Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Litigation-Related Liability and Tax Administrative Matters In the normal course of our business, we are named from time to time as a defendant in various legal actions, including arbitrations, class actions and other litigation. We identify below the material individual proceedings and investigations where 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 December 31, 2020 and 2019, we had accruals of $1.2 billion and $1.3 billion in Accrued liabilities and Other liabilities. In many matters, it is inherently difficult to determine whether loss is probable or reasonably possible or to estimate the size or range of the possible loss. Accordingly adverse outcomes 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 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. Appellate Litigation Regarding Successor Liability Ignition Switch Claims In 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the 2009 order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Bankruptcy Court) approving the sale of substantially all of the assets of Motors Liquidation Company (MLC) to GM free and clear of, among other things, claims asserting successor liability for obligations owed by MLC could not be enforced to bar claims against GM asserted by either plaintiffs who purchased used vehicles after the sale or against purchasers who asserted claims relating to the ignition switch defect, including pre-sale personal injury claims and economic-loss claims. Economic-Loss Claims We are aware of over 100 putative class actions that were filed against GM in U.S. and Canadian courts alleging that consumers who purchased or leased vehicles manufactured by GM or MLC had been economically harmed by one or more of the 2014 recalls 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. Many of the pending U.S. economic-loss claims have been transferred to, and consolidated in, a single federal court, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Southern District). These plaintiffs have asserted economic-loss claims under federal and state laws, including claims relating to recalled vehicles manufactured by GM and claims asserting successor liability relating to certain recalled vehicles manufactured by MLC. In August 2017, the Southern District granted our motion to dismiss the successor liability claims of plaintiffs in seven of the sixteen states at issue on the motion and called for additional briefing to decide whether plaintiffs' claims can proceed in the other nine states. In December 2017, the Southern District granted GM's motion and dismissed the plaintiffs' successor liability claims in an additional state, but found that there are genuine issues of material fact that prevent summary judgment for GM in eight other states. In January 2018, GM moved for reconsideration of certain portions of the Southern District's December 2017 summary judgment ruling. That motion was granted in April 2018, dismissing plaintiffs' successor liability claims in any state where New York law applies. In September 2018, the Southern District granted our motion to dismiss claims for lost personal time (in 41 out of 47 jurisdictions) and certain unjust enrichment claims, but denied our motion to dismiss plaintiffs' economic loss claims in 27 jurisdictions under the "manifest defect" rule. In August 2019, the Southern District granted our motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ economic loss “benefit of the bargain” damage claims (the August 2019 Opinion). The Southern District held that plaintiffs’ conjoint analysis-based damages model failed to establish that plaintiffs suffered difference-in-value damages and without such evidence, plaintiffs’ difference-in-value damage claims fail under the laws of all three bellwether states: California, Missouri and Texas. Later in August 2019, the bellwether plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the Southern District reconsider its summary judgment decision or allow an interlocutory appeal if reconsideration is denied. In December 2019, the Southern District denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the August 2019 Opinion, but granted the plaintiffs' motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal. On April 1, 2020, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (the Second Circuit) granted the bellwether plaintiffs' petition seeking leave to appeal the August 2019 Opinion. On April 15, 2020, the bellwether plaintiffs and GM filed a Stipulation to withdraw the appeal from the Second Circuit based on the class settlement agreement described below. In September 2019, GM filed an updated motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ remaining economic loss claims that were not addressed in the Southern District’s August 2019 Opinion and renewed its evidentiary motion seeking to strike the opinions of plaintiff’s expert on plaintiffs’ alleged “lost time” damages associated with having the recall repairs performed. In March 2020, GM, plaintiffs and the MLC GUC Trust (GUC Trust) reached a settlement agreement (Class Settlement Agreement) to resolve on a national basis the economic loss claims of the proposed settlement class and proposed sub-classes, consisting of consumers who purchased or leased GM vehicles covered by the seven 2014 safety recalls at issue in the Southern District and the Bankruptcy Court. The proposed Class Settlement Agreement provides a common fund of approximately $120 million for settlement class members, of which GM will fund approximately $70 million and the GUC Trust will fund the remaining $50 million. GM will also pay attorneys’ fees and costs that may be awarded by the Southern District to plaintiffs’ counsel up to a maximum of $35 million. In April 2020, the Avoidance Action Trust (AAT), GM and plaintiffs reached a tentative settlement under which the AAT will pay an insignificant amount and will be added as a settling party to the Class Settlement Agreement. During April and May 2020, the Southern District entered orders granting preliminary approval of the Class Settlement Agreement. In December 2020, the Southern District conducted a final fairness hearing and issued an order granting final approval of the Class Settlement Agreement in its entirety. The order granting final approval became final, effective and binding in January 2021. The deadline for class members to file claims is April 2021. Contingently Issuable Shares Under the Amended and Restated Master Sale and Purchase Agreement between GM and MLC, GM was obligated to issue Adjustment Shares of our common stock if allowed general unsecured claims against the GUC Trust, as estimated by the Bankruptcy Court, exceed $35.0 billion. In March 2020, in conjunction with the Class Settlement Agreement, the GUC Trust filed a motion in the Bankruptcy Court seeking approval to enter into and take actions necessary to execute the Class Settlement Agreement, and seeking Bankruptcy Court authorization permitting the GUC Trust to distribute $300 million of GUC Trust assets to its unitholders and