Legal Proceedings	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2011
Legal Proceedings [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	Note 16 Legal Proceedings We establish accruals for legal proceedings 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 litigation matters (“Disclosed Matters,” which includes, for purposes of this Note 16, collectively the matters disclosed in this Note 16 and those matters disclosed in Note 22 Legal Proceedings in Part II, Item 8 of our 2010 Form 10-K and Note 16 Legal Proceedings in Part I, Item 1 of our first and second quarter 2011 Forms 10-Q (such prior disclosure referred to as “Prior Disclosure”) and still pending). For Disclosed Matters where we are able to estimate such possible losses or ranges of possible losses, as of September 30, 2011, we estimate that it is reasonably possible that we could incur losses in an aggregate amount up to approximately $435 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 or lower, and possibly significantly so, than the amounts accrued or this aggregate amount. The aggregate estimated amount provided above does not include an estimate for every Disclosed Matter, as 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 for one or more of the following reasons. In our experience, legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable. In many legal proceedings, various factors exacerbate this inherent unpredictability, including, among others, one or more of the following: the proceeding is in its early stages; the damages sought are unspecified, unsupported or uncertain; it is unclear whether a case brought as a class action will be allowed to proceed on that basis or, if permitted to proceed as a class action, how the class will be defined; the plaintiff is seeking relief other than or in addition to compensatory damages; the matter presents meaningful legal uncertainties, including novel issues of law; we have not engaged in meaningful settlement discussions; discovery has not started or is not complete; there are significant facts in dispute; and there are a large number of parties named as defendants (including where it is uncertain how liability, if any, will be shared among multiple defendants). Generally, the less progress that has been made in the proceedings or the broader the range of potential results, the harder it is for us to estimate losses or ranges of losses that it is reasonably possible we could incur. 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 alleged in the plaintiff's pleadings or otherwise publicly available. 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. Securities and State Law Fiduciary Cases against National City In November 2011, the parties in In re National City Corporation Securities, Derivative & ERISA Litigation (The Securities Case) (MDL No. 2003, Case No: 1:08-nc-70004-SO)) filed formal settlement papers with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The settlement remains conditioned on, among other things, notice to the class and final court approval. CBNV Mortgage Litigation MDL Proceedings in Pennsylvania. In September 2011, in the multidistrict litigation (MDL) proceeding in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania under the caption In re: Community Bank of Northern Virginia Mortgage Lending Practices Litigation (No. 03-0425 (W.D. Pa.), MDL No. 1674), the district court granted the plaintiffs leave to file a joint amended consolidated class action complaint covering all of the class action lawsuits pending in this proceeding. The amended complaint, in the form previously described, was filed in October 2011. North Carolina Proceedings. In September 2011, in Bumpers, et al. v. Community Bank of Northern Virginia (01-CVS-011342), the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the granting of the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The court affirmed the plaintiffs' judgment on their claim that they paid a loan discount fee but were not provided a loan discount. It reversed the plaintiffs' judgment on their claim that they were overcharged for settlement services and remanded that claim for trial. The court also held that, on remand, the trial court may consider the issue of class certification. Following the decision of the court of appeals, in September 2011, we petitioned the North Carolina Supreme Court for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals and for a stay of proceedings pending the decision on this petition and, if granted, the decision on the appeal. The North Carolina Supreme Court thereafter granted a temporary stay. In October 2011, the plaintiffs' motion to dissolve the stay was denied. Other Mortgage-Related Litigation In October 2010, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, against PNC Bank and numerous other financial institutions, mortgage servicing organizations, law firms that handle foreclosures in Northern Illinois, and individuals employed by financial institutions, mortgage servicers and law firms. As amended in November 2010, the lawsuit (Stone, et al. v. Washington Mutual Bank, et al. (Case No. 10 C 6410)) was brought as a class action on behalf of all present or former homeowners whose homes are being or have been the subject of foreclosure suits involving either securitized mortgages, “bifurcated” mortgages, or broken chains of title, during the two years prior to the filing of the complaint. The plaintiffs alleged that defendants conspired to foreclose illegally on the properties of the named plaintiffs and the other alleged class members. Among other things, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant banks, law firms, and their employees instituted foreclosure proceedings in the names of parties who did not actually own the mortgages, and used false or otherwise defective affidavits to prosecute the foreclosure actions. The plaintiffs asserted claims under various federal criminal statutes, a federal civil rights statute, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, RICO, and Illinois common law. In the amended complaint, the plaintiffs sought, among other things, unspecified actual, statutory and punitive damages (including tripled actual damages under RICO); accounting; disgorgement; preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against foreclosure of the affected mortgages; and attorneys' fees. In January 2011, all defendants, including PNC, filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. In August 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted PNC's motion to dismiss in its entirety with prejudice, but did not resolve all claims against some of the other defendants unaffiliated with PNC. In September 2011, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the remaining claims without prejudice. The court's ruling dismissing all of the claims against PNC is now final and unappealable. PNC Bank has been named as a defendant, along with other lenders, in a qui tam lawsuit brought in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of the United States under the federal False Claims Act (United States ex rel. Bibby & Donnolly v. Wells Fargo, et al. (1:06-CV-0547-MHS)). The lawsuit was originally filed under seal, with a second amended complaint filed in June 2011. The second amended complaint was unsealed by the district court in October 2011. In the second amended complaint, the plaintiffs, who allege that they are officers of a mortgage broker, allege that several mortgage originators, including entities affiliated with PNC Bank's predecessor, National City Bank, made false statements to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs in order to obtain loan guarantees by the VA under its Interest Rate Reduction Refinancing Loans ("IRRRL") program. Under that program, the VA guarantees refinancing loans made to veterans if the loans meet program requirements, one of which limits the type and amount of fees that can be charged to borrowers by lenders. The plaintiffs contend, among other things, that the defendants charged impermissible fees and then made false statements to the VA concerning such fees in violation of the civil False Claims Act. By doing so, the plaintiffs allege, National City and the other defendants caused the VA to pay amounts in respect of the loan guarantees to which the defendants were not entitled. The plaintiffs seek, on their behalf and on behalf of the United States, among other things, unspecified damages equal to the loss the defendants allegedly caused the United States (tripled under the False Claims Act), statutory civil penalties between $5,500 and $11,000 per false claim made by the defendants, injunctive relief against submission of false claims to the United States and imposing unallowable charges against veterans participating in the IRRRL program, and attorneys' fees and other costs. To date, the United States has not joined in the prosecution of the plaintiffs' lawsuit. 365/360 Litigation In October 2011, in Kreisler & Kreisler, LLC v. National City Bank, et al. (Case no. 4:10-cv-00956), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the lawsuit by United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Regulatory and Governmental Inquiries As a result of the regulated nature of our business and that of a number of our subsidiaries, particularly in the banking, mortgage and securities areas, we and our subsidiaries are the subject of investigations, audits and other forms of regulatory inquiry, in some cases as part of regulatory reviews of specified activities at multiple industry participants, including those described in Prior Disclosure. Our practice is to cooperate fully with regulatory and governmental investigations, audits and other inquiries, including those described in Prior Disclosure. Such investigations, audits and other inquiries may lead to remedies including fines, penalties, restitution or alterations in our business practices. 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, described in Prior Disclosure, 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. See Note 17 Commitments and Guarantees for additional information regarding the Visa indemnification and our other obligations to provide indemnification, including to current and former officers, directors, employees and agents of PNC and companies we have acquired, including National City.

