Legal Proceedings	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2013
Legal Proceedings [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	Note 17 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 Matters. “Disclosed Matters” includes those matters disclosed in this Note 17 and also those matters disclosed in Note 23 Legal Proceedings in Part II, Item 8 of our 2012 Form 10-K and Note 17 Legal Proceedings in Part I, Item 1 of our Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2013 (such prior disclosure referred to as “Prior Disclosure”). For Disclosed Matters where we are able to estimate such possible losses or ranges of possible losses, as of June 30, 2013, we estimate that it is reasonably possible that we could incur losses in an aggregate amount of up to approximately $400 million. The estimates included in this amount are based on our analysis of currently available information and are subject to the application of 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. 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 damages or 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 as alleged in the plaintiff's pleadings or other public filings or otherwise based on 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. The following descriptions update our disclosure of pending legal proceedings provided in our Prior Disclosure. Interchange Litigation In the cases that have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York under the caption In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant-Discount Antitrust Litigation (Master File No. 1:05-md-1720-JG-JO), the court has scheduled a hearing with respect to final court approval for September 2013. Numerous merchants, including some large national merchants, have objected to or requested exclusion (opted out) from the proposed class settlements, and some of those opting out have filed complaints in the U.S. District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York against Visa, MasterCard and, in some instances, one or more of the other issuing banks. CBNV Mortgage Litigation MDL Proceedings in Pennsylvania. In June 2013, the court in the multidistrict litigation proceeding (MDL) in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania under the caption In re: Community Bank of Northern Virginia Lending Practices Litigation (No. 03-0425 (W.D. Pa.), MDL No. 1674) granted in part and denied in part the motion, dismissing the claims of any plaintiff whose loan did not originate or was not assigned to our predecessor, Community Bank of Northern Virginia (CBNV), narrowing the scope of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) claim, and dismissing several of the named plaintiffs for lack of standing. The court also dismissed the claims against the other lender defendant on jurisdictional grounds. The limitation of the potential class to CBNV borrowers reduces its size to approximately 22,500. Also in June 2013, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which was granted in July 2013. Overdraft Litigation In August 2013, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the “MDL Court”) granted final approval to the settlement described below of the three pending lawsuits naming PNC Bank that had been consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the MDL Court (together with one other case naming National City Bank, two cases naming RBC Bank (USA), and similar lawsuits against numerous other banks) under the caption In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation (MDL No. 2036, Case No. 1:09-MD-02036-JLK ). PNC Bank had reached an agreement to settle these cases for $90 million in June 2012. The complaints in these three lawsuits alleged that PNC Bank engaged in unlawful practices in assessing overdraft fees arising from electronic point-of-sale and ATM debits. The principal practice challenged in these lawsuits is PNC Bank's purportedly common policy of posting debit transactions on a daily basis from highest amount to lowest amount, thereby allegedly inflating the number of overdraft fees assessed. Other practices challenged include the failure to decline to honor debit card transactions where the account has insufficient funds to cover the transactions. In the consolidated amended complaint against PNC Bank in the MDL Court, the plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; unconscionability; conversion; unjust enrichment; and violation of the consumer protection statutes of Pennsylvania, Illinois and New Jersey. The cases against PNC Bank in the MDL Court sought to certify multi-state classes of customers for the common law claims described below (covering all states in which PNC Bank had retail branch operations during the class periods), and subclasses of PNC Bank customers with accounts in Pennsylvania and New Jersey branches, with each subclass being asserted for purposes of claims under those states' consumer protection statutes. No class periods were stated in any of the complaints, other than for the applicable statutes of limitations, which vary by state and claim. PNC Bank's motion to dismiss a consolidated amended complaint with respect to the cases pending against it in the MDL Court was denied in March 2011. In December 2011, the plaintiffs in cases pending against PNC Bank in the MDL Court moved for class certification, which was granted in May 2012. The lawsuits pending against RBC Bank (USA) consolidated in the MDL Court as well as another lawsuit making similar allegations against PNC Bank, as described in Prior Disclosure, remain pending. Captive Mortgage Reinsurance Litigation In June 2013, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in White, et al. v. The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., et al. (Civil Action No. 11-7928), dismissed, without prejudice, the amended complaint on statute of limitations grounds. A second amended complaint, in response to the court's dismissal order, was filed in July 2013. We filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, also in July 2013. The court has not yet ruled on this motion. Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Indemnification Demands The parties have settled several of the cases with respect to which we have received indemnification demands. There has not been any determination that the parties seeking indemnification have any liability to the plaintiffs in the other lawsuits and the amount, if any, for which we are responsible in the settled cases has not been determined. Lender Placed Insurance Litigation In June 2013, a lawsuit (Lauren v. PNC Bank, N.A., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-00762-TFM) was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against PNC Bank and a provider of property and casualty insurance to PNC for certain residential mortgages. This lawsuit, which was brought as a class action, alleges, with respect to PNC Bank, that it breached alleged contractual (including the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing) and fiduciary duties to residential mortgage borrowers, and, as to Ohio borrowers, violated the Ohio Consumer Sales Practice Act in connection with the administration of PNC Bank's program for placement of insurance for borrowers who fail to obtain certain insurance coverages required by the terms of their mortgages. The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that defendants placed insurance in unnecessary and excessive amounts and that PNC Bank improperly profited from these arrangements by means of the payment of commissions to PNC Bank and by reinsurance arrangements between PNC Bank and the insurance provider. The plaintiff seeks to certify a nationwide class and an Ohio sub-class (for the Ohio statutory claim) of all persons who, during applicable periods, have or had a residential mortgage loan or line of credit with PNC Bank, and had hazard insurance placed upon the secured property by PNC Bank. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, damages, restitution or disgorgement of profits improperly obtained, injunctive relief, interest, and attorneys' fees. Patent Infringement Litigation In June 2013, a lawsuit (Intellectual Ventures I LLC & Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., and PNC Bank NA, Case No. 2:13-cv-00740-AJS) was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against PNC and PNC Bank for patent infringement. The plaintiffs allege that multiple systems by which PNC and PNC Bank provide online banking services and other services via electronic means infringe five patents owned by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, a declaration that PNC and PNC Bank are infringing each of the patents, damages for past and future infringement, and attorneys' fees. Other Regulatory and Governmental Inquiries PNC is the subject of investigations, audits and other forms of regulatory and governmental inquiry covering a broad range of issues in our banking, securities and other financial services businesses, in some cases as part of reviews of specified activities at multiple industry participants. Over the last few years, we have experienced an increase in regulatory and governmental investigations, audits and other inquiries. Areas of current regulatory or governmental inquiry with respect to PNC include consumer financial protection, fair lending, mortgage origination and servicing, mortgage-related insurance and reinsurance, sales by third party providers of voluntary identity protection services to PNC customers, municipal finance activities, and participation in government insurance or guarantee programs, some of which are described below and in Prior Disclosure. These inquiries, including those described below and 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. • PNC has received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York seeking information regarding claims for foreclosure expenses that are incurred in connection with the foreclosure of loans insured or guaranteed by FHA, Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. This inquiry is in its early stage, and PNC is cooperating with the investigation. The Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are jointly investigating whether mortgage loan pricing by National City and PNC had a disparate impact on protected classes. In June 2013, PNC was advised by the CFPB that it had authorized settlement negotiations with PNC, as successor to National City Corporation, and by the Department of Justice that it had authorized the filing of a civil complaint against PNC, also as successor to National City. PNC continues to cooperate with the agencies' investigation. Our practice is to cooperate fully with regulatory and governmental investigations, audits and other inquiries, including those described in this Note 17 and 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. See Note 18 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.