entry into a mutual release agreement with GM that would release GM from any and all claims, including any that would require GM to issue any Adjustment Shares. Bankruptcy Court approval of the GUC Trust motion is a condition precedent to preliminary approval of the Class Settlement Agreement by the Southern District. In April 2020, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order approving the GUC Trust's motion in its entirety. In May 2020, the approval and the mutual release agreement became binding and enforceable and GM was fully released from its potential Adjustment Shares obligation. Personal Injury Claims We also are aware of less than one hundred active personal injury actions, exclusive of matters subject to settlements in principal, pending in various courts in the U.S. and Canada alleging injury or death as a result of defects that may be the subject of the 2014 recalls. In general, these cases seek recovery for purported compensatory damages, punitive damages and/or other relief. Since 2016, several bellwether trials of these cases have taken place in the Southern District and in a Texas state court, which is administering a Texas state multi-district litigation. None of these trials resulted in a finding of liability against GM. Government Matters 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. GM is cooperating with all reasonable pending requests for information. Any existing governmental matters or investigations could in the future result in the imposition of damages, fines, civil consent orders, civil and criminal penalties or other remedies. The total amount accrued for the 2014 recalls at December 31, 2020, 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 to the extent that such matters are probable and can be reasonably estimated. The amounts accrued for those unsettled investigations, claims, and/or lawsuits represent 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 will continue to consider resolution of pending matters involving ignition switch recalls and other recalls where it makes sense to do so. GM Korea Wage Litigation GM Korea is party to litigation with current and former hourly employees in the appellate court and Incheon District Court in Incheon, Korea. The group actions, which in the 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 Korean regulations. In 2012 the Seoul High Court (an intermediate-level appellate court) affirmed a decision in one of these group actions 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 (Korean Supreme Court). In 2014 the Korean Supreme Court largely agreed with GM Korea's legal arguments and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court for consideration consistent with earlier Korean 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. In 2015, on reconsideration, the Seoul High Court held in GM Korea's favor, after which the plaintiffs appealed to the Korean Supreme Court. In July 2020, the Korean Supreme Court held in GM Korea's favor. In light of this decision, we believe the probability that we will incur a material loss is remote and we estimate our loss in excess of amounts accrued is insignificant at December 31, 2020. GM Korea is also party to litigation with current and former salaried employees over allegations relating to Ordinary Wages regulation and whether to include fixed bonuses in the calculation of Ordinary Wages. In 2017, the Seoul High Court held that certain workers are not barred from filing retroactive wage claims. GM Korea appealed this ruling to the Korean Supreme Court. The Korean Supreme Court has not yet rendered a decision. We estimate our reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts accrued to be approximately $190 million at December 31, 2020. 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 or the legal or regulatory frameworks change. GM Korea is also party to litigation with current and former subcontract workers over allegations that they are entitled to the same wages and benefits provided to full-time employees, and to be hired as full-time employees. In May 2018 and September 2020, the Korean labor authorities issued adverse administrative orders finding that GM Korea must hire certain current subcontract workers as full-time employees. GM Korea appealed the May 2018 order and plans to appeal the September 2020 order. In June 2020, the Seoul High Court ruled against GM Korea in one of the subcontract worker claims. GM Korea has appealed this decision to the Korean Supreme Court. At December 31, 2020, our accrual covering certain asserted claims and claims that we believe are probable of assertion and for which liability is probable was approximately $240 million. We estimate the reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts accrued for other current subcontract workers who may assert similar claims to be approximately $120 million at December 31, 2020. We are currently unable to estimate any possible loss or range of loss that may result from additional claims that may be asserted by former subcontract workers. GM Brazil Indirect Tax Claim In 2019, the Superior Court of Brazil rendered favorable decisions on three cases brought by GM Brazil challenging whether a certain state value-added tax should be included in the calculation of federal gross receipts taxes. Those decisions granted the Company the right to recover, through offset of federal tax liabilities, certain amounts collected by the government between August 2001 and February 2017. As a result, GM Brazil recorded pre-tax recoveries of $1.4 billion in Automotive and other cost of sales in the year ended December 31, 2019. Realization of these recoveries depends on the timing of administrative approvals and generation of federal tax liabilities eligible for offset. The Brazilian IRS has filed a Motion of Clarification on this matter with the Brazilian Supreme Court, which motion is awaiting decision. In addition, we expect third parties to make claims on some or all of the pre-tax recoveries, against which GM intends to defend. Other Litigation-Related Liability and Tax Administrative Matters Various other legal actions, including class 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; product and workplace safety, vehicle emissions and fuel economy regulations; product warranties; financial services; dealer, supplier and other contractual relationships; government regulations relating to competition issues; tax-related matters not subject to the provision of Accounting Standards Codification 740, Income Taxes (indirect tax-related matters); product design, manufacture and performance; consumer protection laws; and environmental protection laws, including laws regulating air emissions, water discharges, waste management and environmental remediation from stationary sources. There are several putative class actions pending against GM in federal courts in the U.S. and in the Provincial Courts in Canada alleging that various vehicles sold, including model year 2011-2016 Duramax Diesel Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra vehicles, violate federal, state and foreign emission standards. We are unable to estimate any reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from these actions. GM has also faced a series of additional lawsuits in the U.S. based on these allegations, including putative shareholder class actions claiming violations of federal securities law and a shareholder demand lawsuit. The securities lawsuits have been voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs in those actions. 