COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Letters of Credit and Contractual Obligations

The Company can issue letters of credit under its Secured Receivables Credit Facility and 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, $68 million in letters of credit under the Secured Receivables Credit Facility were outstanding as of December 31, 2016. 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 as of December 31, 2016 are as follows:



Year Ending December 31,
2017	$	179
2018	129
2019	92
2020	64
2021	44
Thereafter	153
Minimum lease payments	$	661

Operating lease rental expense for 2016, 2015 and 2014 totaled $216 million, $224 million and $242 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, primarily under take-or-pay arrangements, 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. As of December 31, 2016, the approximate total future purchase commitments are $111 million, of which $66 million are expected to be incurred in 2017, $21 million are expected to be incurred in 2018 through 2019 and the balance thereafter.

Billing and Collection Agreement

In September 2016, the Company entered into a ten year agreement with a third party to outsource its billing and related operations for the majority of the Company’s revenues. Services under the agreement commenced during the fourth quarter of 2016. The agreement includes an annual fee, which is subject to adjustment based on certain changes in the Company's requisition volume and the achievement of various performance metrics.

Contingent Lease Obligations

The Company remains subject to contingent obligations under certain real estate leases, including 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 certain 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 up to 31 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, in certain cases, 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.

Agreement in Principle

In April 2015, a qui tam civil lawsuit entitled United States ex rel. Mayes v. Berkeley HeartLab, Inc., et al., filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, was unsealed. The complaint alleges that certain alleged business practices of the defendants violate the False Claims Act, and seeks monetary relief. The United States has intervened as a plaintiff as to Berkeley HeartLab, Inc., a subsidiary of the Company and filed a complaint in intervention; the United States did not intervene as a plaintiff as to Quest Diagnostics Incorporated. The parties have reached an agreement in principle to resolve these matters, subject to further negotiation of terms and conditions and governmental sign-offs. In order to most efficiently and effectively finalize the settlement agreement, the parties have agreed to stay the filing of certain pleadings and their respective discovery requests associated with 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 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's motion to dismiss the state's amended complaint was denied. The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on the primary claim in the case; the motion was granted. The court found that the Company had properly billed the Medicaid program the Company’s “usual and customary charge.”

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, 2016, the Company does not believe that any material 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 for which an accrual has not been recorded, 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 $5 million and $9 million as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, 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 $117 million and $124 million as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, 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.