Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Leases The Company leases warehouse and retail store space for most of its store-based operations, call center space for Progressive's operations, and management and information technology space for corporate functions under operating leases expiring at various times through 2033. The Company also leases certain properties under capital or financing type leases that are more fully described in Note 6 to the consolidated financial statements in the 2014 Annual Report. Most of the leases contain renewal options for additional periods ranging from one to 20 years. In addition, certain properties occupied under operating leases contain normal purchase options. Leasehold improvements related to these leases are generally amortized over periods that do not exceed the lesser of the lease term or 15 years. While a majority of leases do not require escalating payments, for the leases which do contain such provisions, the Company records the related expense on a straight-line basis over the lease term. The Company also leases transportation vehicles under operating leases. These leases generally expire during the next four years. Management expects that most leases will be renewed or replaced by other leases in the normal course of business. Guarantees The Company has guaranteed certain debt obligations of some of its franchisees under a franchisee loan program with several banks. In the event these franchisees are unable to meet their debt service payments or otherwise experience an event of default, the Company would be unconditionally liable for the outstanding balance of the franchisees’ debt obligations under the franchisee loan program, which would be due in full within 90 days of the event of default. At September 30, 2015, the maximum amount that the Company would be obligated to repay in the event franchisees defaulted was $78.0 million. The Company has recourse rights to franchisee assets securing the debt obligations, which consist primarily of lease merchandise and fixed assets. As a result, the Company has never incurred, nor does management expect to incur, any significant losses under these guarantees. The carrying amount of the franchisee-related borrowings guarantee, which is included in accounts payable and accrued expenses in the condensed consolidated balance sheets, is $1.0 million as of September 30, 2015. The maximum facility commitment amount under the franchisee loan program is $175.0 million, including a Canadian subfacility commitment amount for loans to franchisees that operate stores in Canada of Cdn $50.0 million. The Company remains subject to the financial covenants under the franchisee loan facility. Legal Proceedings From time to time, the Company is party to various legal and regulatory proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. Certain proceedings to which we are currently a party are described below. We believe we have defenses to all of the claims described below, and intend to vigorously defend against the claims. However, these proceedings are still developing and due to the inherent uncertainty in litigation, regulatory and similar adversarial proceedings, there can be no guarantee that we will ultimately be successful in these proceedings, or in others to which we are currently a party. Substantial losses from these proceedings or the costs of defending them could have a material adverse impact upon our business, financial position and results of operations. The Company establishes an accrued liability for legal and regulatory proceedings when it determines that a loss is both probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company continually monitors its litigation and regulatory exposure and reviews the adequacy of its legal and regulatory reserves on a quarterly basis. The amount of any loss ultimately incurred in relation to matters for which an accrual has been established may be higher or lower than the amounts accrued for such matters. At September 30, 2015, the Company had accrued $16.2 million for pending legal and regulatory matters for which it believes losses are probable, which is management's best estimate of the Company's exposure to loss. The accrual mostly related to the now-settled regulatory investigation by the California Attorney General described below. The Company estimates that the aggregate range of possible loss in excess of the amounts accrued is between $0 and $2.9 million. At September 30, 2015, the Company estimated that the aggregate range of loss for all material pending legal and regulatory proceedings for which a loss is reasonably possible, but less likely than probable (i.e., excluding the contingencies described in the preceding paragraph), is between $125,000 and $1.3 million. Those matters for which a reasonable estimate is not possible are not included within estimated ranges and, therefore, the estimated ranges do not represent the Company's maximum possible loss exposure. The Company's estimates for legal and regulatory accruals, aggregate probable loss amounts and reasonably possible loss amounts are all subject to the uncertainties and variables described above. Consumer In Margaret Korrow, et al. v. Aaron's, Inc., originally filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, Law Division on