| Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Litigation-Related Liability and Tax Administrative Matters In the normal course of business, we are named from time to time as a defendant in various legal actions, including arbitrations, class actions and other litigation, that arise in connection with our business as a global company. We identify below the material individual proceedings and investigations in connection with which we believe a material loss is reasonably possible or probable. We accrue for matters when we believe that losses are probable and can be reasonably estimated. At March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016 accruals of $1.2 billion and $1.3 billion were recorded in Accrued liabilities and Other liabilities. In many proceedings, it is inherently difficult to determine whether any loss is probable or even reasonably possible or to estimate the size or range of the possible loss. Accordingly an adverse outcome from such proceedings could exceed the amounts accrued by an amount that could be material to our results of operations or cash flows in any particular reporting period. Proceedings Related to Ignition Switch Recall and Other Recalls In 2014 we announced various recalls relating to safety, customer satisfaction and other matters. Those recalls included recalls to repair ignition switches that could under certain circumstances unintentionally move from the “run” position to the “accessory” or “off” position with a corresponding loss of power, which could in turn prevent airbags from deploying in the event of a crash. Through April 17, 2017 we were aware of 100 putative class actions pending against GM in various federal and state trial courts in the U.S. and 20 putative class actions pending in various Provincial Courts in Canada alleging that consumers who purchased or leased vehicles manufactured by GM or General Motors Corporation had been economically harmed by one or more of the recalls announced in 2014 and/or the underlying vehicle conditions associated with those recalls (economic-loss cases). In general, these economic-loss cases seek recovery for purported compensatory damages, such as alleged benefit-of-the-bargain damages or damages related to alleged diminution in value of the vehicles, as well as punitive damages, injunctive relief and other relief. There are also two civil actions brought by state governmental entities relating to the 2014 recalls that seek injunctive relief as well as civil penalties and attorneys' fees for alleged violations of state laws. Through April 17, 2017 we were aware of 281 actions pending in various federal and state trial courts in the U.S. and 14 actions pending in various Provincial Courts in Canada alleging injury or death as a result of defects that may be the subject of recalls announced in 2014 (personal injury cases). In general, these personal injury cases seek recovery for purported compensatory damages, punitive damages and other relief. During 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the Southern District), which is administering a federal multidistrict litigation (the multidistrict litigation) and a Texas court administering a Texas state multidistrict litigation scheduled a combined eight ignition-switch personal injury cases for bellwether trials. None of those resulted in a finding of liability against GM; juries in two cases returned verdicts in favor of GM, a court dismissed one case on summary judgment, plaintiffs dismissed two cases with prejudice before trial, and the parties settled the remaining three cases. The Southern District and the Texas court have scheduled additional personal injury bellwether trials for 2017 and 2018. Each bellwether trial will be tried on its facts and the result of any subsequent bellwether trial may be different from the earlier bellwether trials. On July 15, 2016 the Southern District granted in part and denied in part GM's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint seeking damages for alleged economic loss relating to the ignition switch and other recalls by GM in 2014. The Southern District dismissed plaintiffs' claims brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO), and those brought by any plaintiff whose vehicle was not allegedly defective when sold. The Southern District also rejected plaintiffs' broadest theory of damages – that plaintiffs could seek recovery for alleged reduction in the value of their vehicles due to damage to GM's reputation and brand as a result of the ignition switch matter. The Southern District also held that plaintiffs did not have a common basis for their claims across all defects and models to proceed as a single class, and that the remaining claims may have to proceed individually or in subclasses of vehicles affected by a common defect. Further, the Southern District held that the named plaintiffs may assert claims only on behalf of owners of the same vehicle models that they themselves purchased (or leased) or models with sufficiently similar defects, and that it will not specify the specific permissible class claims until the class-certification stage. Finally, the Southern District granted GM's motion to dismiss with respect to certain state law claims but denied it as to other state law claims. The court held that the viability of state law claims will depend on each state's specific laws and plaintiffs' specific factual allegations. While the ruling addressed post-bankruptcy claims, we believe the Southern District's legal holdings should apply to limit plaintiffs' pre-bankruptcy claims. On September 15, 2016, plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Consolidated Complaint amending their economic-loss claims. On December 7, 2016 GM moved to dismiss certain claims in that complaint. Because many plaintiffs