Legal Proceedings

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Note 16 Legal Proceedings

We establish accruals for legal proceedings 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 litigation matters (“Disclosed Matters,” which includes, for purposes of this Note 16, collectively the matters disclosed in this Note 16 and those matters disclosed in Note 22 Legal Proceedings in Part II, Item 8 of our 2010 Form 10-K and Note 16 Legal Proceedings in Part I, Item 1 of our first and second quarter 2011 Forms 10-Q (such prior disclosure referred to as “Prior Disclosure”) and still pending). For Disclosed Matters where we are able to estimate such possible losses or ranges of possible losses, as of September 30, 2011, we estimate that it is reasonably possible that we could incur losses in an aggregate amount up to approximately $435 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 or lower, and possibly significantly so, than the amounts accrued or this aggregate amount.

The aggregate estimated amount provided above does not include an estimate for every Disclosed Matter, as 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 for one or more of the following reasons. In our experience, legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable. In many legal proceedings, various factors exacerbate this inherent unpredictability, including, among others, one or more of the following: the proceeding is in its early stages; the damages sought are unspecified, unsupported or uncertain; it is unclear whether a case brought as a class action will be allowed to proceed on that basis or, if permitted to proceed as a class action, how the class will be defined; the plaintiff is seeking relief other than or in addition to compensatory damages; the matter presents meaningful legal uncertainties, including novel issues of law; we have not engaged in meaningful settlement discussions; discovery has not started or is not complete; there are significant facts in dispute; and there are a large number of parties named as defendants (including where it is uncertain how liability, if any, will be shared among multiple defendants). Generally, the less progress that has been made in the proceedings or the broader the range of potential results, the harder it is for us to estimate losses or ranges of losses that it is reasonably possible we could incur. 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 alleged in the plaintiff's pleadings or otherwise publicly available. 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.

Securities and State Law Fiduciary Cases against National City

In November 2011, the parties in In re National City Corporation Securities, Derivative & ERISA Litigation (The Securities Case) (MDL No. 2003, Case No: 1:08-nc-70004-SO)) filed formal settlement papers with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The settlement remains conditioned on, among other things, notice to the class and final court approval.

CBNV Mortgage Litigation

MDL Proceedings in Pennsylvania. In September 2011, in the multidistrict litigation (MDL) proceeding in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania under the caption In re: Community Bank of Northern Virginia Mortgage Lending Practices Litigation (No. 03-0425 (W.D. Pa.), MDL No. 1674), the district court granted the plaintiffs leave to file a joint amended consolidated class action complaint covering all of the class action lawsuits pending in this proceeding. The amended complaint, in the form previously described, was filed in October 2011.

