Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	NOTE 19 – CONTINGENCIES Litigation and Regulatory Matters In the ordinary course of business, the Company and its subsidiaries are parties to numerous civil claims and lawsuits and subject to regulatory examinations, investigations, and requests for information. Some of these matters involve claims for substantial amounts. The Company’s experience has shown that the damages alleged by plaintiffs or claimants are often overstated, based on unsubstantiated legal theories, unsupported by facts, and/or bear no relation to the ultimate award that a court might grant. Additionally, the outcome of litigation and regulatory matters and the timing of ultimate resolution are inherently difficult to predict. These factors make it difficult for the Company to provide a meaningful estimate of the range of reasonably possible outcomes of claims in the aggregate or by individual claim. However, on a case-by-case basis, reserves are established for those legal claims in which it is probable that a loss will be incurred and the amount of such loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company's financial statements at December 31, 2017 reflect the Company's current best estimate of probable losses associated with these matters, including costs to comply with various settlement agreements, where applicable. The actual costs of resolving these claims may be substantially higher or lower than the amounts reserved. For a limited number of legal matters in which the Company is involved, the Company is able to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses in excess of related reserves, if any. Management currently estimates these losses to range from $0 to approximately $160 million. This estimated range of reasonably possible losses represents the estimated possible losses over the life of such legal matters, which may span a currently indeterminable number of years, and is based on information available at December 31, 2017. The matters underlying the estimated range will change from time to time, and actual results may vary significantly from this estimate. Those matters for which an estimate is not possible are not included within this estimated range; therefore, this estimated range does not represent the Company’s maximum loss exposure. Based on current knowledge, it is the opinion of management that liabilities arising from legal claims in excess of the amounts currently reserved, if any, will not have a material impact on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. However, in light of the significant uncertainties involved in these matters and the large or indeterminate damages sought in some of these matters, an adverse outcome in one or more of these matters could be material to the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows for any given reporting period. The following is a description of certain litigation and regulatory matters: Card Association Antitrust Litigation The Company is a defendant, along with Visa and MasterCard, as well as several other banks, in several antitrust lawsuits challenging their practices. For a discussion regarding the Company’s involvement in this litigation matter, see Note 16, “Guarantees.” Bickerstaff v. SunTrust Bank This case was filed in the Fulton County State Court on July 12, 2010, and an amended complaint was filed on August 9, 2010. Plaintiff asserts that all overdraft fees charged to his account which related to debit card and ATM transactions are actually interest charges and therefore subject to the usury laws of Georgia. Plaintiff has brought claims for violations of civil and criminal usury laws, conversion, and money had and received, and purports to bring the action on behalf of all Georgia citizens who incurred such overdraft fees within the four years before the complaint was filed where the overdraft fee resulted in an interest rate being charged in excess of the usury rate. On April 8, 2013, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification and that motion was denied but the ruling was later reversed and remanded by the Georgia Supreme Court. On October 6, 2017, the trial court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification and the Bank filed an appeal of the decision on November 3, 2017. ERISA Class Actions Company Stock Class Action Beginning in July 2008, the Company and certain officers, directors, and employees of the Company were named in a class action alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by offering the Company's common stock as an investment option in the SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the “Plan”). The plaintiffs sought to represent all current and former Plan participants who held the Company stock in their Plan accounts from May 15, 2007 to March 30, 2011 and seek to recover alleged losses these participants supposedly incurred as a result of their investment in Company stock. This case was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida but was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division (the “District Court”), in November 2008. Since the filing of the case, various amended pleadings, motions, and appeals were made by the parties that ultimately resulted in the District Court granting a motion for summary judgment for certain non-fiduciary defendants and granting certain of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The class is defined as "All persons, other than Defendants and members of their immediate families, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Savings Plan (the "Plan") at any time between May 15, 2007 and March 30, 2011, inclusive (the "Class Period") and whose accounts included investments in SunTrust common stock ("SunTrust Stock") during that time period and who sustained a loss to their account as a result of the investment in SunTrust Stock." Discovery has closed in the matter. On February 22, 2018, the Company informed the District Court that it had reached an agreement in principle with class counsel to settle this class action, subject to court approval. Mutual Funds Class Actions On March 11, 2011, the Company and certain officers, directors, and employees of the Company were named in a putative class action alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by offering certain STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in the Plan. The plaintiffs purport to represent all current and former Plan participants who held the STI