Legal Proceedings	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2018
Legal Proceedings [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	NOTE 12 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS We establish accruals for legal proceedings, including litigation and regulatory and governmental investigations and inquiries, when information related to the loss contingencies represented by those matters indicates both that a loss is probable and that the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. Any such accruals are adjusted thereafter as appropriate to reflect changed circumstances. When we are able to do so, we also determine estimates of possible losses or ranges of possible losses, whether in excess of any related accrued liability or where there is no accrued liability, for disclosed legal proceedings (“Disclosed Matters,” which are those matters disclosed in this Note 12 as well as those matters disclosed in Note 19 Legal Proceedings in Part II, Item 8 of our 2017 Form 10-K and in Note 12 Legal Proceedings in Part I, Item 1 of our first quarter 2018 Form 10-Q (such prior disclosure collectively referred to as “Prior Disclosure”)). For Disclosed Matters where we are able to estimate such possible losses or ranges of possible losses, as of June 30, 2018, we estimate that it is reasonably possible that we could incur losses in an aggregate amount of up to approximately $100 million. The estimates included in this amount are based on our analysis of currently available information and are subject to significant judgment and a variety of assumptions and uncertainties. As new information is obtained we may change our estimates. Due to the inherent subjectivity of the assessments and unpredictability of outcomes of legal proceedings, any amounts accrued or included in this aggregate amount may not represent the ultimate loss to us from the legal proceedings in question. Thus, our exposure and ultimate losses may be higher, and possibly significantly so, than the amounts accrued or this aggregate amount. As a result of the types of factors described in Note 19 in our 2017 Form 10-K, we are unable, at this time, to estimate the losses that it is reasonably possible that we could incur or ranges of such losses with respect to some of the matters disclosed, and the aggregate estimated amount provided above does not include an estimate for every Disclosed Matter. Therefore, as the estimated aggregate amount disclosed above does not include all of the Disclosed Matters, the amount disclosed above does not represent our maximum reasonably possible loss exposure for all of the Disclosed Matters. The estimated aggregate amount also does not reflect any of our exposure to matters not so disclosed, as discussed below under “Other.” We include in some of the descriptions of individual Disclosed Matters certain quantitative information related to the plaintiff’s claim against us as alleged in the plaintiff’s pleadings or other public filings or otherwise publicly available information. While information of this type may provide insight into the potential magnitude of a matter, it does not necessarily represent our estimate of reasonably possible loss or our judgment as to any currently appropriate accrual. Some of our exposure in Disclosed Matters may be offset by applicable insurance coverage. We do not consider the possible availability of insurance coverage in determining the amounts of any accruals (although we record the amount of related insurance recoveries that are deemed probable up to the amount of the accrual) or in determining any estimates of possible losses or ranges of possible losses. Interchange Litigation In June 2018, with respect to the antitrust lawsuits that have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the district court under the caption In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant-Discount Antitrust Litigation (Master File No. 1:05-md-1720-JG-JO), the relevant parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the claims of the class seeking damages. The parties are now negotiating the terms of a formal class settlement agreement, which would be subject to court approval. Captive Mortgage Reinsurance Litigation In December 2011, a lawsuit (White, et al. v. The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., et al. (Civil Action No. 11-7928)) was filed against PNC (as successor in interest to National City Corporation and several of its subsidiaries) and several mortgage insurance companies in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This lawsuit, which was brought as a class action, alleged that National City structured its program of reinsurance of private mortgage insurance in such a way as to avoid a true transfer of risk from the mortgage insurers to National City’s captive reinsurer. The plaintiffs alleged that the payments from the mortgage insurers to the captive reinsurer constitute kickbacks, referral payments, or unearned fee splits prohibited under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), as well as common law unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs claimed, among other things, that from the beginning of 2004 until the end of 2010 National City’s captive reinsurer collected from the mortgage insurance company defendants at least $219 million as its share of borrowers’ private mortgage insurance premiums and that its share of paid claims during this period was approximately $12 million. The plaintiffs sought to certify a nationwide class of all persons who obtained residential mortgage loans originated, funded or originated through correspondent lending by National City or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates between January 1, 2004 and the present and, in connection with these mortgage loans, purchased private mortgage insurance and whose residential mortgage loans were included within National City’s captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements. Plaintiffs sought, among other things, statutory damages under RESPA (which include treble damages), restitution of reinsurance premiums collected, disgorgement of profits, and attorneys’ fees. As of July 2013, the plaintiffs had filed two amended complaints. In March 2015, the parties stipulated to, and the court ordered, a stay of all proceedings pending the outcome of another matter then on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that also involves overlapping issues. In February 2016, the court of appeals in the other matter issued a decision favorable to our position. In September 2016, the plaintiffs moved to lift the stay and for permission to file a Third Amended Class Action Complaint to add claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and to assert that the RESPA claim is not barred by the statute of limitations under the “continuing violations doctrine” because every acceptance of a reinsurance premium is a new occurrence for these purposes. In January 2017, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to amend to add a RICO claim, but granted their motion permitting them to rely on the continuing violations doctrine to assert claims under RESPA. In July 2018, the parties entered into a final agreement settling the case, following which the case was dismissed. The financial impact of the settlement was not material to PNC. Mortgage Foreclosure False Claims Act Lawsuit In June 2018, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed all claims against PNC Bank in the matter pending under the caption United States ex rel. Grubea v. Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates, P.C., et al. (12 Civ. 7199 (JSR)). Other Regulatory and Governmental Inquiries We are the subject of investigations, audits and other forms of regulatory and governmental inquiry covering a broad range of issues in our consumer, mortgage, brokerage, securities and other financial services businesses, as well as other aspects of our operations. In some cases, these inquiries are part of reviews of specified activities at multiple industry participants; in others, they are directed at PNC individually. These inquiries, including those described in Prior Disclosure, may lead to administrative, civil or criminal proceedings, and possibly result in remedies including fines, penalties, restitution, or alterations in our business practices, and in additional expenses and collateral costs and other consequences. These inquiries may result in significant reputational harm or other adverse collateral consequences even if direct resulting remedies are not material to us. Our practice is to cooperate fully with regulatory and governmental investigations, audits and other inquiries, including those described in Prior Disclosure. Other In addition to the proceedings or other matters described above and in Prior Disclosure, PNC and persons to whom we may have indemnification obligations, in the normal course of business, are subject to various other pending and threatened legal proceedings in which claims for monetary damages and other relief are asserted. We do not anticipate, at the present time, that the ultimate aggregate liability, if any, arising out of such other legal proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our financial position. However, we cannot now determine whether or not any claims asserted against us or others to whom we may have indemnification obligations, whether in the proceedings or other matters described above or otherwise, will have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in any future reporting period, which will depend on, among other things, the amount of the loss resulting from the claim and the amount of income otherwise reported for the reporting period.

