Contingencies (Narratives) (Details) - 3 months ended Jun. 30, 2015 - USD ($) $ in Millions	Total
Litigation And Legal Matters
Name of Plaintiff	PODS Enterprises, Inc
Lawsuit filing date	Jul. 03, 2012
Trial commencement date	2014-09
Damages sought by plaintiff	$ 70.0
Damages awarded to plaintiff	45.0
Damages awarded, alleged profits	15.7
Loss contingency, loss in period	$ 60.7
Loss contingency, actions taken by plaintiff	On March 25, 2015, PEI filed a motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses in the amount of $6.5 million, with supporting Affidavits. On April 27, 2015, U-Haul filed its opposition brief to that motion. On March 25, 2015, PEI filed a Proposed Bill of Costs in the amount of $186,411. On April 14, 2015, U-Haul filed an opposition to PEI’s proposed bill of costs. On May 1, 2015, PEI filed an amended bill of costs, in the amount of $196,133. On April 8, 2015, PEI filed a Motion to Amend the Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), in which it asked that the Judgment be amended to include (i) the entry of a permanent injunction, (ii) an award of pre-Judgment interest, in the amount of $4.9 million, (iii) an award of post-Judgment interest in the amount of $11,441 and continuing to accrue at the rate of 0.25% while the case proceeds, (iv) doubling of the damages award to $121.4 million, and (v) the entry of an order directing the Patent and Trademark Office to dismiss the cancellation proceedings that U-Haul filed, which sought cancellation of the PODS trademarks. On April 27, 2015, U-Haul filed its opposition brief arguing, among other things, that (1) PEI is not entitled to recover double the windfall the jury incorrectly awarded it, (2) PEI is not entitled to the overreaching injunction it seeks, (3) PEI is not entitled to pre-judgment interest, (4) PEI has overstated the amount of post-Judgment interest to which it is entitled, and (5) PEI’s request that the Court order the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to dismiss U-Haul’s cancellation proceeding is premature.
Loss contingency, actions taken by defendent	On April 6, 2015, U-Haul filed, with PEI’s consent, a motion to stay execution of the Judgment, pending the trial court’s rulings on U-HauI’s post-Judgment motions. That motion was supported by a supersedeas bond in the amount of $60.9 million, which represents 100% of the Judgment plus post-Judgment interest at the rate of 0.25% per year for 18 months. PEI and U-Haul both reserved the right to modify the amount of the bond in the event the Judgment is modified by the Court’s rulings on the parties’ post-Judgment motions (described below). On April 7, 2015, the Court granted U-Haul’s motion on consent, staying the Judgment pending rulings on U-Haul’s post-Judgment motions. On April 8, 2015, U-Haul filed its Renewed Motion for Judgment As Matter of Law, or in the Alternative, Motion for New Trial, or to Alter the Judgment. U-Haul argued that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because even when all evidence is viewed in PEI’s favor, it was legally insufficient for the jury to find for PEI. Alternatively, U-Haul argued that it is entitled to a new trial because the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Alternatively, U-Haul argued that the Court should reduce the damages and profits award under principles of equity. On April, 27, 2015, PEI filed its opposition brief. On April 9, 2015, U-Haul filed a protective Notice of Appeal. We expect that this notice of appeal will be automatically stayed and will become effective upon the disposition of (1) U-Haul’s renewed motion for judgment or a new trial or alteration of the Judgment or (2) PEI’s motion to alter or amend the Judgment, whichever comes later.