Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
9. 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 arose from U-Haul’s use of the word “pod” and “pods” as a generic term for its U-Box moving and storage product. PEI alleged that such use is an inappropriate use of its PODS mark. Under the claims alleged in its Complaint, PEI sought 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 sought 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 sought an award of damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but which were alleged to be approximately $70 million. PEI also sought pre-judgment interest, trebled damages, and punitive damages. U-Haul did not believe that PEI’s claims had merit and vigorously defended the lawsuit. On September 17, 2012, U-Haul filed its Counterclaims, seeking a Court Order declaring that: (1) 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 a jury beginning on September 8, 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 alleged profits attributable to its use of the term “pod” or “pods.” 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. After hearing previously deferred motions, on March 11, 2015, the Court entered Judgment on the jury verdict in favor of PEI and against U-Haul in the amount of $60.7 million. This was recorded as an accrual in our financial statements. On August 24, 2015, the Court entered a permanent injunction, and awarded PEI $4.9 million in pre-judgment interest, $82,727 in costs, and post-judgment interest at the rate of 0.25%, beginning March 11, 2015, computed daily and compounded annually. This was recorded as an accrual of $5.0 million in our financial statements during fiscal 2016. On September 13, 2016, before oral argument, before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the parties reached a settlement in principle, for $41.4 million. On October 10, 2016, the parties signed a formal written settlement agreement. U-Haul wired the settlement payment on or about October 12, 2016. The parties are in the process of completing their remaining respective performances under the terms of the settlement agreement. 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. Real Estate is aware of issues regarding hazardous substances on some of its 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.

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 arose from U-Haul’s use of the word “pod” and “pods” as a generic term for its U-Box moving and storage product. PEI alleged that such use is an inappropriate use of its PODS mark. Under the claims alleged in its Complaint, PEI sought 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 sought 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 sought an award of damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but which were alleged to be approximately $70 million. PEI also sought pre-judgment interest, trebled damages, and punitive damages.

U-Haul did not believe that PEI’s claims had merit and vigorously defended the lawsuit. On September 17, 2012, U-Haul filed its Counterclaims, seeking a Court Order declaring that: (1) 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 a jury beginning on September 8, 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 alleged profits attributable to its use of the term “pod” or “pods.”

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.

After hearing previously deferred motions, on March 11, 2015, the Court entered Judgment on the jury verdict in favor of PEI and against U-Haul in the amount of $60.7 million. This was recorded as an accrual in our financial statements.

On August 24, 2015, the Court entered a permanent injunction, and awarded PEI $4.9 million in pre-judgment interest, $82,727 in costs, and post-judgment interest at the rate of 0.25%, beginning March 11, 2015, computed daily and compounded annually. This was recorded as an accrual of $5.0 million in our financial statements during fiscal 2016.

On September 13, 2016, before oral argument, before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the parties reached a settlement in principle, for $41.4 million. On October 10, 2016, the parties signed a formal written settlement agreement. U-Haul wired the settlement payment on or about October 12, 2016. The parties are in the process of completing their remaining respective performances under the terms of the settlement agreement.

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. Real Estate is aware of issues regarding hazardous substances on some of its 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.