Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2014

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

8. Contingencies

PODS Enterprises, Inc. v. U-Haul International, Inc.

On July 3, 2012, PODS Enterprises, Inc. (“PEI”), filed a lawsuit against U-Haul International, Inc. (“U-Haul”), in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, alleging (1) Federal Trademark Infringement under Section 32 of the Lanham Act, (2) Federal Unfair Competition under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, (3) Federal Trademark dilution by blurring in violation of Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act, (4) common law trademark infringement under Florida law, (5) violation of the Florida Dilution; Injury to Business Reputation statute, (6) unfair competition and trade practices, false advertising and passing off under Florida common law, (7) violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and (8) unjust enrichment under Florida law.  

The claims arise from U-Haul's use of the word “pod” and “pods” as a generic term for its U-Box moving and storage product. PEI alleges that such use is an inappropriate use of its PODS mark.  Under the claims alleged in its Complaint, PEI seeks a Court Order permanently enjoining U-Haul from: (1) the use of the PODS mark, or any other trade name or trademark confusingly similar to the mark; and (2) the use of any false descriptions or representations or committing any acts of unfair competition by using the PODS mark or any trade name or trademark confusingly similar to the mark. PEI also seeks a Court Order (1) finding all of PEI's trademarks valid and enforceable and (2) requiring U-Haul to alter all web pages to promptly remove the PODS mark from all websites owned or operated on behalf of U-Haul. Finally, PEI seeks an award of damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but which are alleged to be approximately $70 million. PEI also seeks prejudgment interest, trebled damages, and punitive damages.

U-Haul does not believe that PEI's claims have merit and vigorously defended the lawsuit.  On September 17, 2012, U-Haul filed its Counterclaims, seeking a Court Order declaring that: U-Haul's use of the term “pods” or “pod” does not infringe or dilute PEI's purported trademarks or violate any of PEI's purported rights; (2) The purported mark “PODS” is not a valid, protectable, or registrable trademark; and (3) The purported mark “PODS PORTABLE ON DEMAND STORAGE” is not a valid, protectable, or registrable trademark. U-Haul also sought a Court Order cancelling the marks at issue in the case.

The case was tried to an 8-person jury, beginning on September 8, 2014. On September 19, 2014, the Court granted U-Haul's motion for directed verdict on the issue of punitive damages.  The Court deferred ruling on U-Haul's motion for directed verdict on its defense that the words “pod” and “pods” were generic terms for a container used for the moving and storage of goods at the time PEI obtained its trademark (“genericness defense”).  Closing arguments were on September 22, 2014.

On September 25, 2014, the jury returned a unanimous verdict, finding in favor of PEI and against U-Haul on all claims and counterclaims.  The jury awarded PEI $45 million in actual damages and $15.7 million in U-Haul's profits attributable to its use of the term “pod” or “pods”.  

U-Haul intends to file post-trial motions and, if necessary, appeal the verdict to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  In this regard, on October 1, 2014, the Court ordered briefing on U-Haul's oral motion for directed verdict on its genericness defense, the motion on which the Court had deferred ruling during trial.  Pursuant to the Court's order, the parties' briefing on that motion was completed by October 21, 2014.

Environmental

Compliance with environmental requirements of federal, state and local governments may significantly affect Real Estate's business operations. Among other things, these requirements regulate the discharge of materials into the air, land and water and govern the use and disposal of hazardous substances. We are aware of issues regarding hazardous substances on some of Real Estate's properties. Real Estate regularly makes capital and operating expenditures to stay in compliance with environmental laws and has put in place a remedial plan at each site where it believes such a plan is necessary. Since 1988, Real Estate has managed a testing and removal program for underground storage tanks.

Based upon the information currently available to Real Estate, compliance with the environmental laws and its share of the costs of investigation and cleanup of known hazardous waste sites are not expected to result in a material adverse effect on AMERCO's financial position or results of operations.

Other

We are named as a defendant in various other litigation and claims arising out of the normal course of business. In management's opinion, none of these other matters will have a material effect on our financial position and results of operations.