in the actions described in the above paragraphs are suing over the conduct of General Motors Corporation or vehicles manufactured by that entity for liabilities not expressly assumed by GM, we moved to enforce the terms of the July 2009 Sale Order and Injunction (2009 Sale Order) issued by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Bankruptcy Court) to preclude claims from being asserted against us for, among other things, personal injuries based on pre-sale accidents, any economic-loss claims based on acts or conduct of General Motors Corporation and claims asserting successor liability for obligations owed by General Motors Corporation (successor liability claims). On April 15, 2015 the Bankruptcy Court issued a decision precluding claims against us based upon pre-sale accidents, claims based upon the acts or conduct by General Motors Corporation and successor liability claims, except for claims asserting liabilities that had been expressly assumed by us in the July 2009 Sale Agreement, and claims that could be asserted against us only if they were otherwise viable and arose solely out of our own independent post-closing acts and did not in any way rely on acts or conduct by General Motors Corporation. Plaintiffs appealed the Bankruptcy Court’s decision and we cross appealed with respect to certain issues to preserve our rights. On July 13, 2016 a three judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Second Circuit) issued a decision and judgment affirming in part, reversing in part, and vacating portions of the Bankruptcy Court's April 15, 2015 decision and subsequent judgment. Among other things, the Second Circuit held that the 2009 Sale Order could not be enforced to bar claims against GM asserted by either plaintiffs who purchased used vehicles after the sale closing or against purchasers who asserted claims relating to the ignition switch defect, including pre-closing personal injury claims and economic-loss claims. The Second Circuit also vacated that portion of the Bankruptcy Court judgment enforcing the 2009 Sale Order against plaintiffs with pre-sale claims based on defects other than the ignition switch and remanded that issue to the Bankruptcy Court for further proceedings. The Second Circuit denied our request for an en banc review of the panel's decision and judgment. On April 24, 2017, the United States Supreme Court denied our petition for certiorari. In 2014 GM voluntarily established the Ignition Switch Recall Compensation Program (the Program), administered by an independent administrator, which provided compensation for individuals who died or suffered personal injuries (or for their families) as a result of the ignition switch defect, both before and after bankruptcy. The Program completed its claims review process in the three months ended September 30, 2015, but continues to process acceptances that require court approval and resolve liens related to accepted claims. Accident victims (or their families) that accept a payment under the Program agree to settle all claims against GM related to the accident. As a result, certain pre-closing personal injury claims relating to the ignition switch defect were resolved through this program. In the putative shareholder class action filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Eastern District) on behalf of purchasers of our common stock from November 17, 2010 to July 24, 2014 (Shareholder Class Action), the lead plaintiff, the New York State Teachers' Retirement System, alleged that GM and several current and former officers and employees made material misstatements and omissions relating to problems with the ignition switch and other matters in SEC filings and other public statements. On May 23, 2016 the Eastern District entered a judgment approving a class-wide settlement of the Shareholder Class Action for $300 million . One shareholder has filed an appeal of the decision approving the settlement. On February 11, 2016 the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of four consolidated shareholder derivative actions that had been pending in the Delaware Chancery Court. In light of the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision, proceedings have resumed in the two consolidated shareholder derivative actions in the Eastern District that had been stayed pending disposition of the Delaware cases and the Eastern District is now considering our motion to dismiss in those actions. In early 2016 an additional shareholder derivative action was filed in the Eastern District against certain current and former GM directors and officers making similar allegations to the two other shareholder derivative actions that are pending in the Eastern District. This new derivative action has been transferred to the same judge handling those two other shareholder derivative actions. On April 5, 2017, GM filed a motion to dismiss this new derivative action. Finally, two derivative actions filed in the Circuit Court of Wayne County, Michigan, which have been consolidated, are stayed pending disposition of the federal derivative actions. In connection with the 2014 recalls, we have from time to time received subpoenas and other requests for information related to investigations by agencies or other representatives of U.S. federal, state and the Canadian governments, including the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (the Office). Ongoing matters of investigations as of March 31, 2017 include litigation initiated by the Arizona Attorney General, litigation initiated by the Orange County District Attorney, and investigations by 49 state attorneys general which may result in litigation. We believe we are cooperating fully with all reasonable pending requests for information. We have accrued for these matters to the extent