COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Letter of Credit Lines and Contractual Obligations

The Company has a line of credit with a financial institution totaling $85 million for the issuance of letters of credit (the “Letter of Credit Line”). The Letter of Credit Line, which is renewed annually, matures on November 17, 2015. The Company can also issue letters of credit under its senior unsecured revolving credit facility. For further details regarding the senior unsecured revolving credit facility, see Note 13.

In support of its risk management program, to ensure the Company’s performance or payment to third parties, $69 million in letters of credit were outstanding at December 31, 2014. The letters of credit primarily represent collateral for current and future automobile liability and workers’ compensation loss payments.

Minimum rental commitments under noncancelable operating leases, primarily real estate, in effect at December 31, 2014 are as follows:



Year Ending December 31,
2015	$	193
2016	148
2017	104
2018	66
2019	47
2020 and thereafter	163

Minimum lease payments	721
Noncancelable sub-lease income	—

Net minimum lease payments	$	721

Operating lease rental expense for 2014, 2013 and 2012 totaled $242 million, $223 million and $211 million, respectively. Rent expense associated with operating leases that include scheduled rent increases and tenant incentives, such as rent holidays and improvement allowances, is recorded on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease.

The Company has certain noncancelable commitments to purchase products or services from various suppliers, mainly for consulting and other service agreements, and standing orders to purchase reagents and other laboratory supplies. At December 31, 2014, the approximate total future purchase commitments are $235 million, of which $80 million are expected to be incurred in 2015, $111 million are expected to be incurred in 2016 through 2017 and the balance thereafter.

Contingent Lease Obligations

The Company remains subject to contingent obligations under certain real estate leases that were entered into by certain predecessor companies of a subsidiary prior to the Company's acquisition of the subsidiary. While over the course of many years, the title to the properties and interest in the subject leases have been transferred to third parties and the subject leases have been amended several times by such third parties, the lessors have not formally released the subsidiary predecessor companies from their original obligations under the leases and therefore remain contingently liable in the event of default. The remaining terms of the lease obligations and the Company's corresponding indemnifications range from 9 to 33 years. The lease payments under certain leases are subject to market value adjustments and contingent rental payments and therefore, the total contingent obligations under the leases cannot be precisely determined but are likely to total several hundred million dollars. A claim against the Company would be made only upon the current lessee's default and after a series of claims and corresponding defaults by third parties that precede the Company in the order of liability. The Company also has certain indemnification rights from other parties to recover losses in the event of default on the lease obligations. The Company believes that the likelihood of its performance under these contingent obligations is remote and no liability has been recorded for any potential payments under the contingent lease obligations.

Settlements

In 2010, a purported class action entitled In re Celera Corp. Securities Litigation was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Celera Corporation and certain of its directors and current and former officers. An amended complaint filed in October 2010 alleges that from April 2008 through July 22, 2009, the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding Celera's business and financial results with an intent to defraud investors. The complaint was further amended in 2011 to add allegations regarding a financial restatement. The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of Celera's stock during the period in which the alleged misrepresentations were made. The Company's motion to dismiss the complaint was denied. Celera and the director and officer defendants have reached an agreement to settle this action, which is subject to court approval. The settlement is expected to be fully covered by insurance.

In September 2009, the Company received a subpoena from the Michigan Attorney General's Office seeking documents relating to the Company's pricing and billing practices as they relate to Michigan's Medicaid program. The Company cooperated with the requests. In January 2012, the State of Michigan intervened as a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit, Michigan ex rel. Hunter Laboratories LLC v. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, et al., filed in Michigan Superior Court. The suit, originally filed by a competitor laboratory, alleges that the Company overcharged Michigan's Medicaid program. The Company's motion for summary judgment was granted and the case was dismissed. Plaintiffs filed an appeal. The parties have settled this matter.

In July 2013, Biotechnology Value Fund, L.P. and others filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, Celera, former directors of Celera and Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (“Credit Suisse”) alleging, among other things, federal securities laws violations and breach of fiduciary duty claims against Celera, its directors and Credit Suisse. Following motions by the parties, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The parties have settled this matter.

In October 2013, the Company commenced a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California seeking a declaration that the Company’s BRCA1 and 2 tests do not infringe several patents of Myriad Genetics, Inc., or that the patents are invalid. Later that month, Myriad and its partners commenced a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Utah against the Company alleging that the Company’s BRCA 1 and 2 tests infringed Myriad’s patents. Myriad moved to dismiss the Company’s lawsuit and to transfer all cases involving its BRCA 1 and 2 patents to the federal court in Utah. The Company moved to dismiss Myriad’s lawsuit. The Multidistrict Panel for Litigation consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Utah all the litigation between the Company and Myriad regarding BRCA, and the parties withdrew their motions to dismiss without prejudice. The parties have settled these matters.

