Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 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. 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 was an inappropriate use of its PODSmark. On September 25, 2014, the jury in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 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.” A total of $60.7 million was recorded as an accrual in our financial statements. 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. 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, 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. On November 4, 2016, the trial court entered an Order (i) confirming the satisfaction in full of the Judgment and the Amended Judgment and (ii) releasing the Bond and Rider in their entirety as to U-Haul. On November 14, 2016, the parties jointly moved to dismiss U-Haul’s consolidated appeals with prejudice, with each side to bear its own costs. The request for dismissal encompassed all claims and all parties on appeal. Pursuant to the parties’ joint motion for voluntary dismissal, the Clerk of the Court of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit entered the dismissal, effective November 16, 2016. The parties have completed their 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. 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 was an inappropriate use of its PODSmark.

On September 25, 2014, the jury in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 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.” A total of $60.7 million was recorded as an accrual in our financial statements.

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.

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, 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.

On November 4, 2016, the trial court entered an Order (i) confirming the satisfaction in full of the Judgment and the Amended Judgment and (ii) releasing the Bond and Rider in their entirety as to U-Haul.

On November 14, 2016, the parties jointly moved to dismiss U-Haul’s consolidated appeals with prejudice, with each side to bear its own costs. The request for dismissal encompassed all claims and all parties on appeal. Pursuant to the parties’ joint motion for voluntary dismissal, the Clerk of the Court of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit entered the dismissal, effective November 16, 2016.

The parties have completed their 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.