Legal Proceedings	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2014
Legal Proceedings [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	Note 16 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 16 as well as those matters disclosed in Note 23 Legal Proceedings in Part II, Item 8 of our 2013 Form 10-K and Note 16 Legal Proceedings in Part I, Item 1 of our Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2014 (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, 2014, we estimate that it is reasonably possible that we could incur losses in an aggregate amount of up to approximately $725 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. In our experience, legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable. One or more of the following factors frequently contribute to this inherent unpredictability: 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 other party is seeking relief other than or in addition to compensatory damages (including, in the case of regulatory and governmental investigations and inquiries, the possibility of fines and penalties); 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; the possible outcomes may not be amenable to the use of statistical or quantitative analytical tools; predicting possible outcomes depends on making assumptions about future decisions of courts or regulatory bodies or the behavior of other parties; 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. As a result of these types of factors, 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. The following updates our disclosure of legal proceedings from that provided in Prior Disclosure. Overdraft Litigation With respect to the two cases consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the “MDL Court”) under the caption In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation (MDL No. 2036, Case No. 1:09-MD-02036-JLK ), Dasher v. RBC Bank and Avery v. RBC Bank, in June 2014, we filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court with respect to the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirming the order of the MDL Court denying arbitration. The court of appeals' stay of its ruling will continue until final disposition of the case by the Supreme Court. FHLB In October 2010, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago brought a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, against numerous financial companies, including The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., as successor in interest to National City Corporation, and PNC Investments LLC, as successor in interest to NatCity Investments, Inc. (Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Funding Corp., et al. (Case No. 10CH45033)). The complaint alleged that the defendants had liability to the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago in a variety of capacities (in the case of the National City entities, as underwriters) under Illinois state securities law and common law in connection with the alleged purchase of private-label mortgage-backed securities by the Federal Home Loan Bank. According to the complaint, the Federal Home Loan Bank purchased approximately $3.3 billion in mortgage-backed securities in total in transactions addressed by the complaint, approximately $345 million of which was allegedly in transactions involving the National City entities. The complaint alleged misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the sales of the mortgage-backed securities in question. In its complaint, the Federal Home Loan Bank sought, among other things, rescission, unspecified damages, interest, and attorneys' fees. In May 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint as amended to that point. The motion was denied in September 2012. In June 2014, PNC and the Federal Home Loan Bank entered into a definitive settlement agreement finally resolving this lawsuit as it applies to PNC. The amount of the settlement is not material to PNC. Weavering Macro Fixed Income Fund In the proceedings before the High Court, Dublin, Ireland, in July 2014 the court extended the deadline for the plaintiff to complete compliance with its discovery obligations until December 2014. Lender Placed Insurance Litigation In May 2014, the court in Lauren v. PNC Bank, N.A., et al, (Case No. 2:13-cv-00762-TFM), granted the plaintiff's motion to amend her complaint to, among other things, assert a nationwide RICO claim on behalf of the class, with the understanding that defendants may pursue their arguments against the viability of this claim by way of a motion to dismiss. In June 2014, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The motion is pending. In May 2014, the complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in Tighe v. PNC Bank, N.A., et al. (Case No. 14-CV-2017) was transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. In June 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice, thereby terminating that action. In Montoya, et al. v. PNC Bank, N.A., et al. (Case No. 1:14-cv-20474-JEM), pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, PNC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in May 2014. The motion is pending. Patent Infringement Litigation The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (“PTO”) instituted review proceedings in May 2014 on four of the five patents at issue in Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., and