Legal Proceedings	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2015
Legal Proceedings [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	Note 15 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 15 as well as those matters disclosed in Note 21 Legal Proceedings in Part II, Item 8 of our 2014 Form 10-K and in Note 15 Legal Proceedings in Part I, Item 1 of our first quarter 2015 Form 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 June 30, 2015, 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. CBNV Mortgage Litigation Between 2001 and 2003, on behalf of either individual plaintiffs or proposed classes of plaintiffs, several separate lawsuits were filed in state and federal courts against Community Bank of Northern Virginia (CBNV), a PNC Bank predecessor, and other defendants asserting claims arising from second mortgage loans made to the plaintiffs. The state lawsuits were removed to federal court and, with the lawsuits that had been filed in federal court, were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) proceeding 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). MDL Proceedings in Pennsylvania. In July 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the grant of class certification by the Pennsylvania district court. North Carolina Proceedings. In January 2008, the Pennsylvania district court issued an order sending back to the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, for Wake County, North Carolina the claims of two proposed class members, asserted in a case originally filed in 2001 and captioned Bumpers, et al. v. Community Bank of Northern Virginia (01-CVS-011342). The plaintiffs in Bumpers made similar allegations to those included in the amended complaint in the MDL proceedings. Following the remand to North Carolina state court, the plaintiffs in Bumpers sought to represent a class of North Carolina borrowers in state court proceedings in North Carolina. The plaintiffs claimed that this class consisted of approximately 650 borrowers. The district court in Pennsylvania handling the MDL proceedings enjoined class proceedings in Bumpers in March 2008. In April 2008, the North Carolina Superior Court granted the Bumpers plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on their individual claims and awarded them approximately $11,000 each plus interest. CBNV appealed the grant of the motion for summary judgment. In September 2011, the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the granting of the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. The court affirmed the judgment on the plaintiffs’ claim that they paid a loan discount fee but were not provided a loan discount. It reversed the judgment on the plaintiffs’ claim that they were overcharged for settlement services and remanded that claim for trial. The court also held that, in light of the Pennsylvania district court’s injunction against class proceedings having been vacated in September 2010, the trial court may on remand consider the issue of class certification. In August 2012, the North Carolina Supreme Court granted our petition for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals. The appeal was argued in January 2013. In August 2013, the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the Superior Court for further proceedings. In September 2013, after the other plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his case, the remaining plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint in the trial court. The plaintiff’s remaining claims, as reflected in the proposed amended complaint, related exclusively to loan discount fees. In June 2015 the court denied the plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint. The plaintiff then moved for an order allowing dismissal of his remaining claims, which was granted, thus ending the North Carolina proceedings. Lender Placed Insurance Litigation In May 2015, the parties reached an agreement to settle on a nationwide settlement class basis 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 against, among others, PNC Bank. The agreement is subject to, among other things, notice to the class members and final approval by the court. In June 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. Notice to the class members will be provided following preliminary approval, if granted. In connection with the settlement agreement, the plaintiffs also filed a fourth amended complaint, which, among other things, adds claims regarding wind and flood insurance. The proposed settlement provides for certification of a class of borrowers who were charged by PNC under a hazard, flood, flood gap or wind only lender placed insurance policy for residential property during the period January 1, 2008 through the date of preliminary approval of the settlement. The overall cost of the settlement is not expected to be material to PNC. Patent Infringement Litigation In separate decisions issued in April and May 2015, the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) invalidated all claims with respect to the patents that were still at issue in Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC vs. PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., and PNC Bank, NA, (Case No. 2:13-cv-00740-AJS)(“IV 1”), pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against PNC and PNC Bank. In July 2015, in an appeal arising out of proceedings against a different defendant relating to some of the same patents, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court decision invalidating two of those same patents. As a result, all of the patents still at issue in IV 1 have been invalidated, and accordingly PNC should have no liability in this matter. In April 2015, the PTO, in a proceeding brought by another defendant, upheld the patentability of one of the patents at issue in 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. 2:14-cv-00832-AKS)(“IV 2”), pending in the same court as IV 1. Three patents of the four other patents at issue in IV 2 remain under review by the PTO while PTO review has been denied as to the fourth patent. 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, automobile lending practices, 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. Our practice is to cooperate fully with regulatory and governmental investigations, audits and other inquiries, including those described below and in Prior Disclosure. Mortgage Servicing Consent Orders In June 2015, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency issued an order finding that PNC Bank had satisfied all of its obligations under the OCC’s 2013 amended consent order and terminating PNC Bank’s 2011 consent order and 2013 amended consent order relating to its residential mortgage servicing and foreclosure processes. The OCC retained jurisdiction over the distribution of remaining funds contributed by PNC Bank under its 2013 amended consent order. PNC’s consent order with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, as amended, relating to the same subject matter remains open and does not foreclose the potential for civil money penalties from the Federal Reserve. The range of potential penalties communicated to PNC from the Federal Reserve in connection with these consent orders is not material and we do not otherwise expect any additional financial charges from the Federal Reserve consent orders to be material. 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 16 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.

