Contingencies and Off-Balance Sheet Commitments	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies and Off-Balance Sheet Commitments	Contingencies and Off-Balance Sheet Commitments Legal Proceedings Public Liability and Property Damage The Company is currently a defendant in numerous actions and has received numerous claims on which actions have not yet been commenced for public liability and property damage arising from the operation of motor vehicles and equipment rented from the Company. The obligation for public liability and property damage on self-insured U.S. and international vehicles and equipment, as stated on the Company's balance sheet, represents an estimate for both reported accident claims not yet paid and claims incurred but not yet reported. The related liabilities are recorded on a non-discounted basis. Reserve requirements are based on actuarial evaluations of historical accident claim experience and trends, as well as future projections of ultimate losses, expenses, premiums and administrative costs. At June 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014 the liability recorded for public liability and property damage matters was $384 million and $385 million, respectively. The Company believes that its analysis is based on the most relevant information available, combined with reasonable assumptions, and that the Company may prudently rely on this information to determine the estimated liability. The Company notes that the liability is subject to significant uncertainties. The adequacy of the liability reserve is regularly monitored based on evolving accident claim history and insurance related state legislation changes. If the Company's estimates change or if actual results differ from these assumptions, the amount of the recorded liability is adjusted to reflect these results. Other Matters From time to time the Company is a party to various legal proceedings. The Company has summarized below the most significant legal proceedings to which the Company was and/or is a party to during the three and six months ended June 30, 2015 or the period after June 30, 2015 but before the filing of this Report on Form 10-Q. Concession Fee Recoveries - In October 2006, Janet Sobel, Daniel Dugan, PhD. and Lydia Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Hertz Corporation and Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company, or “Enterprise,” was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada (Enterprise became a defendant in a separate action which they have now settled.) The Sobel case is a nationwide class action on behalf of all persons who rented cars from Hertz at airports in Nevada and were separately charged airport concession recovery fees by Hertz as part of their rental charges. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, restitution of any charges found to be improper and an injunction prohibiting Hertz from quoting or charging those airport fees that are alleged not to be allowed by Nevada law. The plaintiffs also seek attorneys' fees and costs. In 2010, the parties engaged in mediation which resulted in a proposed settlement. Although the court tentatively approved the settlement in November 2010, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the proposed settlement in May 2011. Following additional activity in the case, in March 2013, the court granted, in part, the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment with respect to restitution and granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification while denying the Company's motion for partial summary judgment. In October 2014, the court entered final judgment, merging all of its prior rulings and directed Hertz to pay the class approximately $42 million in restitution and $11 million in prejudgment interest, and to pay attorney's fees of $3.1 million with an additional $3.1 million to be paid from the restitution fund. In December 2014, Hertz timely filed an appeal of that final judgment with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the plaintiffs cross appealed the court's judgment seeking to challenge the lower court's ruling that Hertz did not deceive or mislead the class members. In April 2015, Hertz filed its opening brief. In June 2015, the plaintiffs filed their answering brief and opening brief on their cross-appeal. The Company continues to believe the outcome of this case will not be material to its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. In re Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation - In November 2013, a purported shareholder class action, Pedro Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al., was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey naming Hertz Holdings and certain of its officers as defendants and alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The complaint alleges that Hertz Holdings made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in its public disclosures during the period from February 25, 2013 through November 4, 2013, in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of monetary damages on behalf of the purported class and an award of costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees. In June 2014, Hertz Holdings responded to the amended complaint by filing a motion to dismiss. After a hearing in October 2014, the court granted Hertz Holdings' motion to dismiss the complaint. The dismissal was without prejudice and plaintiffs were granted leave to file a second amended complaint within 30 days of the order. In November 2014, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint which shortened the putative class period such that it is not alleged to have commenced until May 18, 2013 and makes allegations that are not substantively very different than the allegations in the prior complaint. In early 2015, this case was assigned to a new federal judge in the District of New Jersey and Hertz Holdings responded to the second amended complaint by filing another motion to dismiss. On July 22, 2015, the court granted Hertz Holdings’ motion to dismiss without prejudice and ordered that plaintiff may file a third amended complaint on or before August 22, 2015. The court further ordered that failure to file a third amended complaint will result in dismissal of the case with prejudice. Hertz Holdings believes that it has valid and meritorious defenses and it intends to vigorously defend against any further amendment of the complaint, but litigation is subject to many uncertainties and the outcome of this matter is not predictable with assurance. It is possible that this matter could be decided unfavorably to Hertz Holdings. However, Hertz Holdings is currently unable to estimate the range of these possible losses, but they could be material. The Company intends to assert that it has meritorious defenses in the foregoing matters and the Company intends to defend itself vigorously. Governmental Investigations - In June 2014 the Company was advised by the staff of the New York Regional Office of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) that it is investigating the events disclosed in certain of the Company’s filings with the SEC. In addition, in December 2014 a state securities regulator requested information regarding the same events. The investigations generally involve the restatements included in the Company's 2014 Form 10-K and related accounting for prior periods. The Company has and intends to continue to cooperate with both the SEC and state requests. Due to the stage at which the proceedings are, Hertz is currently unable to predict the likely outcome of the proceedings or estimate the range of reasonably possible losses, which may be material. French Antitrust - In February 2015, the French Competition Authority issued a Statement of Objections claiming that several car rental companies, including Hertz and certain of its subsidiaries, violated French competition law by receiving historic market information from twelve French airports relating to the car rental companies operating at those airports and by engaging in a concerted practice relating to train station surcharges. Hertz believes that it has valid defenses and intends to vigorously defend against the allegations, but, due to the early stage at which the proceedings are, Hertz is currently unable to predict the likely outcome of the proceedings or range of reasonably possible losses, which may be material. The Company has established reserves for matters where the Company believes that losses are probable and can be reasonably estimated. Other than the aggregate reserve established for claims for public liability and property damage, none of those reserves are material. For matters, including certain of those described above, where the Company has not established a reserve, the ultimate outcome or resolution cannot be predicted at this time, or the amount of ultimate loss, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated. Litigation is subject to many uncertainties and the outcome of the individual litigated matters is not predictable with assurance. It is possible that certain of the actions, claims, inquiries or proceedings, including those discussed above, could be decided unfavorably to the Company or any of its subsidiaries involved. Accordingly, it is possible that an adverse outcome from such a proceeding could exceed the amount accrued in an amount that could be material to the Company's consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows in any particular reporting period. Indemnification Obligations There have been no significant changes to the Company's indemnification obligations as compared to those disclosed in Note 14, "Contingencies and Off-Balance Sheet Commitments" of the Notes to consolidated financial statements included in the 2014 Form 10-K under the caption Item 8, "Financial Statements and Supplementary Data."