October 26, 2010, plaintiff filed suit on behalf of herself and others similarly situated alleging that the Company is liable in damages to plaintiff and each class member because the Company's lease agreements issued after March 16, 2006 purportedly violated certain New Jersey state consumer statutes. Plaintiff's complaint seeks treble damages under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and statutory penalty damages of $100 per violation of all contracts issued in New Jersey, and also claims that there are multiple violations per contract. The Company removed the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on December 6, 2010 (Civil Action No.: 10-06317(JAP)(LHG)). Plaintiff on behalf of herself and others similarly situated seeks equitable relief, statutory and treble damages, pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees. Discovery on this matter is closed. On July 31, 2013, the Court certified a class comprising all persons who entered into a rent-to-own contract with the Company in New Jersey from March 16, 2006 through March 31, 2011. In August 2013, the Court of Appeals denied the Company’s request for an interlocutory appeal of the class certification issue. The Company filed a motion to allow counterclaims against all newly certified class members who may owe legitimate fees or damages to the Company or who failed to return merchandise to the Company prior to obtaining ownership. That motion was denied by the magistrate judge on June 30, 2014, but an appeal of that ruling is pending with the District Court. On August 14, 2015, the Company filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking judicial dismissal of a portion of the claims in the case. That motion is pending. Privacy and Related Matters In Crystal and Brian Byrd v. Aaron's, Inc., Aspen Way Enterprises, Inc., John Does (1-100) Aaron's Franchisees and Designerware, LLC, filed on May 16, 2011, in the United States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 1:11-CV-00101-SPB), plaintiffs alleged that the Company and its independently owned and operated franchisee Aspen Way Enterprises (“Aspen Way”) knowingly violated plaintiffs' privacy in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (“ECPA”) and the Computer Fraud Abuse Act and sought certification of a putative nationwide class. Plaintiffs based these claims on Aspen Way's use of a software program called “PC Rental Agent.” Although the District Court dismissed the Company from the original lawsuit on March 20, 2012, after certain procedural motions, on May 23, 2013, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, which asserted the claims under the ECPA, common law invasion of privacy, added a request for injunction, and named additional independently owned and operated Company franchisees as defendants. Plaintiffs filed the third amended complaint, and the Company moved to dismiss that complaint on substantially the same grounds as it sought to dismiss plaintiffs' prior complaints. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages as well as injunctive relief. Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on July 1, 2013, and the Company's response was filed in August 2013. On March 31, 2014, the U.S. District Judge dismissed all claims against all franchisees other than Aspen Way Enterprises, LLC. The Court also dismissed claims for invasion of privacy, aiding and abetting, and conspiracy against all defendants. In addition, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to certify the class. Finally, the Judge denied the Company’s motion to dismiss the violation of ECPA claims. Plaintiffs requested and received immediate appellate review of these rulings by the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals. On April 10, 2015, the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the denial of class certification on the grounds stated by the District Court, and remanded the case back to the District Court for further consideration of that and the other elements necessary for class certification. The District Court has not issued a new ruling on those matters. In Michael Winslow and Fonda Winslow v. Sultan Financial Corporation, Aaron's, Inc., John Does (1-10), Aaron's Franchisees and Designerware, LLC, filed on March 5, 2013 in the Los Angeles Superior Court (Case No. BC502304), plaintiffs assert claims against the Company and its independently owned and operated franchisee, Sultan Financial Corporation (as well as certain John Doe franchisees), for unauthorized wiretapping, eavesdropping, electronic stalking, and violation of California's Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act and its Unfair Competition Law. Each of these claims arises out of the alleged use of PC Rental Agent software. The plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief and damages in connection with the allegations of the complaint. Plaintiffs are also seeking certification of a putative California class. Plaintiffs are represented by the same counsel as in the above-described Byrd litigation. In April 2013, the Company timely removed this matter to federal court. On May 8, 2013, the Company filed a motion to stay this litigation pending resolution of the Byrd litigation, a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and a motion