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 administrative proceedings are indirect tax-related and may require that we deposit funds in escrow or provide an alternative form of security. 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 December 31, 2020. 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 $750 million at December 31, 2020. Takata Matters In May 2016, NHTSA issued an amended consent order requiring Takata to file defect information reports (DIRs) for previously unrecalled front airbag inflators that contain phased-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. In cooperation with NHTSA we filed Preliminary DIRs covering certain of our GMT900 vehicles, which are full-size pickup trucks and SUVs, and petitions for inconsequentiality with respect to the vehicles subject to those Preliminary DIRs. In November 2020, NHTSA denied GM's petitions for inconsequentiality relating to the Takata passenger-side inflators in certain GMT900 vehicles. NHTSA has directed that we replace the airbag inflators in the vehicles in question, and we have decided not to contest NHTSA's decision. While we have already begun the process of executing the recall, given the number of vehicles in this population, the recall will take several years to be completed. Accordingly, in the three months ended December 31, 2020, we recorded a warranty accrual of $1.1 billion for the expected costs of complying with the recall remedy. GM has recalled certain vehicles sold outside of the U.S. to replace Takata inflators in those vehicles. There are significant differences in vehicle and inflator design between the relevant vehicles sold internationally and those sold in the U.S. We continue to gather and analyze evidence about these inflators and to share our findings with regulators. Additional recalls, if any, could be material to our results of operations and cash flows. We continue to monitor the international situation. There are several putative class actions that have been filed against GM, including in the federal courts in the U.S., in the Provincial Courts in Canada, and in Mexico and Israel, arising out of allegations that airbag inflators manufactured by Takata are defective. At this stage of these proceedings, we are unable to provide an estimate of the amounts or range of possible loss. Product Liability We recorded liabilities of $589 million and $544 million in Accrued liabilities and Other liabilities at December 31, 2020 and 2019, 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. 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. Other than claims relating to the ignition switch recalls discussed above, we believe that any judgment against us involving our and MLC products for actual damages will be adequately covered by our recorded accruals and, where applicable, excess liability insurance coverage. Guarantees We enter into indemnification agreements for liability claims involving products manufactured primarily by certain joint ventures. These guarantees terminate in years ranging from 2021 to 2026 or upon the occurrence of specific events or are ongoing. We believe that the related potential costs incurred are adequately covered by our recorded accruals, which are insignificant. The maximum future undiscounted payments mainly based on vehicles sold to date were $3.1 billion and $2.6 billion for these guarantees at December 31, 2020 and 2019, the majority of which relates to the indemnification agreements. We provide payment guarantees on commercial loans outstanding with third parties such as dealers. In some instances certain assets of the party or our payables to the party whose debt or performance we have guaranteed may offset, to some degree, the amount of any potential future payments. We are also exposed to residual value guarantees associated with certain sales to rental car companies. 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. Refer to Note 22 for additional information on our indemnification obligations to PSA Group under the Master Agreement (the Agreement). Credit Cards Credit card programs offer rebates that can be applied primarily against the purchase or lease of our vehicles. At December 31, 2020 and 2019, our redemption liability was insignificant, our deferred revenue was $252 million and $253 million, and qualified cardholders had rebates available, net of deferred program revenue, of $1.3 billion and $1.4 billion. Our redemption liability and deferred revenue are recorded in Accrued liabilities and Other liabilities. Operating Leases Our portfolio of leases primarily consists of real estate office space, manufacturing and warehousing facilities, land and equipment. Certain leases contain escalation clauses and renewal or purchase options, and generally our leases have no residual value guarantees or material covenants. We exclude leases with a term of one year or less from our balance sheet, and do not separate non-lease components from our real estate leases. Rent expense under operating leases was $317 million and $354 million in the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019. Prior to adoption of ASU 2016-02, "Leases", rent expense under operating leases was $300 million in the year ended December 31, 2018. Variable lease costs were insignificant in the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019. At December 31, 2020 and 2019, operating lease right of use assets in Other assets were $1.0 billion and $1.1 billion, operating lease liabilities in Accrued liabilities were $209 million and $239 million and non-current operating lease liabilities in Other liabilities were $969 million and $1.0 billion. Operating lease right of use assets obtained in exchange for lease obligations were $222 million and $497 million in the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019. Our undiscounted future lease obligations related to operating leases having initial terms in excess of one year are $251 million, $205 million, $196 million, $151 million, $122 million and $437 million for the years 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025 and thereafter, with imputed interest of $184 million as of December 31, 2020. The weighted average discount rate was 4.0% and 4.2% and the weighted-average remaining lease term was 7.4 years and 7.2 years at December 31, 2020 and 2019. Payments for operating leases included in Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities were $309 million and $337 million in the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019. Lease agreements that have not yet commenced were $150 million at December 31, 2020.

