Contingencies and Off-Balance Sheet Commitments

3 Months Ended

12 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2011

Dec. 31, 2010

Contingencies and Off-Balance Sheet Commitments

Contingencies and Off-Balance Sheet Commitments

Note 15—Contingencies and Off-Balance Sheet Commitments

Off-Balance Sheet Commitments

As of March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the following guarantees (including indemnification commitments) were issued and outstanding.

Indemnification Obligations

In the ordinary course of business, we execute contracts involving indemnification obligations customary in the relevant industry and indemnifications specific to a transaction such as the sale of a business. These indemnification obligations might include claims relating to the following: environmental matters; intellectual property rights; governmental regulations and employment-related matters; customer, supplier and other commercial contractual relationships; and financial matters. Performance under these indemnification obligations would generally be triggered by a breach of terms of the contract or by a third party claim. We regularly evaluate the probability of having to incur costs associated with these indemnification obligations and have accrued for expected losses that are probable and estimable. The types of indemnification obligations for which payments are possible include the following:

Sponsors; Directors

We have entered into customary indemnification agreements with Hertz Holdings, the Sponsors and Hertz Holdings' stockholders affiliated with the Sponsors, pursuant to which Hertz Holdings and we will indemnify the Sponsors, Hertz Holdings' stockholders affiliated with the Sponsors and their respective affiliates, directors, officers, partners, members, employees, agents, representatives and controlling persons, against certain liabilities arising out of performance of a consulting agreement with Hertz Holdings and each of the Sponsors and certain other claims and liabilities, including liabilities arising out of financing arrangements or securities offerings. We do not believe that these indemnifications are reasonably likely to have a material impact on us. Hertz Holdings has entered into indemnification agreements with each of its directors.

Environmental

We have indemnified various parties for the costs associated with remediating numerous hazardous substance storage, recycling or disposal sites in many states and, in some instances, for natural resource damages. The amount of any such expenses or related natural resource damages for which we may be held responsible could be substantial. The probable expenses that we expect to incur for such matters have been accrued, and those expenses are reflected in our condensed consolidated financial statements. As of March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the aggregate amounts accrued for environmental liabilities including liability for environmental indemnities, reflected in our condensed consolidated balance sheets in "Accrued liabilities" were $1.5 million and $1.6 million, respectively. The accrual generally represents the estimated cost to study potential environmental issues at sites deemed to require investigation or clean-up activities, and the estimated cost to implement remediation actions, including on-going maintenance, as required. Cost estimates are developed by site. Initial cost estimates are based on historical experience at similar sites and are refined over time on the basis of in-depth studies of the sites. For many sites, the remediation costs and other damages for which we ultimately may be responsible cannot be reasonably estimated because of uncertainties with respect to factors such as our connection to the site, the materials there, the involvement of other potentially responsible parties, the application of laws and other standards or regulations, site conditions, and the nature and scope of investigations, studies, and remediation to be undertaken (including the technologies to be required and the extent, duration, and success of remediation.

Legal Proceedings

From time to time we are a party to various legal proceedings. We are currently a defendant in numerous actions and have 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 us and our licensees. The obligation for public liability and property damage on self-insured U.S. and international vehicles and equipment, as stated on our 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 March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010 our liability recorded for public liability and property damage matters was $282.1 million and $278.7 million, respectively. We believe that our analysis was based on the most relevant information available, combined with reasonable assumptions, and that we may prudently rely on this information to determine the estimated liability. We note 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 our estimates change or if actual results differ from these assumptions, the amount of the recorded liability is adjusted to reflect these results.

For a detailed description of certain of our legal proceedings please see Note 11 of the Notes to our audited annual consolidated financial statements included in our Form 10-K under the caption "Item 8—Financial Statements and Supplementary Data."

There were no material changes in the legal proceedings described in our Form 10-K and we are not otherwise required to disclose any pending legal proceedings in response to Item 103 of Regulation S-K.

In addition to those described in our Form 10-K, various other legal actions, claims and governmental inquiries and proceedings are pending or may be instituted or asserted in the future against us and our subsidiaries. Other than with respect to the aggregate claims for public liability and property damage pending against us, management does not believe that any of the matters resolved, or pending against us, are material to us and our subsidiaries taken as a whole.

We have established reserves for matters where we believe that the losses are probable and reasonably estimated. Other than with respect to the reserve established for claims for public liability and property damage, none of those reserves are material. For matters where we have 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 in our Form 10-K, could be decided unfavorably to us or any of our 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 our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows in any particular reporting period.