to strike certain allegations in the complaint. The Court subsequently stayed the case. The Company's motions to dismiss and strike certain allegations remain pending. On June 6, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay, which was denied on July 11, 2015. In Lomi Price v. Aaron's, Inc. and NW Freedom Corporation, filed on February 27, 2013, in the State Court of Fulton County, Georgia (Case No. 13-EV-016812B), an individual plaintiff asserts claims against the Company and its independently owned and operated franchisee, NW Freedom Corporation, for invasion of privacy/intrusion on seclusion, computer invasion of privacy and infliction of emotional distress. Each of these claims arises out of the alleged use of PC Rental Agent software. The plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages of not less than $250,000. On April 3, 2013, the Company filed an answer and affirmative defenses. On that same day, the Company also filed a motion to stay the litigation pending resolution of the Byrd litigation, a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and a motion to strike certain allegations in the complaint. The Court stayed the proceeding pending rulings on certain motions in the Byrd case, which expired upon remand of the case back to the District Court. On April 24, 2015, the Company filed a renewed motion to stay, which was granted on June 15, 2015. In Michael Peterson v. Aaron’s, Inc. and Aspen Way Enterprises, Inc., filed on June 19, 2014, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Case No. 1:14-cv-01919-TWT), several plaintiffs allege that they leased computers for use in their law practice. The plaintiffs claim that the Company and Aspen Way knowingly violated plaintiffs' privacy and the privacy of plaintiff’s legal clients in violation of the ECPA and the Computer Fraud Abuse Act. Plaintiffs seek certification of a putative nationwide class. Plaintiffs based these claims on Aspen Way's use of PC Rental Agent software. The plaintiffs claim that information and data obtained by defendants through PC Rental Agent was attorney-client privileged. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint. On June 4, 2015, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss all claims except a claim for aiding and abetting invasion of privacy. Plaintiffs then filed a second amended complaint alleging only the invasion of privacy claims that survived the June 4, 2015 court order, and adding a claim for unjust enrichment. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, and on September 16, 2015, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim. The only remaining claims against the Company is a claim for aiding and abetting invasion of privacy. Regulatory Investigations California Attorney General Investigation. The California Attorney General investigated the Company's retail transactional practices, including various leasing and marketing practices, information security and privacy policies and practices related to the alleged use of PC Rental Agent software by certain independently owned and operated Company franchisees. The Company reached a comprehensive resolution of this matter without litigation. The final settlement and consent order were announced on October 13, 2014. The Court filed the final judgment on February 10, 2015. Payments have begun under the anticipated schedule outlined in the judgment. Pennsylvania Attorney General Investigation. There is a pending investigation by the Pennsylvania Attorney General relating to the Company's privacy practices in Pennsylvania. The privacy issues are related to the alleged use of PC Rental Agent software by certain independently owned and operated Company franchisees, and the Company's alleged responsibility for that use. The Company cooperated in the investigation and on June 18, 2015, reached a tentative settlement of the matter. The settlement documentation has been signed and is pending finalization with the Pennsylvania Attorney General. Other Matters In Foster v. Aaron’s, Inc., filed on August 21, 2015, in the United States District Court in Phoenix, Arizona (No. CV-15-1637-PHX-SRB), the plaintiff in this putative class action alleges that the Company violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) by placing automated calls to customer references, or otherwise violates the TCPA in the manner in which the Company contacts customer references. The Company's initial responsive pleading was filed on October 7, 2015. Other Commitments At September 30, 2015, the Company had non-cancelable commitments primarily related to certain advertising and marketing programs of $9.1 million. The Company is a party to various claims and legal and regulatory proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. Management regularly assesses the Company’s insurance deductibles, monitors the Company's litigation and regulatory exposure with the Company's attorneys and evaluates its loss experience. The Company also enters into various contracts in the normal course of business that may subject it to risk of financial loss if counterparties fail to perform their contractual obligations. See Note 8 to the consolidated financial statements in the 2014 Annual Report for further information.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Leases