Litigation-Related Liability and Tax Administrative Matters In the normal course of our business, we are named from time to time as a defendant in various legal actions, including arbitrations, class actions and other litigation. We identify below the material individual proceedings and investigations where 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 December 31, 2020 and 2019, we had accruals of $1.2 billion and $1.3 billion in Accrued liabilities and Other liabilities. In many matters, it is inherently difficult to determine whether loss is probable or reasonably possible or to estimate the size or range of the possible loss. Accordingly adverse outcomes 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.

Appellate Litigation Regarding Successor Liability Ignition Switch Claims In 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the 2009 order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Bankruptcy Court) approving the sale of substantially all of the assets of Motors Liquidation Company (MLC) to GM free and clear of, among other things, claims asserting successor liability for obligations owed by MLC could not be enforced to bar claims against GM asserted by either plaintiffs who purchased used vehicles after the sale or against purchasers who asserted claims relating to the ignition switch defect, including pre-sale personal injury claims and economic-loss claims.

Economic-Loss Claims We are aware of over 100 putative class actions that were filed against GM in U.S. and Canadian courts alleging that consumers who purchased or leased vehicles manufactured by GM or MLC had been economically harmed by one or more of the 2014 recalls 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.

Many of the pending U.S. economic-loss claims have been transferred to, and consolidated in, a single federal court, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Southern District). These plaintiffs have asserted economic-loss claims under federal and state laws, including claims relating to recalled vehicles manufactured by GM and claims asserting successor liability relating to certain recalled vehicles manufactured by MLC.

In August 2017, the Southern District granted our motion to dismiss the successor liability claims of plaintiffs in seven of the sixteen states at issue on the motion and called for additional briefing to decide whether plaintiffs' claims can proceed in the other nine states. In December 2017, the Southern District granted GM's motion and dismissed the plaintiffs' successor liability claims in an additional state, but found that there are genuine issues of material fact that prevent summary judgment for GM in eight other states. In January 2018, GM moved for reconsideration of certain portions of the Southern District's December 2017 summary judgment ruling. That motion was granted in April 2018, dismissing plaintiffs' successor liability claims in any state where New York law applies.