Classic Mutual Funds in their Plan accounts from April 2002 through December 2010 and seek to recover alleged losses these Plan participants supposedly incurred as a result of their investment in the STI Classic Mutual Funds. This action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division (the “District Court”). Subsequently, plaintiffs' counsel initiated a substantially similar lawsuit against the Company naming two new plaintiffs. On June 27, 2014, Brown, et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al., another putative class action alleging breach of fiduciary duties associated with the inclusion of STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in the Plan, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia but then was transferred to the District Court. After various appeals, the cases were remanded to the District Court. On March 25, 2016, a consolidated amended complaint was filed, consolidating all of these pending actions into one case. The Company filed an answer to the consolidated amended complaint on June 6, 2016. Subsequent to the closing of fact discovery, plaintiffs filed their second amended consolidated complaint on December 19, 2017 which among other things named five new defendants. On January 2, 2018, defendants filed their answer to the second amended consolidated complaint. Intellectual Ventures II v. SunTrust Banks, Inc. and SunTrust Bank This action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on July 24, 2013. Plaintiff alleged that SunTrust violates five patents held by plaintiff in connection with SunTrust’s provision of online banking services and other systems and services. Plaintiff seeks damages for alleged patent infringement of an unspecified amount, as well as attorney’s fees and expenses. The matter was stayed on October 7, 2014 pending inter partes reviews of a number of the claims asserted against SunTrust. After completion of those reviews, plaintiff dismissed its claims regarding four of the five patents on August 1, 2017. Consent Order with the Federal Reserve On April 13, 2011, SunTrust, SunTrust Bank, and STM entered into a Consent Order with the FRB in which SunTrust, SunTrust Bank, and STM agreed to strengthen oversight of, and improve risk management, internal audit, and compliance programs concerning the residential mortgage loan servicing, loss mitigation, and foreclosure activities of STM. On January 12, 2018, the FRB terminated the Consent Order without penalty, finding that the Company has demonstrated sustained improvements in oversight and mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure practice. United States Mortgage Servicing Settlement In the second quarter of 2014, STM and the U.S., through the DOJ, HUD, and Attorneys General for several states, reached a final settlement agreement related to the National Mortgage Servicing Settlement. The settlement agreement became effective on September 30, 2014 when the court entered the Consent Judgment. Pursuant to the settlements, STM made $50 million in cash payments, provided $500 million of consumer relief, and implemented certain mortgage servicing standards. In an August 10, 2017 report, the independent Office of Mortgage Settlement Oversight ("OMSO"), appointed to review and certify compliance with the provisions of the settlement, confirmed that the Company fulfilled its consumer relief commitments of the settlement. STM's compliance with certain mortgage servicing standards continues to be monitored, tested, and reported quarterly by an internal review group and semi-annually by the OMSO. The Company does not expect costs associated with remaining servicing standard obligations to have a material impact on the Company's financial results. United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York Foreclosure Expense Investigation In April 2013, STM began cooperating with the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (the "Southern District") in a broad-based industry investigation regarding claims for foreclosure-related expenses charged by law firms in connection with the foreclosure of loans guaranteed or insured by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or FHA. The investigation relates to a private litigant qui tam lawsuit filed under seal and remains in early stages. The Southern District has not yet advised STM how it will proceed in this matter. The Southern District and STM engaged in dialogue regarding potential resolution of this matter as part of the National Mortgage Servicing Settlement, but were unable to reach agreement. LR Trust v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al. In November 2016, the Company and certain officers and directors were named as defendants in a shareholder derivative action alleging that defendants failed to take action related to activities at issue in the National Mortgage Servicing, HAMP, and FHA Originations settlements, and certain other legal matters or to ensure that the alleged activities in each were remedied and otherwise appropriately addressed. Plaintiff sought an award in favor of the Company for the amount of damages sustained by the Company, disgorgement of alleged benefits obtained by defendants, and enhancements to corporate governance and internal controls. On September 18, 2017, the court dismissed this matter and on October 16, 2017, Plaintiff filed an appeal. Millennium Lender Claim Trust v. STRH and SunTrust Bank, et al. In August 2017, the Trustee of the Millennium Lender Claim Trust filed a suit in the New York State Court against STRH, SunTrust Bank, and other lenders of the $1.775 B Millennium Health LLC f/k/a Millennium Laboratories LLC (“Millennium”) syndicated loan. The Trustee alleges that the loan was actually a security and that defendants misrepresented or omitted to state material facts in the offering materials and communications provided concerning the legality of Millennium's sales, marketing, and billing practices and the known risks posed by a pending government investigation into the illegality of such practices. The Trustee brings claims for violation of the California Corporate Securities Law, the Massachusetts Uniform Securities Act, the Colorado Securities Act, and the Illinois Securities Law, as well as negligent misrepresentation and seeks rescission of sales of securities as well as unspecified rescissory damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. The defendants have removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