The Company leases warehouse and retail store space for most of its store-based operations, call center space for Progressive's operations, and management and information technology space for corporate functions under operating leases expiring at various times through 2033. The Company also leases certain properties under capital or financing type leases that are more fully described in Note 6 to the consolidated financial statements in the 2014 Annual Report. Most of the leases contain renewal options for additional periods ranging from one to 20 years. In addition, certain properties occupied under operating leases contain normal purchase options. Leasehold improvements related to these leases are generally amortized over periods that do not exceed the lesser of the lease term or 15 years. While a majority of leases do not require escalating payments, for the leases which do contain such provisions, the Company records the related expense on a straight-line basis over the lease term. The Company also leases transportation vehicles under operating leases. These leases generally expire during the next four years. Management expects that most leases will be renewed or replaced by other leases in the normal course of business.

Guarantees

The Company has guaranteed certain debt obligations of some of its franchisees under a franchisee loan program with several banks. In the event these franchisees are unable to meet their debt service payments or otherwise experience an event of default, the Company would be unconditionally liable for the outstanding balance of the franchisees’ debt obligations under the franchisee loan program, which would be due in full within 90 days of the event of default. At September 30, 2015, the maximum amount that the Company would be obligated to repay in the event franchisees defaulted was $78.0 million. The Company has recourse rights to franchisee assets securing the debt obligations, which consist primarily of lease merchandise and fixed assets. As a result, the Company has never incurred, nor does management expect to incur, any significant losses under these guarantees. The carrying amount of the franchisee-related borrowings guarantee, which is included in accounts payable and accrued expenses in the condensed consolidated balance sheets, is $1.0 million as of September 30, 2015.

The maximum facility commitment amount under the franchisee loan program is $175.0 million, including a Canadian subfacility commitment amount for loans to franchisees that operate stores in Canada of Cdn $50.0 million. The Company remains subject to the financial covenants under the franchisee loan facility.

Legal Proceedings

From time to time, the Company is party to various legal and regulatory proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business.

Certain proceedings to which we are currently a party are described below. We believe we have defenses to all of the claims described below, and intend to vigorously defend against the claims. However, these proceedings are still developing and due to the inherent uncertainty in litigation, regulatory and similar adversarial proceedings, there can be no guarantee that we will ultimately be successful in these proceedings, or in others to which we are currently a party. Substantial losses from these proceedings or the costs of defending them could have a material adverse impact upon our business, financial position and results of operations.

The Company establishes an accrued liability for legal and regulatory proceedings when it determines that a loss is both probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company continually monitors its litigation and regulatory exposure and reviews the adequacy of its legal and regulatory reserves on a quarterly basis. The amount of any loss ultimately incurred in relation to matters for which an accrual has been established may be higher or lower than the amounts accrued for such matters.

At September 30, 2015, the Company had accrued $16.2 million for pending legal and regulatory matters for which it believes losses are probable, which is management's best estimate of the Company's exposure to loss. The accrual mostly related to the now-settled regulatory investigation by the California Attorney General described below. The Company estimates that the aggregate range of possible loss in excess of the amounts accrued is between $0 and $2.9 million.

At September 30, 2015, the Company estimated that the aggregate range of loss for all material pending legal and regulatory proceedings for which a loss is reasonably possible, but less likely than probable (i.e., excluding the contingencies described in the preceding paragraph), is between $125,000 and $1.3 million. Those matters for which a reasonable estimate is not possible are not included within estimated ranges and, therefore, the estimated ranges do not represent the Company's maximum possible loss exposure. The Company's estimates for legal and regulatory accruals, aggregate probable loss amounts and reasonably possible loss amounts are all subject to the uncertainties and variables described above.

