Contingencies (Narratives) (Details) $ in Millions	6 Months Ended
	Sep. 30, 2016 USD ($)
Litigation And Legal Matters
Name of Plaintiff	PODS Enterprises, Inc
Lawsuit filing date	Jul. 03, 2012
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
Litigation settlement, amount	$ 41.4
Allegations by plaintiff	(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.
Loss contingency, actions taken by defendent	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 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.
Actions taken by the court	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.