PNC Bank, NA, (Case No. 2:13-cv-00740-AJS), pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, finding that the subject matter of those patents was “more likely than not” unpatentable. The court previously dismissed the plaintiffs' claims with respect to the one patent not selected for review by the PTO. In June 2014, Intellectual Ventures filed a second lawsuit (Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. PNC Bank Financial Services Group, Inc., PNC Bank NA, and PNC Merchant Services Company, LP (Case No. 14-832)) in the same court as the first lawsuit. This lawsuit alleges that PNC defendants infringed five patents, including the patent dismissed in the first lawsuit that is not subject to PTO review, and relates generally to the same systems subject to the first lawsuit. Mortgage Repurchase Litigation In June 2014, Residential Funding Company withdrew its motion in Residential Mortgage Funding Company, LLC v. PNC Bank, N.A., et al. (Civil No. 13-3498-JRT-JSM), pending in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, to transfer the lawsuit to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. Pre-need Funeral Contracts National City Bank and PNC Bank are defendants in a lawsuit pending in the United States 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) arising out of trustee services provided by Allegiant Bank, a National City Bank and PNC Bank predecessor, with respect to Missouri trusts that held pre-need funeral contract assets. Under a pre-need funeral contract, a customer pays an amount up front in exchange for payment of funeral expenses following the customer's death. In a number of states, including Missouri, pre-need funeral contract sellers are required to deposit a portion of the proceeds of the sale of pre-need funeral contracts in a trust account. The lawsuit was filed in August 2009 by the Special Deputy Receiver for three insolvent affiliated companies, National Prearranged Services, Inc. a seller of pre-need funeral contracts (NPS), Lincoln Memorial Life Insurance Company (Lincoln), and Memorial Service Life Insurance Company (Memorial). Seven individual state life and health insurance guaranty associations, who claim they are liable under state law for payment of certain benefits under life insurance policies sold by Lincoln and Memorial, and the National Organization of Life & Health Guaranty Associations have also joined the action as plaintiffs. In addition to National City Bank and PNC Bank (added following filing of the lawsuit as successor-in-interest to National City Bank), other defendants include members of the Cassity family, who controlled NPS, Lincoln, and Memorial; officers and directors of NPS, Lincoln, and Memorial; auditors and attorneys for NPS, Lincoln, and Memorial; the trustees of each of the trusts that held pre-need funeral contract assets; and the investment advisor to the Pre-need Trusts. NPS retained several banks to act as trustees for the trusts holding NPS pre-need funeral contract assets (the “NPS Trusts”), with Allegiant Bank acting as one of these trustees with respect to seven Missouri NPS Trusts. In their Third Amended Complaint, filed in 2012 following the granting by the court in part of motions to dismiss made by National City Bank and the other NPS Trust trustees, the plaintiffs allege that Allegiant Bank breached its fiduciary duties and acted negligently as the trustee for the Missouri NPS Trusts. In part as a result of these breaches, the plaintiffs allege, members of the Cassity family, acting in concert with other defendants, were able to improperly remove millions of dollars from the NPS Trusts, which in turn caused NPS, Lincoln, and Memorial to become insolvent. The complaint alleges $600 million in present and future losses to the plaintiffs due to the insolvency of NPS, Lincoln, and Memorial. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, unspecified actual and punitive damages, various equitable remedies including restitution, attorneys' fees, costs of suit and interest. In July 2013, five of the six defendants in a parallel federal criminal action, including two members of the Cassity family, entered into plea agreements with the United States to resolve criminal charges arising out of their conduct at NPS, Lincoln and Memorial. In August 2013, after a jury trial, the sixth defendant, the investment advisor to the NPS Trusts, was convicted on all criminal counts against him. The criminal charges against the defendants alleged, among other thing, a scheme to defraud Allegiant Bank and the other trustees of the NPS Trusts. In May 2014, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to disallow National City Bank's affirmative defense relating to the plaintiffs' alleged failure to mitigate damages. In July 2014, National City Bank's motion for reconsideration was denied. The court has currently scheduled trial to begin in February 2015. 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 protection, fair lending, mortgage origination and servicing, mortgage and non mortgage-related insurance and reinsurance, municipal finance activities, conduct by broker-dealers, and participation in government insurance or guarantee programs, some of which are described in Prior Disclosure. 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. 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. See Note 17 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, 2014