required by law and regulations. Such matters could in the future result in the imposition of material damages, fines, civil consent orders, civil and criminal penalties or other remedies. With regard to the investigation by the Office, on September 16, 2015, we entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (the DPA) with the Office regarding its investigation of the events leading up to certain recalls regarding faulty ignition switches. Pursuant to the DPA we have paid the United States $900 million as a financial penalty, and we agreed to retain an independent monitor to review and assess our policies, practices or procedures related to statements about motor vehicle safety, the provision of information to those responsible for recall decisions, recall processes and addressing known defects in certified pre-owned vehicles. In addition, the Office agreed to recommend to the Southern District that prosecution of GM on a two-count information filed in the Southern District be deferred for three years. The Office also agreed that if we are in compliance with all of our obligations under the DPA, the Office will, within 30 days after the expiration of the period of deferral (including any extensions thereto), seek dismissal with prejudice of the two-count information filed against GM. For a further description of the terms and conditions of the DPA refer to Note 15 of our 2016 Form 10-K. The total amount accrued at March 31, 2017 reflects amounts for a combination of settled but unpaid matters, and for the remaining unsettled investigations, claims and/or lawsuits relating to the ignition switch recalls and other related recalls. The amounts accrued for those unsettled investigations, claims, and/or lawsuits represents a combination of our best single point estimates where determinable and, where no such single point estimate is determinable, our estimate of the low end of the range of probable loss with regard to such matters, if that is determinable. We believe it is probable that we will incur additional liabilities beyond what has already been accrued with regard to at least a portion of the remaining matters, whether through settlement or judgment; however, we are currently unable to estimate an overall amount or range of loss because these matters involve significant uncertainties, including the legal theory or the nature of the investigations, claims and/or lawsuits, the complexity of the facts, the lack of documentation available to us with respect to particular cases or groups of cases, the results of any investigation or litigation and the timing of resolution of the investigation or litigations, including any appeals, further proceedings regarding interpretation and application of the Second Circuit's July 13, 2016 decision and certain common law doctrines, and further proceedings following the district court's July 15, 2016 decision and its decision on GM's motion to dismiss the Fourth Amended and Consolidated Complaint in the multidistrict litigation. We will continue to consider resolution of pending matters involving ignition switch recalls and other recalls where it makes sense to do so. GM Canada Dealers' Claim On February 12, 2010 a claim was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against GM Canada on behalf of a purported class of over 200 former GM Canada dealers (the Plaintiff Dealers) which had entered into wind-down agreements with GM Canada. In May 2009 in the context of the global restructuring of GM's business and the possibility that GM Canada might be required to initiate insolvency proceedings, GM Canada offered the Plaintiff Dealers the wind-down agreements to assist with their exit from the GM Canada dealer network and to facilitate winding down their operations in an orderly fashion. The Plaintiff Dealers allege that their Dealer Sales and Service Agreements were wrongly terminated by GM Canada and that GM Canada failed to comply with certain disclosure obligations, breached its statutory duty of fair dealing and unlawfully interfered with the Plaintiff Dealers' statutory right to associate in an attempt to coerce the Plaintiff Dealers into accepting the wind-down agreements. The Plaintiff Dealers seek damages and assert that the wind-down agreements are rescindable. The Plaintiff Dealers' initial pleading makes reference to a claim “not exceeding” 750 million Canadian Dollars, without explanation of any specific measure of damages. On March 1, 2011 the court approved certification of a class for the purpose of deciding a number of specifically defined issues. A number of former dealers opted out of participation in the litigation, leaving 181 dealers in the certified class. On July 8, 2015 the Ontario Superior Court dismissed the Plaintiff Dealers’ claim against GM Canada. The court also dismissed GM Canada’s counterclaim against the Plaintiff Dealers for repayment of the wind-down payments made to them by GM Canada as well as for other relief. All parties have filed notices of appeal. The appeals and cross appeals were heard by the Ontario Court of Appeal in January 2017. GM Korea Wage Litigation Commencing on or about September 29, 2010 current and former hourly employees of GM Korea Company (GM Korea) filed eight separate group actions in the Incheon District Court in Incheon, Korea. The cases, which in aggregate involve more than 10,000 employees, allege that GM Korea failed to include bonuses and certain allowances in its calculation of Ordinary Wages due under the Presidential Decree of the Korean Labor Standards Act. On November 23, 2012 the Seoul High Court (an intermediate level appellate court) affirmed a decision of the Incheon District Court in a case involving five GM Korea employees which was contrary to GM Korea's position. GM Korea appealed to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Korea (Supreme Court). On May 29, 2014 the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Seoul High Court for consideration consistent with earlier Supreme Court precedent holding that while fixed bonuses should be included in the calculation of Ordinary Wages, claims for retroactive application of this rule would be barred under certain circumstances. On reconsideration, the Seoul High Court held in GM Korea’s favor on October 30, 2015, after which the plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court. In July 2014 GM Korea and its labor union also agreed to include bonuses and certain allowances in Ordinary Wages retroactive to March 1, 2014. Therefore our accrual related to these cases was reclassified from a contingent liability to the Pensions liability. We estimate our reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts accrued to be 616 billion South Korean Won (equivalent to $552 million ) at March 31, 2017 , which relates to periods before March 1, 2014. We are also party to litigation with current and former salaried employees over allegations relating to Ordinary Wages regulation. On November 26 and 27, 2015 the Supreme Court remanded two salary cases to the Seoul High Court for a review of the merits. At March 31, 2017 we identified a reasonably possible loss for salary cases in excess of amounts accrued to be 190 billion South Korean Won (equivalent to $170 million ). Both the scope of claims asserted and GM Korea's assessment of any or all of the individual claim elements may change if new information becomes available. These cases are currently pending before various courts in Korea. GM Brazil Indirect Tax Claim In March 2017 the Supreme Court of Brazil issued a decision concluding that a certain state value added tax should not be included in the calculation of federal gross receipts taxes. The decision reduces GM Brazil’s gross receipts tax prospectively and, potentially, retrospectively. The retrospective right to recover is under judicial review and we do not expect resolution during 2017. If the Supreme Court of Brazil grants retrospective recovery we estimate potential recoveries of up to $1.4 billion . However, given the remaining uncertainty regarding the ultimate judicial resolution of this matter we are unable to assess the likelihood of any favorable outcome at this time. We have not recorded any amounts relating to this matter. Other Litigation-Related Liability and Tax Administrative Matters Various other legal actions, governmental investigations, claims and proceedings are pending against us or our related companies or joint ventures, including matters arising out of alleged product defects; employment-related matters; governmental regulations relating to product and workplace safety, emissions and fuel economy; product warranties; financial services; dealer, supplier and other contractual relationships; government regulations relating to payments to foreign companies; government regulations relating to competition issues; tax-related matters not subject to the provision of Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) 740, Income Taxes (indirect tax-related matters); and environmental protection laws, including laws regulating air emissions, water discharges, waste management and environmental remediation. We believe that appropriate accruals have been established for losses that are probable and can be reasonably estimated. It is possible that the resolution of one or more of these matters could exceed the amounts accrued in an amount that could be material to our results of operations. We also from time to time receive subpoenas and other inquiries or requests for information from agencies or other representatives of U.S. federal, state and foreign governments on a variety of issues. Indirect tax-related matters are being litigated globally pertaining to value added taxes, customs, duties, sales, property taxes and other non-income tax related tax exposures. The various non-U.S. labor-related matters include claims from current and former employees related to alleged unpaid wage, benefit, severance and other compensation matters. Certain South American administrative proceedings are indirect tax-related and may require that we deposit funds in escrow or provide an alternative form of security which may range from $200 million to $600 million at March 31, 2017 . Some of the matters may involve compensatory, punitive or other treble damage claims, environmental remediation programs or sanctions that, if granted, could require us to pay damages or make other expenditures in amounts that could not be reasonably estimated at March 31, 2017 . We believe that appropriate accruals have been established for losses that are probable and can be reasonably estimated. For indirect tax-related matters we estimate our reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts accrued to be up to approximately $1.1 billion at March 31, 2017 . Takata Matters On May 4, 2016 the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued an amended consent order requiring Takata to file defect information reports (DIRs) for previously unrecalled front airbag inflators that contain phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate-based propellant without a moisture absorbing desiccant on a multi-year, risk-based schedule through 2019 impacting tens of millions of vehicles produced by numerous automotive manufacturers. NHTSA concluded that the likely root cause of the rupturing of the airbag inflators is a function of time, temperature cycling and environmental moisture. On May 16, 2016 Takata issued its first DIR in connection with the amended consent order, and on January 3, 2017, Takata issued its second set of DIRs. Although we do not believe there is a safety