North Carolina Proceedings. In September 2011, in Bumpers, et al. v. Community Bank of Northern Virginia (01-CVS-011342), the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the granting of the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The court affirmed the plaintiffs' judgment on their claim that they paid a loan discount fee but were not provided a loan discount. It reversed the plaintiffs' judgment on their claim that they were overcharged for settlement services and remanded that claim for trial. The court also held that, on remand, the trial court may consider the issue of class certification. Following the decision of the court of appeals, in September 2011, we petitioned the North Carolina Supreme Court for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals and for a stay of proceedings pending the decision on this petition and, if granted, the decision on the appeal. The North Carolina Supreme Court thereafter granted a temporary stay. In October 2011, the plaintiffs' motion to dissolve the stay was denied.

Other Mortgage-Related Litigation

In October 2010, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, against PNC Bank and numerous other financial institutions, mortgage servicing organizations, law firms that handle foreclosures in Northern Illinois, and individuals employed by financial institutions, mortgage servicers and law firms. As amended in November 2010, the lawsuit (Stone, et al. v. Washington Mutual Bank, et al. (Case No. 10 C 6410)) was brought as a class action on behalf of all present or former homeowners whose homes are being or have been the subject of foreclosure suits involving either securitized mortgages, “bifurcated” mortgages, or broken chains of title, during the two years prior to the filing of the complaint. The plaintiffs alleged that defendants conspired to foreclose illegally on the properties of the named plaintiffs and the other alleged class members. Among other things, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant banks, law firms, and their employees instituted foreclosure proceedings in the names of parties who did not actually own the mortgages, and used false or otherwise defective affidavits to prosecute the foreclosure actions. The plaintiffs asserted claims under various federal criminal statutes, a federal civil rights statute, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, RICO, and Illinois common law. In the amended complaint, the plaintiffs sought, among other things, unspecified actual, statutory and punitive damages (including tripled actual damages under RICO); accounting; disgorgement; preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against foreclosure of the affected mortgages; and attorneys' fees. In January 2011, all defendants, including PNC, filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. In August 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted PNC's motion to dismiss in its entirety with prejudice, but did not resolve all claims against some of the other defendants unaffiliated with PNC. In September 2011, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the remaining claims without prejudice. The court's ruling dismissing all of the claims against PNC is now final and unappealable.

PNC Bank has been named as a defendant, along with other lenders, in a qui tam lawsuit brought in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of the United States under the federal False Claims Act (United States ex rel. Bibby & Donnolly v. Wells Fargo, et al. (1:06-CV-0547-MHS)). The lawsuit was originally filed under seal, with a second amended complaint filed in June 2011. The second amended complaint was unsealed by the district court in October 2011. In the second amended complaint, the plaintiffs, who allege that they are officers of a mortgage broker, allege that several mortgage originators, including entities affiliated with PNC Bank's predecessor, National City Bank, made false statements to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs in order to obtain loan guarantees by the VA under its Interest Rate Reduction Refinancing Loans ("IRRRL") program. Under that program, the VA guarantees refinancing loans made to veterans if the loans meet program requirements, one of which limits the type and amount of fees that can be charged to borrowers by lenders. The plaintiffs contend, among other things, that the defendants charged impermissible fees and then made false statements to the VA concerning such fees in violation of the civil False Claims Act. By doing so, the plaintiffs allege, National City and the other defendants caused the VA to pay amounts in respect of the loan guarantees to which the defendants were not entitled. The plaintiffs seek, on their behalf and on behalf of the United States, among other things, unspecified damages equal to the loss the defendants allegedly caused the United States (tripled under the False Claims Act), statutory civil penalties between $5,500 and $11,000 per false claim made by the defendants, injunctive relief against submission of false claims to the United States and imposing unallowable charges against veterans participating in the IRRRL program, and attorneys' fees and other costs. To date, the United States has not joined in the prosecution of the plaintiffs' lawsuit.

365/360 Litigation

In October 2011, in Kreisler & Kreisler, LLC v. National City Bank, et al. (Case no. 4:10-cv-00956), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the lawsuit by United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Regulatory and Governmental Inquiries

As a result of the regulated nature of our business and that of a number of our subsidiaries, particularly in the banking, mortgage and securities areas, we and our subsidiaries are the subject of investigations, audits and other forms of regulatory inquiry, in some cases as part of regulatory reviews of specified activities at multiple industry participants, including those described in Prior Disclosure.

Our practice is to cooperate fully with regulatory and governmental investigations, audits and other inquiries, including those described in Prior Disclosure. Such investigations, audits and other inquiries may lead to remedies including fines, penalties, restitution or alterations in our business practices.

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, described in Prior Disclosure, 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.

See Note 17 Commitments and Guarantees for additional information regarding the Visa indemnification and our other obligations to provide indemnification, including to current and former officers, directors, employees and agents of PNC and companies we have acquired, including National City.