Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	(16) Commitments and Contingencies As of December 31, 2013, the Company had five non-cancelable ground leases for certain apartment communities and buildings that expire between 2027 and 2082. Ground lease payments are typically the greater of a stated minimum or a percentage of gross rents generated by these apartment communities. Total minimum lease commitments, under ground leases and operating leases, are approximately $1.7 million per year for the next five years. To the extent that an environmental matter arises or is identified in the future that has other than a remote risk of having a material impact on the financial statements, the Company will disclose the estimated range of possible outcomes, and, if an outcome is probable, accrue an appropriate liability for remediation and other potential liability. The Company will consider whether such occurrence results in an impairment of value on the affected property and, if so, impairment will be recognized. Except with respect to three communities, the Company has no indemnification agreements from third parties for potential environmental clean-up costs at its communities. The Company has no way of determining at this time the magnitude of any potential liability to which it may be subject arising out of unknown environmental conditions or violations with respect to the communities formerly owned by the Company. No assurance can be given that existing environmental studies with respect to any of the communities reveal all environmental liabilities, that any prior owner or operator of a Property did not create any material environmental condition not known to the Company, or that a material environmental condition does not otherwise exist as to any one or more of the communities. The Company has limited insurance coverage for the types of environmental liabilities described above. The Company has entered into transactions that may require the Company to pay the tax liabilities of the partners in the Operating Partnership or in the DownREIT entities. These transactions are within the Company’s control. Although the Company plans to hold the contributed assets or defer recognition of gain on their sale pursuant to like-kind exchange rules under Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code the Company can provide no assurance that it will be able to do so and if such tax liabilities were incurred they may to have a material impact on the Company’s financial position. There have been an increasing number of lawsuits against owners and managers of apartment communities alleging personal injury and property damage caused by the presence of mold in residential real estate. Some of these lawsuits have resulted in substantial monetary judgments or settlements. The Company has been sued for mold related matters and has settled some, but not all, of such matters. Insurance carriers have reacted to mold related liability awards by excluding mold related claims from standard policies and pricing mold endorsements at prohibitively high rates. The Company has, however, purchased pollution liability insurance, which includes some coverage for mold. The Company has adopted policies to promptly address and resolve reports of mold when it is detected, and to minimize any impact mold might have on residents of the property. The Company believes its mold policies and proactive response to address any known existence, reduces its risk of loss from these cases. There can be no assurances that the Company has identified and responded to all mold occurrences, but the company promptly addresses all known reports of mold. Liabilities resulting from such mold related matters are not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. As of December 31, 2013, potential liabilities for mold and other environmental liabilities are not quantifiable and an estimate of possible loss cannot be made. The Company carries comprehensive liability, fire, extended coverage and rental loss insurance for each of the communities. There are, however, certain types of extraordinary losses, such as, for example, losses from terrorism or earthquakes, for which the Company does not have insurance coverage. Substantially all of the communities are located in areas that are subject to earthquake activity. The Company has established a wholly owned insurance subsidiary, Pacific Western Insurance LLC (“PWI”). Through PWI, the Company is self-insured as it relates to earthquake related losses. Additionally, since January 2008, PWI has provided property and casualty insurance coverage for the first $5.0 million of the Company’s property level insurance claims per incident. As of December 31, 2013, PWI has cash and marketable securities of approximately $40 million. These assets are consolidated in the Company’s financial statements. Beginning in 2013, the Company has obtained limited third party seismic insurance on selected assets in which it holds an ownership interest in. The Company provided a payment guarantee to the counterparties in relation to the total return swaps entered into by the joint venture responsible for the development of The Huxley and The Dylan communities. Further the Company has guaranteed completion of development and made certain debt service guarantees for The Huxley and The Dylan. The outstanding balance for the loans is included in the debt line item in the balance sheet of the co-investments included in Note 3. The payment guarantee is for the payment of the amounts due to the counterparty related total return swaps which are scheduled to mature in September and December 2016. The maximum exposure of the guarantee as of December 31, 2013 was $96.3 million based on the aggregate outstanding debt amount. Since the announcement of the merger agreement on December 19, 2013, three putative class action and shareholder derivative actions have been filed on behalf of alleged BRE stockholders and/or BRE itself in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, under the following captions: Sutton v. BRE Properties, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-13-008425, filed December 23, 2013; Applegate v. BRE Properties, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-14-00002, filed December 30, 2013; and Lee v. BRE Properties, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-14-00046, filed January 3, 2014. On February 7, 2014, Plaintiffs filed identical, amended complaints in the three pending actions. The amended complaints add allegations that disclosures regarding the proposed merger in the joint proxy statement/prospectus filed with the SEC on January 29, 2014 are inadequate. All of these complaints name as defendants BRE, the BRE Board, Essex, and Merger Sub, and allege that the BRE Board breached its fiduciary duties to BRE’s stockholders and/or to BRE itself, and that the merger involves an unfair price, an inadequate sales process, and unreasonable deal protection devices that purportedly preclude competing offers. The complaints further allege that Essex, Merger Sub, and, in some cases, BRE aided and abetted those alleged breaches of duty. The complaints seek injunctive relief, including enjoining or rescinding the merger, and an award of other unspecified attorneys’ and other fees and costs, in addition to other relief. Essex management believes that the allegations in the complaints against them are without merit and intend to defend vigorously against them. The Company is subject to various other lawsuits in the normal course of its business operations. Such lawsuits are not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

(16) Commitments and Contingencies

As of December 31, 2013, the Company had five non-cancelable ground leases for certain apartment communities and buildings that expire between 2027 and 2082. Ground lease payments are typically the greater of a stated minimum or a percentage of gross rents generated by these apartment communities. Total minimum lease commitments, under ground leases and operating leases, are approximately $1.7 million per year for the next five years.