Legal Proceedings

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2013

Note 17 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 Matters. “Disclosed Matters” includes those matters disclosed in this Note 17 and also those matters disclosed in Note 23 Legal Proceedings in Part II, Item 8 of our 2012 Form 10-K and Note 17 Legal Proceedings in Part I, Item 1 of our Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2013 (such prior disclosure referred to as “Prior Disclosure”). For Disclosed Matters where we are able to estimate such possible losses or ranges of possible losses, as of June 30, 2013, we estimate that it is reasonably possible that we could incur losses in an aggregate amount of up to approximately $400 million. The estimates included in this amount are based on our analysis of currently available information and are subject to the application of 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.

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 damages or 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 as alleged in the plaintiff's pleadings or other public filings or otherwise based on 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.

The following descriptions update our disclosure of pending legal proceedings provided in our Prior Disclosure.

Interchange Litigation

In the cases that have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York under the caption In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant-Discount Antitrust Litigation (Master File No. 1:05-md-1720-JG-JO), the court has scheduled a hearing with respect to final court approval for September 2013. Numerous merchants, including some large national merchants, have objected to or requested exclusion (opted out) from the proposed class settlements, and some of those opting out have filed complaints in the U.S. District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York against Visa, MasterCard and, in some instances, one or more of the other issuing banks.

CBNV Mortgage Litigation

MDL Proceedings in Pennsylvania. In June 2013, the court in the multidistrict litigation proceeding (MDL) in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania under the caption In re: Community Bank of Northern Virginia Lending Practices Litigation (No. 03-0425 (W.D. Pa.), MDL No. 1674) granted in part and denied in part the motion, dismissing the claims of any plaintiff whose loan did not originate or was not assigned to our predecessor, Community Bank of Northern Virginia (CBNV), narrowing the scope of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) claim, and dismissing several of the named plaintiffs for lack of standing. The court also dismissed the claims against the other lender defendant on jurisdictional grounds. The limitation of the potential class to CBNV borrowers reduces its size to approximately 22,500. Also in June 2013, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which was granted in July 2013.

Overdraft Litigation

In August 2013, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the “MDL Court”) granted final approval to the settlement described below of the three pending lawsuits naming PNC Bank that had been consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the MDL Court (together with one other case naming National City Bank, two cases naming RBC Bank (USA), and similar lawsuits against numerous other banks) under the caption In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation (MDL No. 2036, Case No. 1:09-MD-02036-JLK ). PNC Bank had reached an agreement to settle these cases for $90 million in June 2012.

The complaints in these three lawsuits alleged that PNC Bank engaged in unlawful practices in assessing overdraft fees arising from electronic point-of-sale and ATM debits. The principal practice challenged in these lawsuits is PNC Bank's purportedly common policy of posting debit transactions on a daily basis from highest amount to lowest amount, thereby allegedly inflating the number of overdraft fees assessed. Other practices challenged include the failure to decline to honor debit card transactions where the account has insufficient funds to cover the transactions.

In the consolidated amended complaint against PNC Bank in the MDL Court, the plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; unconscionability; conversion; unjust enrichment; and violation of the consumer protection statutes of Pennsylvania, Illinois and New Jersey.

The cases against PNC Bank in the MDL Court sought to certify multi-state classes of customers for the common law claims described below (covering all states in which PNC Bank had retail branch operations during the class periods), and subclasses of PNC Bank customers with accounts in Pennsylvania and New Jersey branches, with each subclass being asserted for purposes of claims under those states' consumer protection statutes. No class periods were stated in any of the complaints, other than for the applicable statutes of limitations, which vary by state and claim.

PNC Bank's motion to dismiss a consolidated amended complaint with respect to the cases pending against it in the MDL Court was denied in March 2011. In December 2011, the plaintiffs in cases pending against PNC Bank in the MDL Court moved for class certification, which was granted in May 2012.