NOTE 19 – CONTINGENCIES

Litigation and Regulatory Matters

In the ordinary course of business, the Company and its subsidiaries are parties to numerous civil claims and lawsuits and subject to regulatory examinations, investigations, and requests for information. Some of these matters involve claims for substantial amounts. The Company’s experience has shown that the damages alleged by plaintiffs or claimants are often overstated, based on unsubstantiated legal theories, unsupported by facts, and/or bear no relation to the ultimate award that a court might grant. Additionally, the outcome of litigation and regulatory matters and the timing of ultimate resolution are inherently difficult to predict. These factors make it difficult for the Company to provide a meaningful estimate of the range of reasonably possible outcomes of claims in the aggregate or by individual claim. However, on a case-by-case basis, reserves are established for those legal claims in which it is probable that a loss will be incurred and the amount of such loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company's financial statements at December 31, 2017 reflect the Company's current best estimate of probable losses associated with these matters, including costs to comply with various settlement agreements, where applicable. The actual costs of resolving these claims may be substantially higher or lower than the amounts reserved.

For a limited number of legal matters in which the Company is involved, the Company is able to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses in excess of related reserves, if any. Management currently estimates these losses to range from $0 to approximately $160 million. This estimated range of reasonably possible losses represents the estimated possible losses over the life of such legal matters, which may span a currently indeterminable number of years, and is based on information available at December 31, 2017. The matters underlying the estimated range will change from time to time, and actual results may vary significantly from this estimate. Those matters for which an estimate is not possible are not included within this estimated range; therefore, this estimated range does not represent the Company’s maximum loss exposure. Based on current knowledge, it is the opinion of management that liabilities arising from legal claims in excess of the amounts currently reserved, if any, will not have a material impact on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. However, in light of the significant uncertainties involved in these matters and the large or indeterminate damages sought in some of these matters, an adverse outcome in one or more of these matters could be material to the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows for any given reporting period.

The following is a description of certain litigation and regulatory matters:

Card Association Antitrust Litigation

The Company is a defendant, along with Visa and MasterCard, as well as several other banks, in several antitrust lawsuits challenging their practices. For a discussion regarding the Company’s involvement in this litigation matter, see Note 16, “Guarantees.”

Bickerstaff v. SunTrust Bank

This case was filed in the Fulton County State Court on July 12, 2010, and an amended complaint was filed on August 9, 2010. Plaintiff asserts that all overdraft fees charged to his account which related to debit card and ATM transactions are actually interest charges and therefore subject to the usury laws of Georgia. Plaintiff has brought claims for violations of civil and criminal usury laws, conversion, and money had and received, and purports to bring the action on behalf of all Georgia citizens who incurred such overdraft fees within the four years before the complaint was filed where the overdraft fee resulted in an interest rate being charged in excess of the usury rate. On April 8, 2013, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification and that motion was denied but the ruling was later reversed and remanded by the Georgia Supreme Court. On October 6, 2017, the trial court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification and the Bank filed an appeal of the decision on November 3, 2017.

ERISA Class Actions

Company Stock Class Action

Beginning in July 2008, the Company and certain officers, directors, and employees of the Company were named in a class action alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by offering the Company's common stock as an investment option in the SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the “Plan”). The plaintiffs sought to represent all current and former Plan participants who held the Company stock in their Plan accounts from May 15, 2007 to March 30, 2011 and seek to recover alleged losses these participants supposedly incurred as a result of their investment in Company stock.

This case was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida but was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division (the “District Court”), in November 2008. Since the filing of the case, various amended pleadings, motions, and appeals were made by the parties that ultimately resulted in the District Court granting a motion for summary judgment for certain non-fiduciary defendants and granting certain of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The class is defined as "All persons, other than Defendants and members of their immediate families, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Savings Plan (the "Plan") at any time between May 15, 2007 and March 30, 2011, inclusive (the "Class Period") and whose accounts included investments in SunTrust common stock ("SunTrust Stock") during that time period and who sustained a loss to their account as a result of the investment in SunTrust Stock." Discovery has closed in the matter. On February 22, 2018, the Company informed the District Court that it had reached an agreement in principle with class counsel to settle this class action, subject to court approval.

Mutual Funds Class Actions

On March 11, 2011, the Company and certain officers, directors, and employees of the Company were named in a putative class action alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by offering certain STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in the Plan. The plaintiffs purport to represent all current and former Plan participants who held the STI Classic Mutual Funds in their Plan accounts from April 2002 through December 2010 and seek to recover alleged losses these Plan participants supposedly incurred as a result of their investment in the STI Classic Mutual Funds. This action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division (the “District Court”). Subsequently, plaintiffs' counsel initiated a substantially similar lawsuit against the Company naming two new plaintiffs. On June 27, 2014, Brown, et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al., another putative class action alleging breach of fiduciary duties associated with the inclusion of STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in the Plan, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia but then was transferred to the District Court.

