Legal Proceedings	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
Legal Proceedings [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	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 2016 Form 10-K and in Note 12 Legal Proceedings in Part I, Item 1 of our first and second quarter 2017 Forms 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 September 30, 2017, we estimate that it is reasonably possible that we could incur losses in an aggregate amount of up to approximately $250 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 2016 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 September 2017, the magistrate judge at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motions to file their proposed amended complaints in the antitrust lawsuits pending against Visa^®, MasterCard^®, and several major financial institutions, including cases naming National City (since merged into PNC) and its subsidiary, National City Bank of Kentucky (since merged into National City Bank which in turn was merged into PNC Bank, N.A.), 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 dispute over amendment arose in part from the decision in United States v. American Express, Co., 838 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2016), in which the court held that the relevant market in a similar complaint against American Express is “two-sided,” i.e., requires consideration of effects on consumers as well as merchants. In October 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to review the court’s decision in American Express. Previously, the plaintiffs in this litigation had alleged a one-sided market, and, as a result of the court’s decision in American Express, they sought leave to add claims based on a two-sided market. The order allowed the complaint to be amended to include allegations pertaining to a two-sided market only to the extent those claims are not time-barred, but held that the two-sided market allegations do not relate back to the time of the original complaint and are not subject to tolling. The plaintiffs have stated their intention to appeal this order to the presiding district court judge. Fulton Financial In the case pending against PNC Capital Markets, LLC in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania (Fulton Financial Advisors, N.A. v. PNC Capital Markets, LLC (CI 09-10838)), PNC has filed a motion for summary judgment, and the court has set a trial date in September 2018. Mortgage Repurchase Litigation In July 2017, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota denied our motion to dismiss the complaint in ResCap Liquidating Trust v. PNC Bank, N.A. (No. 17-cv-196-JRT-FLN), which has been consolidated for pre-trial purposes into In Re: RFC and RESCAP Liquidating Trust Litigation (Civil File No. 13-cv-3451 (SRN/JJK/HB)). Pre-need Funeral Arrangements In August 2017, in the lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri under the caption Jo Ann Howard, P.C., et al. v. Cassity, et al. (No. 4:09-CV-1252-ERW), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the judgment to the extent that it was based on tort rather than trust law. The court accordingly held that any damages awarded to the plaintiffs will be limited to losses to the trusts in Missouri caused by Allegiant’s breaches during the time it acted as trustee; plaintiffs cannot recover for damages to the Missouri trusts after Allegiant’s trusteeship or outside of the Missouri trusts, which had been included in the judgment under appeal. The court of appeals otherwise affirmed the judgment, including the dismissal of the aiding and abetting claims, and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings in light of its decision. In September 2017, the plaintiffs sought panel rehearing. The plaintiffs do not seek to overturn the panel decision in its entirety but to remove the prohibition on damages being sought for the period following Allegiant’s trusteeship. In October 2017, the court invited PNC to file a response to the petition for rehearing. The petition for rehearing is pending. 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.

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 2016 Form 10-K and in Note 12 Legal Proceedings in Part I, Item 1 of our first and second quarter 2017 Forms 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 September 30, 2017, we estimate that it is reasonably possible that we could incur losses in an aggregate amount of up to approximately $250 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 2016 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 September 2017, the magistrate judge at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motions to file their proposed amended complaints in the antitrust lawsuits pending against Visa^®, MasterCard^®, and several major financial institutions, including cases naming National City (since merged into PNC) and its subsidiary, National City Bank of Kentucky (since merged into National City Bank which in turn was merged into PNC Bank, N.A.), 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 dispute over amendment arose in part from the decision in United States v. American Express, Co., 838 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2016), in which the court held that the relevant market in a similar complaint against American Express is “two-sided,” i.e., requires consideration of effects on consumers as well as merchants. In October 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to review the court’s decision in American Express. Previously, the plaintiffs in this litigation had alleged a one-sided market, and, as a result of the court’s decision in American Express, they sought leave to add claims based on a two-sided market. The order allowed the complaint to be amended to include allegations pertaining to a two-sided market only to the extent those claims are not time-barred, but held that the two-sided market allegations do not relate back to the time of the original complaint and are not subject to tolling. The plaintiffs have stated their intention to appeal this order to the presiding district court judge.

Fulton Financial

In the case pending against PNC Capital Markets, LLC in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania (Fulton Financial Advisors, N.A. v. PNC Capital Markets, LLC (CI 09-10838)), PNC has filed a motion for summary judgment, and the court has set a trial date in September 2018.

Mortgage Repurchase Litigation

In July 2017, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota denied our motion to dismiss the complaint in ResCap Liquidating Trust v. PNC Bank, N.A. (No. 17-cv-196-JRT-FLN), which has been consolidated for pre-trial purposes into In Re: RFC and RESCAP Liquidating Trust Litigation (Civil File No. 13-cv-3451 (SRN/JJK/HB)).

Pre-need Funeral Arrangements

In August 2017, in the lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri under the caption Jo Ann Howard, P.C., et al. v. Cassity, et al. (No. 4:09-CV-1252-ERW), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the judgment to the extent that it was based on tort rather than trust law. The court accordingly held that any damages awarded to the plaintiffs will be limited to losses to the trusts in Missouri caused by Allegiant’s breaches during the time it acted as trustee; plaintiffs cannot recover for damages to the Missouri trusts after Allegiant’s trusteeship or outside of the Missouri trusts, which had been included in the judgment under appeal. The court of appeals otherwise affirmed the judgment, including the dismissal of the aiding and abetting claims, and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings in light of its decision. In September 2017, the plaintiffs sought panel rehearing. The plaintiffs do not seek to overturn the panel decision in its entirety but to remove the prohibition on damages being sought for the period following Allegiant’s trusteeship. In October 2017, the court invited PNC to file a response to the petition for rehearing. The petition for rehearing is pending.

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.