The lawsuits pending against RBC Bank (USA) consolidated in the MDL Court as well as another lawsuit making similar allegations against PNC Bank, as described in Prior Disclosure, remain pending.

Captive Mortgage Reinsurance Litigation

In June 2013, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in White, et al. v. The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., et al. (Civil Action No. 11-7928), dismissed, without prejudice, the amended complaint on statute of limitations grounds. A second amended complaint, in response to the court's dismissal order, was filed in July 2013. We filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, also in July 2013. The court has not yet ruled on this motion.

Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Indemnification Demands

The parties have settled several of the cases with respect to which we have received indemnification demands. There has not been any determination that the parties seeking indemnification have any liability to the plaintiffs in the other lawsuits and the amount, if any, for which we are responsible in the settled cases has not been determined.

Lender Placed Insurance Litigation

In June 2013, a lawsuit (Lauren v. PNC Bank, N.A., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-00762-TFM) was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against PNC Bank and a provider of property and casualty insurance to PNC for certain residential mortgages. This lawsuit, which was brought as a class action, alleges, with respect to PNC Bank, that it breached alleged contractual (including the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing) and fiduciary duties to residential mortgage borrowers, and, as to Ohio borrowers, violated the Ohio Consumer Sales Practice Act in connection with the administration of PNC Bank's program for placement of insurance for borrowers who fail to obtain certain insurance coverages required by the terms of their mortgages. The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that defendants placed insurance in unnecessary and excessive amounts and that PNC Bank improperly profited from these arrangements by means of the payment of commissions to PNC Bank and by reinsurance arrangements between PNC Bank and the insurance provider. The plaintiff seeks to certify a nationwide class and an Ohio sub-class (for the Ohio statutory claim) of all persons who, during applicable periods, have or had a residential mortgage loan or line of credit with PNC Bank, and had hazard insurance placed upon the secured property by PNC Bank. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, damages, restitution or disgorgement of profits improperly obtained, injunctive relief, interest, and attorneys' fees.

Patent Infringement Litigation

In June 2013, a lawsuit (Intellectual Ventures I LLC & Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., and PNC Bank NA, Case No. 2:13-cv-00740-AJS) was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against PNC and PNC Bank for patent infringement. The plaintiffs allege that multiple systems by which PNC and PNC Bank provide online banking services and other services via electronic means infringe five patents owned by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, a declaration that PNC and PNC Bank are infringing each of the patents, damages for past and future infringement, and attorneys' fees.

Other Regulatory and Governmental Inquiries

PNC is the subject of investigations, audits and other forms of regulatory and governmental inquiry covering a broad range of issues in our banking, securities and other financial services businesses, in some cases as part of reviews of specified activities at multiple industry participants. Over the last few years, we have experienced an increase in regulatory and governmental investigations, audits and other inquiries. Areas of current regulatory or governmental inquiry with respect to PNC include consumer financial protection, fair lending, mortgage origination and servicing, mortgage-related insurance and reinsurance, sales by third party providers of voluntary identity protection services to PNC customers, municipal finance activities, and participation in government insurance or guarantee programs, some of which are described below and in Prior Disclosure. These inquiries, including those described below and 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.

• PNC has received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York seeking information regarding claims for foreclosure expenses that are incurred in connection with the foreclosure of loans insured or guaranteed by FHA, Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. This inquiry is in its early stage, and PNC is cooperating with the investigation.

The Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are jointly investigating whether mortgage loan pricing by National City and PNC had a disparate impact on protected classes. In June 2013, PNC was advised by the CFPB that it had authorized settlement negotiations with PNC, as successor to National City Corporation, and by the Department of Justice that it had authorized the filing of a civil complaint against PNC, also as successor to National City. PNC continues to cooperate with the agencies' investigation.

Our practice is to cooperate fully with regulatory and governmental investigations, audits and other inquiries, including those described in this Note 17 and 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.

See Note 18 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.