut (Carlos Taveras v. XPO Last Mile, Inc.). The Company has reached tentative agreements to settle the Massachusetts, Illinois, Arizona and one of the California (Ardon) litigations with the respective claimants, subject to court approval and acceptance by a minimum percentage of members of the respective purported class (except in the Arizona matter, in which the settlement is of Mr. Montoya’s individual claims). There can be no assurance that the settlement agreements will be finalized and executed, that the respective court will approve any such settlement agreement or that it will be accepted by the requisite percentage of members of the respective purported class. The Company believes that it has adequately accrued for the potential impact of loss contingencies relating to the foregoing last mile logistics claims that are probable and reasonably estimable. The Company is unable at this time to estimate the amount of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, that it may incur as a result of the New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Connecticut claims, which are in preliminary stages.

For information regarding legal contingencies relating to Con-way, which was acquired by the Company on October 30, 2015, refer to Note 18—Subsequent Events.