Contingencies and Off-Balance Sheet Commitments

Legal Proceedings

Public Liability and Property Damage

The Company is currently a defendant in numerous actions and has received numerous claims on which actions have not yet been commenced for public liability and property damage arising from the operation of motor vehicles and equipment rented from the Company. The obligation for public liability and property damage on self-insured U.S. and international vehicles and equipment, as stated on the Company's balance sheet, represents an estimate for both reported accident claims not yet paid and claims incurred but not yet reported. The related liabilities are recorded on a non-discounted basis. Reserve requirements are based on actuarial evaluations of historical accident claim experience and trends, as well as future projections of ultimate losses, expenses, premiums and administrative costs. At June 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014 the liability recorded for public liability and property damage matters was $384 million and $385 million, respectively. The Company believes that its analysis is based on the most relevant information available, combined with reasonable assumptions, and that the Company may prudently rely on this information to determine the estimated liability. The Company notes that the liability is subject to significant uncertainties. The adequacy of the liability reserve is regularly monitored based on evolving accident claim history and insurance related state legislation changes. If the Company's estimates change or if actual results differ from these assumptions, the amount of the recorded liability is adjusted to reflect these results.

Other Matters

From time to time the Company is a party to various legal proceedings. The Company has summarized below the most significant legal proceedings to which the Company was and/or is a party to during the three and six months ended June 30, 2015 or the period after June 30, 2015 but before the filing of this Report on Form 10-Q.

Concession Fee Recoveries - In October 2006, Janet Sobel, Daniel Dugan, PhD. and Lydia Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Hertz Corporation and Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company, or “Enterprise,” was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada (Enterprise became a defendant in a separate action which they have now settled.) The Sobel case is a nationwide class action on behalf of all persons who rented cars from Hertz at airports in Nevada and were separately charged airport concession recovery fees by Hertz as part of their rental charges. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, restitution of any charges found to be improper and an injunction prohibiting Hertz from quoting or charging those airport fees that are alleged not to be allowed by Nevada law. The plaintiffs also seek attorneys' fees and costs. In 2010, the parties engaged in mediation which resulted in a proposed settlement. Although the court tentatively approved the settlement in November 2010, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the proposed settlement in May 2011. Following additional activity in the case, in March 2013, the court granted, in part, the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment with respect to restitution and granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification while denying the Company's motion for partial summary judgment. In October 2014, the court entered final judgment, merging all of its prior rulings and directed Hertz to pay the class approximately $42 million in restitution and $11 million in prejudgment interest, and to pay attorney's fees of $3.1 million with an additional $3.1 million to be paid from the restitution fund. In December 2014, Hertz timely filed an appeal of that final judgment with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the plaintiffs cross appealed the court's judgment seeking to challenge the lower court's ruling that Hertz did not deceive or mislead the class members. In April 2015, Hertz filed its opening brief. In June 2015, the plaintiffs filed their answering brief and opening brief on their cross-appeal. The Company continues to believe the outcome of this case will not be material to its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