Note 16 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 16 as well as those matters disclosed in Note 23 Legal Proceedings in Part II, Item 8 of our 2013 Form 10-K and Note 16 Legal Proceedings in Part I, Item 1 of our Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2014 (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, 2014, we estimate that it is reasonably possible that we could incur losses in an aggregate amount of up to approximately $725 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.

In our experience, legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable. One or more of the following factors frequently contribute to this inherent unpredictability: 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 other party is seeking relief other than or in addition to compensatory damages (including, in the case of regulatory and governmental investigations and inquiries, the possibility of fines and penalties); 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; the possible outcomes may not be amenable to the use of statistical or quantitative analytical tools; predicting possible outcomes depends on making assumptions about future decisions of courts or regulatory bodies or the behavior of other parties; 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.

As a result of these types of factors, 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.

The following updates our disclosure of legal proceedings from that provided in Prior Disclosure.

Overdraft Litigation

With respect to the two cases consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the “MDL Court”) under the caption In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation (MDL No. 2036, Case No. 1:09-MD-02036-JLK ), Dasher v. RBC Bank and Avery v. RBC Bank, in June 2014, we filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court with respect to the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirming the order of the MDL Court denying arbitration. The court of appeals' stay of its ruling will continue until final disposition of the case by the Supreme Court.

FHLB

In October 2010, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago brought a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, against numerous financial companies, including The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., as successor in interest to National City Corporation, and PNC Investments LLC, as successor in interest to NatCity Investments, Inc. (Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Funding Corp., et al. (Case No. 10CH45033)). The complaint alleged that the defendants had liability to the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago in a variety of capacities (in the case of the National City entities, as underwriters) under Illinois state securities law and common law in connection with the alleged purchase of private-label mortgage-backed securities by the Federal Home Loan Bank. According to the complaint, the Federal Home Loan Bank purchased approximately $3.3 billion in mortgage-backed securities in total in transactions addressed by the complaint, approximately $345 million of which was allegedly in transactions involving the National City entities. The complaint alleged misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the sales of the mortgage-backed securities in question. In its complaint, the Federal Home Loan Bank sought, among other things, rescission, unspecified damages, interest, and attorneys' fees. In May 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint as amended to that point. The motion was denied in September 2012. In June 2014, PNC and the Federal Home Loan Bank entered into a definitive settlement agreement finally resolving this lawsuit as it applies to PNC. The amount of the settlement is not material to PNC.

Weavering Macro Fixed Income Fund

In the proceedings before the High Court, Dublin, Ireland, in July 2014 the court extended the deadline for the plaintiff to complete compliance with its discovery obligations until December 2014.

Lender Placed Insurance Litigation

In May 2014, the court in Lauren v. PNC Bank, N.A., et al, (Case No. 2:13-cv-00762-TFM), granted the plaintiff's motion to amend her complaint to, among other things, assert a nationwide RICO claim on behalf of the class, with the understanding that defendants may pursue their arguments against the viability of this claim by way of a motion to dismiss. In June 2014, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The motion is pending.

In May 2014, the complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in Tighe v. PNC Bank, N.A., et al. (Case No. 14-CV-2017) was transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. In June 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice, thereby terminating that action.

In Montoya, et al. v. PNC Bank, N.A., et al. (Case No. 1:14-cv-20474-JEM), pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, PNC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in May 2014. The motion is pending.

Patent Infringement Litigation

The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (“PTO”) instituted review proceedings in May 2014 on four of the five patents at issue in Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., and PNC Bank, NA, (Case No. 2:13-cv-00740-AJS), pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, finding that the subject matter of those patents was “more likely than not” unpatentable. The court previously dismissed the plaintiffs' claims with respect to the one patent not selected for review by the PTO. In June 2014, Intellectual Ventures filed a second lawsuit (Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. PNC Bank Financial Services Group, Inc., PNC Bank NA, and PNC Merchant Services Company, LP (Case No. 14-832)) in the same court as the first lawsuit. This lawsuit alleges that PNC defendants infringed five patents, including the patent dismissed in the first lawsuit that is not subject to PTO review, and relates generally to the same systems subject to the first lawsuit.

