Contingencies | Contingencies Legal Proceedings We are routinely involved in various legal and administrative proceedings, including tax audits, incidental to the ordinary course of our business. Except as set forth below, we do not expect that any litigation or administrative proceedings in which we are presently involved will have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Environmental Contingencies Extensive environmental laws regulate our operations and properties. These laws may require us to investigate and clean up hazardous substances, including petroleum or natural gas products, released at our owned and leased properties. Governmental entities or third parties may hold us liable for property damage and personal injuries, and for investigation, remediation and monitoring costs incurred in connection with any contamination and regulatory compliance at our locations. We use both underground storage tanks and above ground storage tanks to store petroleum products, natural gas and other hazardous substances at our locations. We must comply with environmental laws regarding tank construction, integrity testing, leak detection and monitoring, overfill and spill control, release reporting and financial assurance for corrective action in the event of a release. At some locations we must also comply with environmental laws relative to vapor recovery or discharges to water. Under the terms of the HPT Leases, we generally have agreed to indemnify HPT for any environmental liabilities related to properties that we lease from HPT and we are required to pay all environmental related expenses incurred in the operation of the leased properties. Under an agreement with Equilon Enterprises LLC doing business as Shell Oil Products U.S., or Shell, we have agreed to indemnify Shell and its affiliates from certain environmental liabilities incurred with respect to our travel centers where Shell has installed natural gas fueling lanes. From time to time we have received, and in the future likely will receive, notices of alleged violations of environmental laws or otherwise have become or will become aware of the need to undertake corrective actions to comply with environmental laws at our locations. Investigatory and remedial actions were, and regularly are, undertaken with respect to releases of hazardous substances at our locations. In some cases we received, and may receive in the future, contributions to partially offset our environmental costs from insurers, from state funds established for environmental clean up associated with the sale of petroleum products or from indemnitors who agreed to fund certain environmental related costs at locations purchased from those indemnitors. To the extent we incur material amounts for environmental matters for which we do not receive or expect to receive insurance or other third party reimbursement or for which we have not previously recorded a liability, our operating results may be materially adversely affected. In addition, to the extent we fail to comply with environmental laws and regulations, or we become subject to costs and requirements not similarly experienced by our competitors, our competitive position may be harmed. At March 31, 2017 , we had a gross accrued liability of $3,422 for environmental matters as well as a receivable for expected recoveries of certain of these estimated future expenditures of $587 , resulting in an estimated net amount of $2,835 that we expect to fund in the future. We cannot precisely know the ultimate costs we may incur in connection with currently known environmental related violations, corrective actions, investigation and remediation; however, we do not expect the costs for such matters to be material, individually or in the aggregate, to our financial position or results of operations. In February 2014, we reached an agreement with the California State Water Resources Control Board, or the State Water Board, to settle certain claims the State Water Board had filed against us in California Superior Court, or the Superior Court, in 2010 relating to alleged violations of underground storage tank laws and regulations for a cash payment of $1,800 ; suspended penalties of $1,000 that would become payable by us in the future if, prior to March 2019, we fail to comply with specified underground storage tank laws and regulations; and our agreement to invest, prior to March 2018, up to $2,000 of verified costs to develop and implement a comprehensive compliance program for the underground storage tank systems at all of our California facilities that is above and beyond minimum requirements of California law (which costs have since been incurred and were verified as of February 2017). The settlement, which was approved by the Superior Court on February 20, 2014, also included injunctive relief provisions requiring that we comply with certain California environmental laws and regulations applicable to underground storage tank systems. In October 2015, the State Water Board issued a notice of alleged suspended penalty conduct claiming that we are liable for the full amount of the $1,000 in suspended penalties as a result of five alleged violations of underground storage tank regulations and requesting further information concerning the alleged violations. In November 2015, we filed our response to the State Water Board's notice and we have since met with the State Water Board to attempt to respond to these matters without a court hearing. We believe we have meritorious defenses