After various appeals, the cases were remanded to the District Court. On March 25, 2016, a consolidated amended complaint was filed, consolidating all of these pending actions into one case. The Company filed an answer to the consolidated amended complaint on June 6, 2016. Subsequent to the closing of fact discovery, plaintiffs filed their second amended consolidated complaint on December 19, 2017 which among other things named five new defendants. On January 2, 2018, defendants filed their answer to the second amended consolidated complaint.

Intellectual Ventures II v. SunTrust Banks, Inc. and SunTrust Bank

This action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on July 24, 2013. Plaintiff alleged that SunTrust violates five patents held by plaintiff in connection with SunTrust’s provision of online banking services and other systems and services. Plaintiff seeks damages for alleged patent infringement of an unspecified amount, as well as attorney’s fees and expenses. The matter was stayed on October 7, 2014 pending inter partes reviews of a number of the claims asserted against SunTrust. After completion of those reviews, plaintiff dismissed its claims regarding four of the five patents on August 1, 2017.

Consent Order with the Federal Reserve

On April 13, 2011, SunTrust, SunTrust Bank, and STM entered into a Consent Order with the FRB in which SunTrust, SunTrust Bank, and STM agreed to strengthen oversight of, and improve risk management, internal audit, and compliance programs concerning the residential mortgage loan servicing, loss mitigation, and foreclosure activities of STM. On January 12, 2018, the FRB terminated the Consent Order without penalty, finding that the Company has demonstrated sustained improvements in oversight and mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure practice.

United States Mortgage Servicing Settlement

In the second quarter of 2014, STM and the U.S., through the DOJ, HUD, and Attorneys General for several states, reached a final settlement agreement related to the National Mortgage Servicing Settlement. The settlement agreement became effective on September 30, 2014 when the court entered the Consent Judgment. Pursuant to the settlements, STM made $50 million in cash payments, provided $500 million of consumer relief, and implemented certain mortgage servicing standards. In an August 10, 2017 report, the independent Office of Mortgage Settlement Oversight ("OMSO"), appointed to review and certify compliance with the provisions of the settlement, confirmed that the Company fulfilled its consumer relief commitments of the settlement. STM's compliance with certain mortgage servicing standards continues to be monitored, tested, and reported quarterly by an internal review group and semi-annually by the OMSO. The Company does not expect costs associated with remaining servicing standard obligations to have a material impact on the Company's financial results.

United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York Foreclosure Expense Investigation

In April 2013, STM began cooperating with the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (the "Southern District") in a broad-based industry investigation regarding claims for foreclosure-related expenses charged by law firms in connection with the foreclosure of loans guaranteed or insured by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or FHA. The investigation relates to a private litigant qui tam lawsuit filed under seal and remains in early stages. The Southern District has not yet advised STM how it will proceed in this matter. The Southern District and STM engaged in dialogue regarding potential resolution of this matter as part of the National Mortgage Servicing Settlement, but were unable to reach agreement.

LR Trust v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al.

In November 2016, the Company and certain officers and directors were named as defendants in a shareholder derivative action alleging that defendants failed to take action related to activities at issue in the National Mortgage Servicing, HAMP, and FHA Originations settlements, and certain other legal matters or to ensure that the alleged activities in each were remedied and otherwise appropriately addressed. Plaintiff sought an award in favor of the Company for the amount of damages sustained by the Company, disgorgement of alleged benefits obtained by defendants, and enhancements to corporate governance and internal controls. On September 18, 2017, the court dismissed this matter and on October 16, 2017, Plaintiff filed an appeal.

Millennium Lender Claim Trust v. STRH and SunTrust Bank, et al.

In August 2017, the Trustee of the Millennium Lender Claim Trust filed a suit in the New York State Court against STRH, SunTrust Bank, and other lenders of the $1.775 B Millennium Health LLC f/k/a Millennium Laboratories LLC (“Millennium”) syndicated loan. The Trustee alleges that the loan was actually a security and that defendants misrepresented or omitted to state material facts in the offering materials and communications provided concerning the legality of Millennium's sales, marketing, and billing practices and the known risks posed by a pending government investigation into the illegality of such practices. The Trustee brings claims for violation of the California Corporate Securities Law, the Massachusetts Uniform Securities Act, the Colorado Securities Act, and the Illinois Securities Law, as well as negligent misrepresentation and seeks rescission of sales of securities as well as unspecified rescissory damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. The defendants have removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.