NOTE 12 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

We establish accruals for legal proceedings, including litigation and regulatory and governmental investigations and inquiries, when information related to the loss contingencies represented by those matters indicates both that a loss is probable and that the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. Any such accruals are adjusted thereafter as appropriate to reflect changed circumstances. When we are able to do so, we also determine estimates of possible losses or ranges of possible losses, whether in excess of any related accrued liability or where there is no accrued liability, for disclosed legal proceedings (“Disclosed Matters,” which are those matters disclosed in this Note 12 as well as those matters disclosed in Note 19 Legal Proceedings in Part II, Item 8 of our 2017 Form 10-K and in Note 12 Legal Proceedings in Part I, Item 1 of our first quarter 2018 Form 10-Q (such prior disclosure collectively referred to as “Prior Disclosure”)). For Disclosed Matters where we are able to estimate such possible losses or ranges of possible losses, as of June 30, 2018, we estimate that it is reasonably possible that we could incur losses in an aggregate amount of up to approximately $100 million. The estimates included in this amount are based on our analysis of currently available information and are subject to significant judgment and a variety of assumptions and uncertainties. As new information is obtained we may change our estimates. Due to the inherent subjectivity of the assessments and unpredictability of outcomes of legal proceedings, any amounts accrued or included in this aggregate amount may not represent the ultimate loss to us from the legal proceedings in question. Thus, our exposure and ultimate losses may be higher, and possibly significantly so, than the amounts accrued or this aggregate amount.

As a result of the types of factors described in Note 19 in our 2017 Form 10-K, we are unable, at this time, to estimate the losses that it is reasonably possible that we could incur or ranges of such losses with respect to some of the matters disclosed, and the aggregate estimated amount provided above does not include an estimate for every Disclosed Matter. Therefore, as the estimated aggregate amount disclosed above does not include all of the Disclosed Matters, the amount disclosed above does not represent our maximum reasonably possible loss exposure for all of the Disclosed Matters. The estimated aggregate amount also does not reflect any of our exposure to matters not so disclosed, as discussed below under “Other.”

We include in some of the descriptions of individual Disclosed Matters certain quantitative information related to the plaintiff’s claim against us as alleged in the plaintiff’s pleadings or other public filings or otherwise publicly available information. While information of this type may provide insight into the potential magnitude of a matter, it does not necessarily represent our estimate of reasonably possible loss or our judgment as to any currently appropriate accrual.