Consumer

In Margaret Korrow, et al. v. Aaron's, Inc., originally filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, Law Division on October 26, 2010, plaintiff filed suit on behalf of herself and others similarly situated alleging that the Company is liable in damages to plaintiff and each class member because the Company's lease agreements issued after March 16, 2006 purportedly violated certain New Jersey state consumer statutes. Plaintiff's complaint seeks treble damages under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and statutory penalty damages of $100 per violation of all contracts issued in New Jersey, and also claims that there are multiple violations per contract. The Company removed the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on December 6, 2010 (Civil Action No.: 10-06317(JAP)(LHG)). Plaintiff on behalf of herself and others similarly situated seeks equitable relief, statutory and treble damages, pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees. Discovery on this matter is closed. On July 31, 2013, the Court certified a class comprising all persons who entered into a rent-to-own contract with the Company in New Jersey from March 16, 2006 through March 31, 2011. In August 2013, the Court of Appeals denied the Company’s request for an interlocutory appeal of the class certification issue. The Company filed a motion to allow counterclaims against all newly certified class members who may owe legitimate fees or damages to the Company or who failed to return merchandise to the Company prior to obtaining ownership. That motion was denied by the magistrate judge on June 30, 2014, but an appeal of that ruling is pending with the District Court. On August 14, 2015, the Company filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking judicial dismissal of a portion of the claims in the case. That motion is pending.

Privacy and Related Matters

In Crystal and Brian Byrd v. Aaron's, Inc., Aspen Way Enterprises, Inc., John Does (1-100) Aaron's Franchisees and Designerware, LLC, filed on May 16, 2011, in the United States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 1:11-CV-00101-SPB), plaintiffs alleged that the Company and its independently owned and operated franchisee Aspen Way Enterprises (“Aspen Way”) knowingly violated plaintiffs' privacy in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (“ECPA”) and the Computer Fraud Abuse Act and sought certification of a putative nationwide class. Plaintiffs based these claims on Aspen Way's use of a software program called “PC Rental Agent.” Although the District Court dismissed the Company from the original lawsuit on March 20, 2012, after certain procedural motions, on May 23, 2013, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, which asserted the claims under the ECPA, common law invasion of privacy, added a request for injunction, and named additional independently owned and operated Company franchisees as defendants. Plaintiffs filed the third amended complaint, and the Company moved to dismiss that complaint on substantially the same grounds as it sought to dismiss plaintiffs' prior complaints. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages as well as injunctive relief. Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on July 1, 2013, and the Company's response was filed in August 2013. On March 31, 2014, the U.S. District Judge dismissed all claims against all franchisees other than Aspen Way Enterprises, LLC. The Court also dismissed claims for invasion of privacy, aiding and abetting, and conspiracy against all defendants. In addition, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to certify the class. Finally, the Judge denied the Company’s motion to dismiss the violation of ECPA claims. Plaintiffs requested and received immediate appellate review of these rulings by the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals. On April 10, 2015, the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the denial of class certification on the grounds stated by the District Court, and remanded the case back to the District Court for further consideration of that and the other elements necessary for class certification. The District Court has not issued a new ruling on those matters.

In Michael Winslow and Fonda Winslow v. Sultan Financial Corporation, Aaron's, Inc., John Does (1-10), Aaron's Franchisees and Designerware, LLC, filed on March 5, 2013 in the Los Angeles Superior Court (Case No. BC502304), plaintiffs assert claims against the Company and its independently owned and operated franchisee, Sultan Financial Corporation (as well as certain John Doe franchisees), for unauthorized wiretapping, eavesdropping, electronic stalking, and violation of California's Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act and its Unfair Competition Law. Each of these claims arises out of the alleged use of PC Rental Agent software. The plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief and damages in connection with the allegations of the complaint. Plaintiffs are also seeking certification of a putative California class. Plaintiffs are represented by the same counsel as in the above-described Byrd litigation. In April 2013, the Company timely removed this matter to federal court. On May 8, 2013, the Company filed a motion to stay this litigation pending resolution of the Byrd litigation, a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and a motion to strike certain allegations in the complaint. The Court subsequently stayed the case. The Company's motions to dismiss and strike certain allegations remain pending. On June 6, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay, which was denied on July 11, 2015.