In re Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation - In November 2013, a purported shareholder class action, Pedro Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al., was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey naming Hertz Holdings and certain of its officers as defendants and alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The complaint alleges that Hertz Holdings made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in its public disclosures during the period from February 25, 2013 through November 4, 2013, in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of monetary damages on behalf of the purported class and an award of costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees. In June 2014, Hertz Holdings responded to the amended complaint by filing a motion to dismiss. After a hearing in October 2014, the court granted Hertz Holdings' motion to dismiss the complaint. The dismissal was without prejudice and plaintiffs were granted leave to file a second amended complaint within 30 days of the order. In November 2014, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint which shortened the putative class period such that it is not alleged to have commenced until May 18, 2013 and makes allegations that are not substantively very different than the allegations in the prior complaint. In early 2015, this case was assigned to a new federal judge in the District of New Jersey and Hertz Holdings responded to the second amended complaint by filing another motion to dismiss. On July 22, 2015, the court granted Hertz Holdings’ motion to dismiss without prejudice and ordered that plaintiff may file a third amended complaint on or before August 22, 2015. The court further ordered that failure to file a third amended complaint will result in dismissal of the case with prejudice. Hertz Holdings believes that it has valid and meritorious defenses and it intends to vigorously defend against any further amendment of the complaint, but litigation is subject to many uncertainties and the outcome of this matter is not predictable with assurance. It is possible that this matter could be decided unfavorably to Hertz Holdings. However, Hertz Holdings is currently unable to estimate the range of these possible losses, but they could be material.

The Company intends to assert that it has meritorious defenses in the foregoing matters and the Company intends to defend itself vigorously.

Governmental Investigations - In June 2014 the Company was advised by the staff of the New York Regional Office of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) that it is investigating the events disclosed in certain of the Company’s filings with the SEC. In addition, in December 2014 a state securities regulator requested information regarding the same events. The investigations generally involve the restatements included in the Company's 2014 Form 10-K and related accounting for prior periods. The Company has and intends to continue to cooperate with both the SEC and state requests. Due to the stage at which the proceedings are, Hertz is currently unable to predict the likely outcome of the proceedings or estimate the range of reasonably possible losses, which may be material.

French Antitrust - In February 2015, the French Competition Authority issued a Statement of Objections claiming that several car rental companies, including Hertz and certain of its subsidiaries, violated French competition law by receiving historic market information from twelve French airports relating to the car rental companies operating at those airports and by engaging in a concerted practice relating to train station surcharges. Hertz believes that it has valid defenses and intends to vigorously defend against the allegations, but, due to the early stage at which the proceedings are, Hertz is currently unable to predict the likely outcome of the proceedings or range of reasonably possible losses, which may be material.

The Company has established reserves for matters where the Company believes that losses are probable and can be reasonably estimated. Other than the aggregate reserve established for claims for public liability and property damage, none of those reserves are material. For matters, including certain of those described above, where the Company has not established a reserve, the ultimate outcome or resolution cannot be predicted at this time, or the amount of ultimate loss, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated. Litigation is subject to many uncertainties and the outcome of the individual litigated matters is not predictable with assurance. It is possible that certain of the actions, claims, inquiries or proceedings, including those discussed above, could be decided unfavorably to the Company or any of its subsidiaries involved. Accordingly, it is possible that an adverse outcome from such a proceeding could exceed the amount accrued in an amount that could be material to the Company's consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows in any particular reporting period.

Indemnification Obligations

There have been no significant changes to the Company's indemnification obligations as compared to those disclosed in Note 14, "Contingencies and Off-Balance Sheet Commitments" of the Notes to consolidated financial statements included in the 2014 Form 10-K under the caption Item 8, "Financial Statements and Supplementary Data."