to these alleged violations, but cannot predict whether any penalties relating to these matters will be assessed by the Superior Court, which has retained jurisdiction over such matters. The State Water Board also has retained the right to file a separate action relating to these violations, but to date has not done so. As of March 31, 2017 , our balance sheet included a liability of $1,000 with respect to these matters concerning the State Water Board and we believe, though we can provide no assurance, that any additional amount of loss we may realize above that accrued, if any, upon the ultimate resolution of this matter will not be material to us. We currently have insurance of up to $10,000 per incident and up to $25,000 in the aggregate for certain environmental liabilities, subject, in each case, to certain limitations and deductibles. However, we can provide no assurance that we will be able to maintain similar environmental insurance coverage in the future on acceptable terms. We cannot predict the ultimate effect changing circumstances and changing environmental laws may have on us in the future or the ultimate outcome of matters currently pending. We cannot be certain that contamination presently unknown to us does not exist at our sites, or that material liability will not be imposed on us in the future. If we discover additional environmental issues, or if government agencies impose additional environmental requirements, increased environmental compliance or remediation expenditures may be required, which could have a material adverse effect on us. Other Disputes On November 30, 2016, we filed a complaint, or the Complaint, captioned TA Operating LLC v. Comdata, Inc. and FleetCor Technologies, Inc. , C.A. No. 12954-CB (Del. Ch.), in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, or the Court, against FleetCor Technologies, Inc., or FleetCor, and its subsidiary Comdata Inc., or Comdata, with respect to a notice of termination we received from Comdata on November 3, 2016, purporting to terminate an agreement between us and Comdata under which we agreed to accept Comdata issued fuel cards through January 2, 2022, in payment for fuel and nonfuel transactions initiated by cardholders at our travel center locations in exchange for fees payable by us to Comdata, or the Merchant Agreement, based upon Comdata's assertion that we had breached an agreement under which we agreed to install radio frequency identification, or RFID, technology at our travel centers, or the RFID Agreement. In the Complaint, we seek, among other things, (a) a declaration that we are not in default under our Merchant Agreement; (b) a judgment that Comdata has breached its contractual duties to us; (c) a judgment that Comdata breached its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing to us; (d) a judgment that Comdata has and is willfully and knowingly engaged in unfair, abusive and deceptive business practices in the course of its business dealings with us in violation of applicable law; (e) an order for specific performance by Comdata of its obligations to us under our Merchant Agreement; (f) injunctive relief; (g) an order holding FleetCor jointly and severally liable and subject to all remedies we may be granted; and (h) damages, including statutory treble damages, attorney fees and costs, and further relief as the Court deems appropriate. At a hearing held on December 14, 2016, the Court denied our request for preliminary injunctive relief subject to Comdata's agreement to continue providing services under the Merchant Agreement pending a final ruling from the Court. On December 21, 2016, Comdata filed a counterclaim alleging that we defaulted under the RFID Agreement and that this alleged default allows Comdata to terminate both the RFID Agreement and the Merchant Agreement. In addition, beginning February 1, 2017, Comdata unilaterally began to withhold increased fees from the transaction settlement payments due to us and during the two months ended March 31, 2017 , these fees totaled $1,813 in excess of the amounts payable under the terms of the Merchant Agreement. We continue to believe these increased fees, which are included in site level operating expenses in our statements of operations and comprehensive loss, will average approximately $1,000 per month in excess of the fees payable by us to Comdata under the terms of our Merchant Agreement. On December 27, 2016, we filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, or the Motion, and briefing on the Motion concluded on February 17, 2017. At a hearing held on February 27, 2017, the Court denied the Motion, finding that the requested relief depended upon disputed facts to be determined at trial. A trial testimony began on April 3, 2017, and concluded on April 7, 2017. Post-trial briefing is scheduled to conclude on May 22, 2017, and oral argument is currently scheduled for June 16, 2017. The Court is expected to enter a judgment sometime thereafter. We believe that Comdata has wrongfully terminated our Merchant Agreement as a result of an alleged default under the RFID Agreement; and, in any event, we do not believe that we are in default of either the Merchant Agreement or the RFID Agreement. We believe that the claims against us are without merit. During the three months ended March 31, 2017, we recognized litigation expenses related to this matter of $6,372 , which is included in selling, general and administrative expenses in our statements of operations and comprehensive loss. |