To the extent that an environmental matter arises or is identified in the future that has other than a remote risk of having a material impact on the financial statements, the Company will disclose the estimated range of possible outcomes, and, if an outcome is probable, accrue an appropriate liability for remediation and other potential liability. The Company will consider whether such occurrence results in an impairment of value on the affected property and, if so, impairment will be recognized.

Except with respect to three communities, the Company has no indemnification agreements from third parties for potential environmental clean-up costs at its communities. The Company has no way of determining at this time the magnitude of any potential liability to which it may be subject arising out of unknown environmental conditions or violations with respect to the communities formerly owned by the Company. No assurance can be given that existing environmental studies with respect to any of the communities reveal all environmental liabilities, that any prior owner or operator of a Property did not create any material environmental condition not known to the Company, or that a material environmental condition does not otherwise exist as to any one or more of the communities. The Company has limited insurance coverage for the types of environmental liabilities described above.

The Company has entered into transactions that may require the Company to pay the tax liabilities of the partners in the Operating Partnership or in the DownREIT entities. These transactions are within the Company’s control. Although the Company plans to hold the contributed assets or defer recognition of gain on their sale pursuant to like-kind exchange rules under Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code the Company can provide no assurance that it will be able to do so and if such tax liabilities were incurred they may to have a material impact on the Company’s financial position.

There have been an increasing number of lawsuits against owners and managers of apartment communities alleging personal injury and property damage caused by the presence of mold in residential real estate. Some of these lawsuits have resulted in substantial monetary judgments or settlements. The Company has been sued for mold related matters and has settled some, but not all, of such matters. Insurance carriers have reacted to mold related liability awards by excluding mold related claims from standard policies and pricing mold endorsements at prohibitively high rates. The Company has, however, purchased pollution liability insurance, which includes some coverage for mold. The Company has adopted policies to promptly address and resolve reports of mold when it is detected, and to minimize any impact mold might have on residents of the property. The Company believes its mold policies and proactive response to address any known existence, reduces its risk of loss from these cases. There can be no assurances that the Company has identified and responded to all mold occurrences, but the company promptly addresses all known reports of mold. Liabilities resulting from such mold related matters are not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. As of December 31, 2013, potential liabilities for mold and other environmental liabilities are not quantifiable and an estimate of possible loss cannot be made.

The Company carries comprehensive liability, fire, extended coverage and rental loss insurance for each of the communities. There are, however, certain types of extraordinary losses, such as, for example, losses from terrorism or earthquakes, for which the Company does not have insurance coverage. Substantially all of the communities are located in areas that are subject to earthquake activity. The Company has established a wholly owned insurance subsidiary, Pacific Western Insurance LLC (“PWI”). Through PWI, the Company is self-insured as it relates to earthquake related losses. Additionally, since January 2008, PWI has provided property and casualty insurance coverage for the first $5.0 million of the Company’s property level insurance claims per incident. As of December 31, 2013, PWI has cash and marketable securities of approximately $40 million. These assets are consolidated in the Company’s financial statements. Beginning in 2013, the Company has obtained limited third party seismic insurance on selected assets in which it holds an ownership interest in.

The Company provided a payment guarantee to the counterparties in relation to the total return swaps entered into by the joint venture responsible for the development of The Huxley and The Dylan communities. Further the Company has guaranteed completion of development and made certain debt service guarantees for The Huxley and The Dylan. The outstanding balance for the loans is included in the debt line item in the balance sheet of the co-investments included in Note 3. The payment guarantee is for the payment of the amounts due to the counterparty related total return swaps which are scheduled to mature in September and December 2016. The maximum exposure of the guarantee as of December 31, 2013 was $96.3 million based on the aggregate outstanding debt amount.

Since the announcement of the merger agreement on December 19, 2013, three putative class action and shareholder derivative actions have been filed on behalf of alleged BRE stockholders and/or BRE itself in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, under the following captions: Sutton v. BRE Properties, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-13-008425, filed December 23, 2013; Applegate v. BRE Properties, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-14-00002, filed December 30, 2013; and Lee v. BRE Properties, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-14-00046, filed January 3, 2014.

On February 7, 2014, Plaintiffs filed identical, amended complaints in the three pending actions. The amended complaints add allegations that disclosures regarding the proposed merger in the joint proxy statement/prospectus filed with the SEC on January 29, 2014 are inadequate.

All of these complaints name as defendants BRE, the BRE Board, Essex, and Merger Sub, and allege that the BRE Board breached its fiduciary duties to BRE’s stockholders and/or to BRE itself, and that the merger involves an unfair price, an inadequate sales process, and unreasonable deal protection devices that purportedly preclude competing offers. The complaints further allege that Essex, Merger Sub, and, in some cases, BRE aided and abetted those alleged breaches of duty. The complaints seek injunctive relief, including enjoining or rescinding the merger, and an award of other unspecified attorneys’ and other fees and costs, in addition to other relief. Essex management believes that the allegations in the complaints against them are without merit and intend to defend vigorously against them.

The Company is subject to various other lawsuits in the normal course of its business operations. Such lawsuits are not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.