Legal Matters

The Company is involved in various legal proceedings. Some of the proceedings against the Company involve claims that could be substantial in amount.

In addition to the matters described below, in the normal course of business, the Company has been named, from time to time, as a defendant in various legal actions, including arbitrations, class actions and other litigation, arising in connection with the Company's activities as a provider of diagnostic testing, information and services. These legal actions may include lawsuits alleging negligence or other similar legal claims. These actions could involve claims for substantial compensatory and/or punitive damages or claims for indeterminate amounts of damages, and could have an adverse impact on the Company's client base and reputation.

The Company is also involved, from time to time, in other reviews, investigations and proceedings by governmental agencies regarding the Company's business, including, among other matters, operational matters, which may result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions or other relief. The number of these reviews, investigations and proceedings has increased in recent years with regard to many firms in the healthcare services industry, including the Company.

In August 2011, the Company received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia seeking various business records, including records related to the Company's compliance program, certain marketing materials, certain product offerings, and test ordering and other policies. The Company is cooperating with the request.

In June 2010, the Company received a subpoena from the Florida Attorney General's Office seeking documents relating to the Company's pricing and billing practices as they relate to Florida’s Medicaid program. The Company cooperated with the requests. In November 2013, the State of Florida intervened as a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit, Florida ex rel. Hunter Laboratories LLC v. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, et al., filed in Florida Circuit Court. The suit, originally filed by a competitor laboratory, alleges that the Company overcharged Florida’s Medicaid program. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the state's amended complaint in intervention.

Berkeley HeartLab, Inc. (“BHL”), a Company subsidiary, received a subpoena from the Department of Health and Human Services regarding certain alleged business practices of BHL. In addition, the Company and BHL received civil investigative demands requesting responses to interrogatories. BHL and the Company are cooperating with the investigation.

The federal or state governments may bring claims based on the Company's current practices, which it believes are lawful. In addition, certain federal and state statutes, including the qui tam provisions of the federal False Claims Act, allow private individuals to bring lawsuits against healthcare companies on behalf of government or private payers. The Company is aware of lawsuits, and from time to time has received subpoenas, related to billing practices based on the qui tam provisions of the Civil False Claims Act or other federal and state statutes, regulations or other laws. The Company understands that there may be other pending qui tam claims brought by former employees or other "whistle blowers" as to which the Company cannot determine the extent of any potential liability.

Management cannot predict the outcome of such matters. Although management does not anticipate that the ultimate outcome of such matters will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, given the high degree of judgment involved in establishing loss estimates related to these types of matters, the outcome of such matters may be material to the Company's results of operations or cash flows in the period in which the impact of such matters is determined or paid.

These matters are in different stages. Some of these matters are in their early stages. Matters may involve responding to and cooperating with various government investigations and related subpoenas. As of December 31, 2014, the Company does not believe that any losses related to the legal matters described above are probable. While the Company believes that a reasonable possibility exists that losses may have been incurred related to the legal matters described above, based on the nature and status of these matters, potential losses, if any, cannot be estimated.

Reserves for Legal Matters

Reserves for legal matters, other than those described above, totaled $11 million and less than $5 million at December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively.

Reserves for General and Professional Liability Claims

As a general matter, providers of clinical testing services may be subject to lawsuits alleging negligence or other similar legal claims. These suits could involve claims for substantial damages. Any professional liability litigation could also have an adverse impact on the Company's client base and reputation. The Company maintains various liability insurance coverages for, among other things, claims that could result from providing, or failing to provide, clinical testing services, including inaccurate testing results, and other exposures. The Company's insurance coverage limits its maximum exposure on individual claims; however, the Company is essentially self-insured for a significant portion of these claims. Reserves for such matters, including those associated with both asserted and incurred but not reported claims, are established by considering actuarially determined losses based upon the Company's historical and projected loss experience. Such reserves totaled approximately $113 million and $121 million as of December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively. Management believes that established reserves and present insurance coverage are sufficient to cover currently estimated exposures. Management cannot predict the outcome of any claims made against the Company. Although management does not anticipate that the ultimate outcome of any such proceedings or claims will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, given the high degree of judgment involved in establishing accruals for loss estimates related to these types of matters, the outcome may be material to the Company's results of operations or cash flows in the period in which the impact of such claims is determined or paid.