defect at this time in any GM vehicles within the scope of the Takata DIRs, in cooperation with NHTSA we filed Preliminary DIRs on May 27, 2016, updated as of June 13, 2016, covering 2.5 million of certain of our GMT900 vehicles, which are full-size pick-up trucks and sport utility vehicles (SUVs). On November 15, 2016 we filed a petition for inconsequentiality and request for deferral of determination regarding those GMT900 vehicles. On November 28, 2016 NHTSA granted GM's deferral request in connection with this petition. The deferral provides GM until August 31, 2017 to present evidence and analysis that our vehicles do not pose an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety. We believe that this timeline will permit us to complete our testing of the relevant non-desiccated Takata inflators in GMT900 vehicles and to prove to NHTSA that the inflators in these vehicles do not present an unreasonable risk to safety and that no repair will ultimately be required. Takata filed a second set of equipment DIRs on January 3, 2017 and we filed a second set of Preliminary DIRs for certain GMT900 vehicles on January 10, 2017. These January 2017 DIRs are consistent with GM’s May 2016 DIRs. On the same day, we also filed a second petition for inconsequentiality and deferral of decision with respect to the vehicles subject to our January 2017 DIRs. On January 18, 2017, NHTSA consolidated our first and second petitions for inconsequentiality and will rule on both at the same time. We believe these vehicles are currently performing as designed and ongoing testing continues to support the belief that the vehicles' unique design and integration mitigates against inflator propellant degradation. We believe that the results of further testing and analysis will demonstrate that the vehicles do not present an unreasonable risk to safety and that no repair will ultimately be required. Accordingly, no warranty provision has been made for any repair associated with our vehicles subject to the Preliminary DIRs and amended consent order. However, in the event we are ultimately obligated to repair the inflators in these vehicles, we estimate a reasonably possible cost of up to $880 million for the 6.9 million vehicles subject to the Preliminary DIRs or future Takata DIRs under the amended consent order. Through April 17, 2017 we were aware of one putative class action pending against GM in federal court in the U.S., one putative class action in Mexico and seven putative class actions pending in various Provincial Courts in Canada arising out of allegations that airbag inflators manufactured by Takata are defective. In addition, the New Mexico Attorney General has initiated litigation against Takata and numerous automotive manufacturers, including GM. At this early stage of these proceedings, we are unable to provide an evaluation of the likelihood that a loss will be incurred or an estimate of the amounts or range of possible loss. Product Liability With respect to product liability claims (other than claims relating to the ignition switch recalls discussed above) involving our and General Motors Corporation products, we believe that any judgment against us for actual damages will be adequately covered by our recorded accruals and, where applicable, excess liability insurance coverage. In addition we indemnify dealers for certain product liability related claims including products sold by General Motors Corporation's dealers. At March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016 liabilities of $636 million and $656 million were recorded in Accrued liabilities and Other liabilities for the expected cost of all known product liability claims plus an estimate of the expected cost for product liability claims that have already been incurred and are expected to be filed in the future for which we are self-insured. In light of vehicle recalls in recent years it is reasonably possible that our accruals for product liability claims may increase in future periods in material amounts, although we cannot estimate a reasonable range of incremental loss based on currently available information. Guarantees We enter into indemnification agreements for liability claims involving products manufactured primarily by certain joint ventures. We also provide vehicle repurchase guarantees and payment guarantees on commercial loans outstanding with third parties such as dealers. These guarantees terminate in years ranging from 2017 to 2031 or upon the occurrence of specific events or are ongoing. We believe that the related potential costs incurred are adequately covered and our recorded accruals are insignificant. The maximum liability, calculated as future undiscounted payments, was $4.5 billion and $4.4 billion for these guarantees at March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016 , the majority of which relate to the indemnification agreements. In some instances certain assets of the party whose debt or performance we have guaranteed may offset, to some degree, the amount of certain guarantees. Our payables to the party whose debt or performance we have guaranteed may also reduce the amount of certain guarantees. If vehicles are required to be repurchased under vehicle repurchase obligations, the total exposure would be reduced to the extent vehicles are able to be resold to another dealer. We periodically enter into agreements that incorporate indemnification provisions in the normal course of business. It is not possible to estimate our maximum exposure under these indemnifications or guarantees due to the conditional nature of these obligations. Insignificant amounts have been recorded for such obligations as the majority of them are not probable or estimable at this time and the fair value of the guarantees at issuance was insignificant. |