Some of our exposure in Disclosed Matters may be offset by applicable insurance coverage. We do not consider the possible availability of insurance coverage in determining the amounts of any accruals (although we record the amount of related insurance recoveries that are deemed probable up to the amount of the accrual) or in determining any estimates of possible losses or ranges of possible losses.

Interchange Litigation

In June 2018, with respect to the antitrust lawsuits that have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the district court under the caption In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant-Discount Antitrust Litigation (Master File No. 1:05-md-1720-JG-JO), the relevant parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the claims of the class seeking damages. The parties are now negotiating the terms of a formal class settlement agreement, which would be subject to court approval.

Captive Mortgage Reinsurance Litigation

In December 2011, a lawsuit (White, et al. v. The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., et al. (Civil Action No. 11-7928)) was filed against PNC (as successor in interest to National City Corporation and several of its subsidiaries) and several mortgage insurance companies in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This lawsuit, which was brought as a class action, alleged that National City structured its program of reinsurance of private mortgage insurance in such a way as to avoid a true transfer of risk from the mortgage insurers to National City’s captive reinsurer. The plaintiffs alleged that the payments from the mortgage insurers to the captive reinsurer constitute kickbacks, referral payments, or unearned fee splits prohibited under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), as well as common law unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs claimed, among other things, that from the beginning of 2004 until the end of 2010 National City’s captive reinsurer collected from the mortgage insurance company defendants at least $219 million as its share of borrowers’ private mortgage insurance premiums and that its share of paid claims during this period was approximately $12 million. The plaintiffs sought to certify a nationwide class of all persons who obtained residential mortgage loans originated, funded or originated through correspondent lending by National City or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates between January 1, 2004 and the present and, in connection with these mortgage loans, purchased private mortgage insurance and whose residential mortgage loans were included within National City’s captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements. Plaintiffs sought, among other things, statutory damages under RESPA (which include treble damages), restitution of reinsurance premiums collected, disgorgement of profits, and attorneys’ fees.

As of July 2013, the plaintiffs had filed two amended complaints. In March 2015, the parties stipulated to, and the court ordered, a stay of all proceedings pending the outcome of another matter then on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that also involves overlapping issues. In February 2016, the court of appeals in the other matter issued a decision favorable to our position. In September 2016, the plaintiffs moved to lift the stay and for permission to file a Third Amended Class Action Complaint to add claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and to assert that the RESPA claim is not barred by the statute of limitations under the “continuing violations doctrine” because every acceptance of a reinsurance premium is a new occurrence for these purposes. In January 2017, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to amend to add a RICO claim, but granted their motion permitting them to rely on the continuing violations doctrine to assert claims under RESPA.

In July 2018, the parties entered into a final agreement settling the case, following which the case was dismissed. The financial impact of the settlement was not material to PNC.

Mortgage Foreclosure False Claims Act Lawsuit

In June 2018, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed all claims against PNC Bank in the matter pending under the caption United States ex rel. Grubea v. Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates, P.C., et al. (12 Civ. 7199 (JSR)).

Other Regulatory and Governmental Inquiries

We are the subject of investigations, audits and other forms of regulatory and governmental inquiry covering a broad range of issues in our consumer, mortgage, brokerage, securities and other financial services businesses, as well as other aspects of our operations. In some cases, these inquiries are part of reviews of specified activities at multiple industry participants; in others, they are directed at PNC individually. These inquiries, including those described in Prior Disclosure, may lead to administrative, civil or criminal proceedings, and possibly result in remedies including fines, penalties, restitution, or alterations in our business practices, and in additional expenses and collateral costs and other consequences. These inquiries may result in significant reputational harm or other adverse collateral consequences even if direct resulting remedies are not material to us.

Our practice is to cooperate fully with regulatory and governmental investigations, audits and other inquiries, including those described in Prior Disclosure.

Other

In addition to the proceedings or other matters described above and in Prior Disclosure, PNC and persons to whom we may have indemnification obligations, in the normal course of business, are subject to various other pending and threatened legal proceedings in which claims for monetary damages and other relief are asserted. We do not anticipate, at the present time, that the ultimate aggregate liability, if any, arising out of such other legal proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our financial position. However, we cannot now determine whether or not any claims asserted against us or others to whom we may have indemnification obligations, whether in the proceedings or other matters described above or otherwise, will have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in any future reporting period, which will depend on, among other things, the amount of the loss resulting from the claim and the amount of income otherwise reported for the reporting period.