Mortgage Repurchase Litigation

In June 2014, Residential Funding Company withdrew its motion in Residential Mortgage Funding Company, LLC v. PNC Bank, N.A., et al. (Civil No. 13-3498-JRT-JSM), pending in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, to transfer the lawsuit to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.

Pre-need Funeral Contracts

National City Bank and PNC Bank are defendants in a lawsuit pending in the United States 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) arising out of trustee services provided by Allegiant Bank, a National City Bank and PNC Bank predecessor, with respect to Missouri trusts that held pre-need funeral contract assets. Under a pre-need funeral contract, a customer pays an amount up front in exchange for payment of funeral expenses following the customer's death. In a number of states, including Missouri, pre-need funeral contract sellers are required to deposit a portion of the proceeds of the sale of pre-need funeral contracts in a trust account.

The lawsuit was filed in August 2009 by the Special Deputy Receiver for three insolvent affiliated companies, National Prearranged Services, Inc. a seller of pre-need funeral contracts (NPS), Lincoln Memorial Life Insurance Company (Lincoln), and Memorial Service Life Insurance Company (Memorial). Seven individual state life and health insurance guaranty associations, who claim they are liable under state law for payment of certain benefits under life insurance policies sold by Lincoln and Memorial, and the National Organization of Life & Health Guaranty Associations have also joined the action as plaintiffs. In addition to National City Bank and PNC Bank (added following filing of the lawsuit as successor-in-interest to National City Bank), other defendants include members of the Cassity family, who controlled NPS, Lincoln, and Memorial; officers and directors of NPS, Lincoln, and Memorial; auditors and attorneys for NPS, Lincoln, and Memorial; the trustees of each of the trusts that held pre-need funeral contract assets; and the investment advisor to the Pre-need Trusts. NPS retained several banks to act as trustees for the trusts holding NPS pre-need funeral contract assets (the “NPS Trusts”), with Allegiant Bank acting as one of these trustees with respect to seven Missouri NPS Trusts.

In their Third Amended Complaint, filed in 2012 following the granting by the court in part of motions to dismiss made by National City Bank and the other NPS Trust trustees, the plaintiffs allege that Allegiant Bank breached its fiduciary duties and acted negligently as the trustee for the Missouri NPS Trusts. In part as a result of these breaches, the plaintiffs allege, members of the Cassity family, acting in concert with other defendants, were able to improperly remove millions of dollars from the NPS Trusts, which in turn caused NPS, Lincoln, and Memorial to become insolvent. The complaint alleges $600 million in present and future losses to the plaintiffs due to the insolvency of NPS, Lincoln, and Memorial. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, unspecified actual and punitive damages, various equitable remedies including restitution, attorneys' fees, costs of suit and interest.

In July 2013, five of the six defendants in a parallel federal criminal action, including two members of the Cassity family, entered into plea agreements with the United States to resolve criminal charges arising out of their conduct at NPS, Lincoln and Memorial. In August 2013, after a jury trial, the sixth defendant, the investment advisor to the NPS Trusts, was convicted on all criminal counts against him. The criminal charges against the defendants alleged, among other thing, a scheme to defraud Allegiant Bank and the other trustees of the NPS Trusts.

In May 2014, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to disallow National City Bank's affirmative defense relating to the plaintiffs' alleged failure to mitigate damages. In July 2014, National City Bank's motion for reconsideration was denied.

The court has currently scheduled trial to begin in February 2015.

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 protection, fair lending, mortgage origination and servicing, mortgage and non mortgage-related insurance and reinsurance, municipal finance activities, conduct by broker-dealers, and participation in government insurance or guarantee programs, some of which are described in Prior Disclosure. 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.

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.

See Note 17 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.