Note 11—Contingencies and Off-Balance Sheet Commitments

Legal Proceedings

From time to time we are a party to various legal proceedings. Other than with respect to the aggregate claims for public liability and property damage pending against us, management does not believe that any of the matters resolved, or pending against us, during 2010 are material to us and our subsidiaries taken as a whole. While we have accrued a liability with respect to claims for public liability and property damage of $278.7 million at December 31, 2010, management does not believe any of the other pending matters described below are material. We have summarized below, for purposes of providing background, various legal proceedings to which we were and/or are a party during 2010 or the period after December 31, 2010 but before the filing of this Annual Report. In addition to the following, various other legal actions, claims and governmental inquiries and proceedings are pending or may be instituted or asserted in the future against us and our subsidiaries.

• 1.

  Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation, or "HERC," Loss Damage Waiver

• • On August 15, 2006, Davis Landscape, Ltd., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a complaint against HERC in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. In November 2006, the complaint was amended to add another plaintiff, Miguel V. Pro, and more claims. The Davis Landscape matter purports to be a nationwide class action on behalf of all persons and business entities who rented equipment from HERC and who paid a Loss Damage Waiver, or "LDW," or an Environmental Recovery Fee, or "ERF." The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment and injunction prohibiting HERC from engaging in acts with respect to the LDW and ERF charges that violate the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and claim that the charges violate the Uniform Commercial Code. The plaintiffs also seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages with the return of all LDW and ERF charges paid, attorneys' fees and costs as well as other damages. The court has granted class certification, denied our motion for summary judgment and the case is in the discovery stages.

  2.

  Concession Fee Recoveries

  • On October 13, 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 United States District Court for the District of Nevada. The plaintiffs agreed to not pursue claims against Enterprise for the time being and the case only proceeded against Hertz. The Sobel case purports to be 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 complaint also seeks attorneys' fees and costs. Relevant documents were produced, depositions were taken and pre-trial motions were filed. After the court rendered a mixed ruling on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment and after the Lydia Lee case was refiled against Enterprise, the parties engaged in mediation which resulted in a proposed settlement wherein Hertz and Enterprise, without admitting wrongdoing and in order to avoid further litigation, agreed to provide rental certificates to proposed class members who register for same and to pay attorneys' fees to the plaintiffs' attorneys. In November 2010, the court certified settlement classes for purposes of implementing the proposed settlement and preliminarily approved the proposed settlement. Notification of the proposed settlement was mailed or e-mailed in February of 2011 and a final approval hearing on the settlement is scheduled for May of 2011.

  3.

  Telephone Consumer Protection Act

• • On May 3, 2007, Fun Services of Kansas City, Inc., individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, v. Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation was commenced in the District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas. The case was subsequently transferred to the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas. The Fun Services matter purports to be a class action on behalf of all persons in Kansas and throughout the United States who on or after four years prior to the filing of the action were sent facsimile messages of advertising materials relating to the availability of property, goods or services by HERC and who did not provide express permission for sending such faxes. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, attorney's fees and costs. In August 2009, the court issued an order that stayed all activity in this litigation pending a decision by the Kansas Supreme Court in Critchfield Physical Therapy, Inc. v. Taranto Group, Inc., another Telephone Consumer Protection Act case. The Kansas Supreme Court heard oral argument in the Critchfield case in January of 2010 and has not yet rendered a decision in that case.

  4.

  California Tourism Assessments

  • We are currently a defendant in a proceeding that purports to be a class action brought by Michael Shames and Gary Gramkow against The Hertz Corporation, Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., Avis Budget Group, Inc., Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc., Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company, Fox Rent A Car, Inc., Coast Leasing Corp., The California Travel and Tourism Commission, and Caroline Beteta.

    Originally filed in November of 2007, the action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, and plaintiffs claim to represent a class of individuals or entities that purchased rental car services from a defendant at airports located in California after January 1, 2007. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants agreed to charge consumers a 2.5% tourism assessment and not to compete with respect to this assessment, while misrepresenting that this assessment is owed by consumers, rather than the rental car defendants, to the California Travel and Tourism Commission, or the "CTTC." Plaintiffs also allege that defendants agreed to pass through to consumers a fee known as the Airport Concession Fee, which fee had previously been required to be included in the rental car defendants' individual base rates, without reducing their base rates. Based on these allegations, the amended complaint seeks treble damages, disgorgement, injunctive relief, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiffs dropped their claims against Caroline Beteta. Plaintiffs' claims against the rental car defendants have been dismissed, except for the federal antitrust claim. In June 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' antitrust case against the CTTC as a state agency immune from antitrust complaint because the California Legislature foresaw the alleged price-fixing conspiracy that was the subject of the complaint. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit seeking a rehearing and that petition was granted. In November 2010, the Ninth Circuit withdrew its June opinion and instead held that state action immunity was improperly invoked. The Ninth Circuit reinstated the plaintiffs' antitrust claims and the case has now been remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