Note 15 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 15 as well as those matters disclosed in Note 21 Legal Proceedings in Part II, Item 8 of our 2014 Form 10-K and in Note 15 Legal Proceedings in Part I, Item 1 of our first quarter 2015 Form 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 June 30, 2015, 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.

CBNV Mortgage Litigation

Between 2001 and 2003, on behalf of either individual plaintiffs or proposed classes of plaintiffs, several separate lawsuits were filed in state and federal courts against Community Bank of Northern Virginia (CBNV), a PNC Bank predecessor, and other defendants asserting claims arising from second mortgage loans made to the plaintiffs. The state lawsuits were removed to federal court and, with the lawsuits that had been filed in federal court, were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) proceeding 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).

MDL Proceedings in Pennsylvania. In July 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the grant of class certification by the Pennsylvania district court.

North Carolina Proceedings. In January 2008, the Pennsylvania district court issued an order sending back to the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, for Wake County, North Carolina the claims of two proposed class members, asserted in a case originally filed in 2001 and captioned Bumpers, et al. v. Community Bank of Northern Virginia (01-CVS-011342). The plaintiffs in Bumpers made similar allegations to those included in the amended complaint in the MDL proceedings. Following the remand to North Carolina state court, the plaintiffs in Bumpers sought to represent a class of North Carolina borrowers in state court proceedings in North Carolina. The plaintiffs claimed that this class consisted of approximately 650 borrowers. The district court in Pennsylvania handling the MDL proceedings enjoined class proceedings in Bumpers in March 2008. In April 2008, the North Carolina Superior Court granted the Bumpers plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on their individual claims and awarded them approximately $11,000 each plus interest. CBNV appealed the grant of the motion for summary judgment. In September 2011, the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the granting of the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. The court affirmed the judgment on the plaintiffs’ claim that they paid a loan discount fee but were not provided a loan discount. It reversed the judgment on the plaintiffs’ claim that they were overcharged for settlement services and remanded that claim for trial. The court also held that, in light of the Pennsylvania district court’s injunction against class proceedings having been vacated in September 2010, the trial court may on remand consider the issue of class certification. In August 2012, the North Carolina Supreme Court granted our petition for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals. The appeal was argued in January 2013. In August 2013, the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the Superior Court for further proceedings. In September 2013, after the other plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his case, the remaining plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint in the trial court. The plaintiff’s remaining claims, as reflected in the proposed amended complaint, related exclusively to loan discount fees. In June 2015 the court denied the plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint. The plaintiff then moved for an order allowing dismissal of his remaining claims, which was granted, thus ending the North Carolina proceedings.

Lender Placed Insurance Litigation

In May 2015, the parties reached an agreement to settle on a nationwide settlement class basis 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 against, among others, PNC Bank. The agreement is subject to, among other things, notice to the class members and final approval by the court. In June 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. Notice to the class members will be provided following preliminary approval, if granted. In connection with the settlement agreement, the plaintiffs also filed a fourth amended complaint, which, among other things, adds claims regarding wind and flood insurance. The proposed settlement provides for certification of a class of borrowers who were charged by PNC under a hazard, flood, flood gap or wind only lender placed insurance policy for residential property during the period January 1, 2008 through the date of preliminary approval of the settlement. The overall cost of the settlement is not expected to be material to PNC.

Patent Infringement Litigation

In separate decisions issued in April and May 2015, the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) invalidated all claims with respect to the patents that were still at issue in Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC vs. PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., and PNC Bank, NA, (Case No. 2:13-cv-00740-AJS)(“IV 1”), pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against PNC and PNC Bank. In July 2015, in an appeal arising out of proceedings against a different defendant relating to some of the same patents, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court decision invalidating two of those same patents. As a result, all of the patents still at issue in IV 1 have been invalidated, and accordingly PNC should have no liability in this matter.

In April 2015, the PTO, in a proceeding brought by another defendant, upheld the patentability of one of the patents at issue in 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. 2:14-cv-00832-AKS)(“IV 2”), pending in the same court as IV 1. Three patents of the four other patents at issue in IV 2 remain under review by the PTO while PTO review has been denied as to the fourth patent.

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, automobile lending practices, 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.

Our practice is to cooperate fully with regulatory and governmental investigations, audits and other inquiries, including those described below and in Prior Disclosure.

Mortgage Servicing Consent Orders

In June 2015, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency issued an order finding that PNC Bank had satisfied all of its obligations under the OCC’s 2013 amended consent order and terminating PNC Bank’s 2011 consent order and 2013 amended consent order relating to its residential mortgage servicing and foreclosure processes. The OCC retained jurisdiction over the distribution of remaining funds contributed by PNC Bank under its 2013 amended consent order. PNC’s consent order with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, as amended, relating to the same subject matter remains open and does not foreclose the potential for civil money penalties from the Federal Reserve. The range of potential penalties communicated to PNC from the Federal Reserve in connection with these consent orders is not material and we do not otherwise expect any additional financial charges from the Federal Reserve consent orders to be material.

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 16 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.