In Lomi Price v. Aaron's, Inc. and NW Freedom Corporation, filed on February 27, 2013, in the State Court of Fulton County, Georgia (Case No. 13-EV-016812B), an individual plaintiff asserts claims against the Company and its independently owned and operated franchisee, NW Freedom Corporation, for invasion of privacy/intrusion on seclusion, computer invasion of privacy and infliction of emotional distress. Each of these claims arises out of the alleged use of PC Rental Agent software. The plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages of not less than $250,000. On April 3, 2013, the Company filed an answer and affirmative defenses. On that same day, the Company also filed a motion to stay the litigation pending resolution of the Byrd litigation, a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and a motion to strike certain allegations in the complaint. The Court stayed the proceeding pending rulings on certain motions in the Byrd case, which expired upon remand of the case back to the District Court. On April 24, 2015, the Company filed a renewed motion to stay, which was granted on June 15, 2015.

In Michael Peterson v. Aaron’s, Inc. and Aspen Way Enterprises, Inc., filed on June 19, 2014, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Case No. 1:14-cv-01919-TWT), several plaintiffs allege that they leased computers for use in their law practice. The plaintiffs claim that the Company and Aspen Way knowingly violated plaintiffs' privacy and the privacy of plaintiff’s legal clients in violation of the ECPA and the Computer Fraud Abuse Act. Plaintiffs seek certification of a putative nationwide class. Plaintiffs based these claims on Aspen Way's use of PC Rental Agent software. The plaintiffs claim that information and data obtained by defendants through PC Rental Agent was attorney-client privileged. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint. On June 4, 2015, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss all claims except a claim for aiding and abetting invasion of privacy. Plaintiffs then filed a second amended complaint alleging only the invasion of privacy claims that survived the June 4, 2015 court order, and adding a claim for unjust enrichment. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, and on September 16, 2015, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim. The only remaining claims against the Company is a claim for aiding and abetting invasion of privacy.

Regulatory Investigations

California Attorney General Investigation. The California Attorney General investigated the Company's retail transactional practices, including various leasing and marketing practices, information security and privacy policies and practices related to the alleged use of PC Rental Agent software by certain independently owned and operated Company franchisees. The Company reached a comprehensive resolution of this matter without litigation. The final settlement and consent order were announced on October 13, 2014. The Court filed the final judgment on February 10, 2015. Payments have begun under the anticipated schedule outlined in the judgment.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Investigation. There is a pending investigation by the Pennsylvania Attorney General relating to the Company's privacy practices in Pennsylvania. The privacy issues are related to the alleged use of PC Rental Agent software by certain independently owned and operated Company franchisees, and the Company's alleged responsibility for that use. The Company cooperated in the investigation and on June 18, 2015, reached a tentative settlement of the matter. The settlement documentation has been signed and is pending finalization with the Pennsylvania Attorney General.

Other Matters

In Foster v. Aaron’s, Inc., filed on August 21, 2015, in the United States District Court in Phoenix, Arizona (No. CV-15-1637-PHX-SRB), the plaintiff in this putative class action alleges that the Company violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) by placing automated calls to customer references, or otherwise violates the TCPA in the manner in which the Company contacts customer references. The Company's initial responsive pleading was filed on October 7, 2015.

Other Commitments

At September 30, 2015, the Company had non-cancelable commitments primarily related to certain advertising and marketing programs of $9.1 million.

The Company is a party to various claims and legal and regulatory proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. Management regularly assesses the Company’s insurance deductibles, monitors the Company's litigation and regulatory exposure with the Company's attorneys and evaluates its loss experience. The Company also enters into various contracts in the normal course of business that may subject it to risk of financial loss if counterparties fail to perform their contractual obligations.

See Note 8 to the consolidated financial statements in the 2014 Annual Report for further information.