    We were also a defendant in a consolidated action captioned "In re Tourism Assessment Fee Litigation" in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Originally filed as two separate actions in December of 2007, the consolidated action purported to be a class action brought on behalf of all persons and entities that paid an assessment since the inception of the Passenger Car Rental Industry Tourism Assessment Program in California on January 1, 2007. The other defendants included various of our competitors, including Avis Budget Group, Inc., Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc., Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., Advantage Rent-A-Car, Inc., Avalon Global Group, Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company, Fox Rent A Car, Inc., Beverly Hills Rent-A-Car, Inc., Rent4Less, Inc., Autorent Car Rental, Inc., Pacific Rent-A-Car, Inc., ABC Rent-A-Car, Inc., as well as the California Travel and Tourism Commission, and Dale E. Bonner. The complaint sought injunctive and declaratory relief, that all assessments collected and to be collected be held in trust, unspecified monetary damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. In August 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' claims against all defendants. The deadline for plaintiffs to seek review of the Ninth Circuit's opinion has passed.

  5.

  Public Liability and Property Damage

• • We are currently a defendant in numerous actions and have 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 us. The obligation for public liability and property damage on self-insured U.S. and international vehicles and equipment, as stated on our 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 December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009 our liability recorded for public liability and property damage matters was $278.7 million and $277.8 million, respectively. We believe that our analysis was based on the most relevant information available, combined with reasonable assumptions, and that we may prudently rely on this information to determine the estimated liability. We note 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 our estimates change or if actual results differ from these assumptions, the amount of the recorded liability is adjusted to reflect these results.

We intend to assert that we have meritorious defenses in the foregoing matters and we intend to defend ourselves vigorously.

We have established reserves for matters where we believe that the losses are probable and reasonably estimated, including for various of the matters set forth above. Other than with respect to the reserve established for claims for public liability and property damage, none of those reserves are material. For matters, including those described above, where we have 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 us or any of our 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 our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows in any particular reporting period.

Off-Balance Sheet Commitments

At December 31, 2010 and 2009, the following guarantees (including indemnification commitments) were issued and outstanding.

Indemnification Obligations

In the ordinary course of business, we execute contracts involving indemnification obligations customary in the relevant industry and indemnifications specific to a transaction such as the sale of a business. These indemnification obligations might include claims relating to the following: environmental matters; intellectual property rights; governmental regulations and employment-related matters; customer, supplier and other commercial contractual relationships; and financial matters. Performance under these indemnification obligations would generally be triggered by a breach of terms of the contract or by a third party claim. We regularly evaluate the probability of having to incur costs associated with these indemnification obligations and have accrued for expected losses that are probable and estimable. The types of indemnification obligations for which payments are possible include the following:

Sponsors; Directors

We have entered into customary indemnification agreements with Hertz Holdings, the Sponsors and our stockholders affiliated with the Sponsors, pursuant to which Hertz Holdings and Hertz will indemnify the Sponsors, Hertz Holdings' stockholders affiliated with the Sponsors and their respective affiliates, directors, officers, partners, members, employees, agents, representatives and controlling persons, against certain liabilities arising out of performance of a consulting agreement with Hertz Holdings and each of the Sponsors and certain other claims and liabilities, including liabilities arising out of financing arrangements or securities offerings. Hertz Holdings also entered into indemnification agreements with each of its directors. We do not believe that these indemnifications are reasonably likely to have a material impact on us.

Environmental

We have indemnified various parties for the costs associated with remediating numerous hazardous substance storage, recycling or disposal sites in many states and, in some instances, for natural resource damages. The amount of any such expenses or related natural resource damages for which we may be held responsible could be substantial. The probable expenses that we expect to incur for such matters have been accrued, and those expenses are reflected in our consolidated financial statements. As of December 31, 2010 and 2009, the aggregate amounts accrued for environmental liabilities including liability for environmental indemnities, reflected in our consolidated balance sheets in "Other accrued liabilities" were $1.6 million and $2.0 million, respectively. The accrual generally represents the estimated cost to study potential environmental issues at sites deemed to require investigation or clean-up activities, and the estimated cost to implement remediation actions, including on-going maintenance, as required. Cost estimates are developed by site. Initial cost estimates are based on historical experience at similar sites and are refined over time on the basis of in-depth studies of the sites. For many sites, the remediation costs and other damages for which we ultimately may be responsible cannot be reasonably estimated because of uncertainties with respect to factors such as our connection to the site, the materials there, the involvement of other potentially responsible parties, the application of laws and other standards or regulations, site conditions, and the nature and scope of investigations, studies, and remediation to be undertaken (including the technologies to be required and the extent, duration, and success of remediation).