In August 2019, the Southern District granted our motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ economic loss “benefit of the bargain” damage claims (the August 2019 Opinion). The Southern District held that plaintiffs’ conjoint analysis-based damages model failed to establish that plaintiffs suffered difference-in-value damages and without such evidence, plaintiffs’ difference-in-value damage claims fail under the laws of all three bellwether states: California, Missouri and Texas. Later in August 2019, the bellwether plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the Southern District reconsider its summary judgment decision or allow an interlocutory appeal if reconsideration is denied. In December 2019, the Southern District denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the August 2019 Opinion, but granted the plaintiffs' motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal. On April 1, 2020, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (the Second Circuit) granted the bellwether plaintiffs' petition seeking leave to appeal the August 2019 Opinion. On April 15, 2020, the bellwether plaintiffs and GM filed a Stipulation to withdraw the appeal from the Second Circuit based on the class settlement agreement described below.

In September 2019, GM filed an updated motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ remaining economic loss claims that were not addressed in the Southern District’s August 2019 Opinion and renewed its evidentiary motion seeking to strike the opinions of plaintiff’s expert on plaintiffs’ alleged “lost time” damages associated with having the recall repairs performed.

In March 2020, GM, plaintiffs and the MLC GUC Trust (GUC Trust) reached a settlement agreement (Class Settlement Agreement) to resolve on a national basis the economic loss claims of the proposed settlement class and proposed sub-classes, consisting of consumers who purchased or leased GM vehicles covered by the seven 2014 safety recalls at issue in the Southern District and the Bankruptcy Court. The proposed Class Settlement Agreement provides a common fund of approximately $120 million for settlement class members, of which GM will fund approximately $70 million and the GUC Trust will fund the remaining $50 million. GM will also pay attorneys’ fees and costs that may be awarded by the Southern District to plaintiffs’ counsel up to a maximum of $35 million. In April 2020, the Avoidance Action Trust (AAT), GM and plaintiffs reached a

In December 2020, the Southern District conducted a final fairness hearing and issued an order granting final approval of the Class Settlement Agreement in its entirety. The order granting final approval became final, effective and binding in January 2021. The deadline for class members to file claims is April 2021.

In March 2020, in conjunction with the Class Settlement Agreement, the GUC Trust filed a motion in the Bankruptcy Court seeking approval to enter into and take actions necessary to execute the Class Settlement Agreement, and seeking Bankruptcy Court authorization permitting the GUC Trust to distribute $300 million of GUC Trust assets to its unitholders and entry into a mutual release agreement with GM that would release GM from any and all claims, including any that would require GM to issue any Adjustment Shares. Bankruptcy Court approval of the GUC Trust motion is a condition precedent to preliminary approval of the Class Settlement Agreement by the Southern District. In April 2020, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order approving the GUC Trust's motion in its entirety. In May 2020, the approval and the mutual release agreement became binding and enforceable and GM was fully released from its potential Adjustment Shares obligation.

Personal Injury Claims We also are aware of less than one hundred active personal injury actions, exclusive of matters subject to settlements in principal, pending in various courts in the U.S. and Canada alleging injury or death as a result of defects that may be the subject of the 2014 recalls. In general, these cases seek recovery for purported compensatory damages, punitive damages and/or other relief. Since 2016, several bellwether trials of these cases have taken place in the Southern District and in a Texas state court, which is administering a Texas state multi-district litigation. None of these trials resulted in a finding of liability against GM.

Government Matters 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. GM is cooperating with all reasonable pending requests for information. Any existing governmental matters or investigations could in the future result in the imposition of damages, fines, civil consent orders, civil and criminal penalties or other remedies.

The total amount accrued for the 2014 recalls at December 31, 2020, 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 to the extent that such matters are probable and can be reasonably estimated. The amounts accrued for those unsettled investigations, claims, and/or lawsuits represent 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 will continue to consider resolution of pending matters involving ignition switch recalls and other recalls where it makes sense to do so.

GM Korea Wage Litigation GM Korea is party to litigation with current and former hourly employees in the appellate court and Incheon District Court in Incheon, Korea. The group actions, which in the 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 Korean regulations. In 2012 the Seoul High Court (an intermediate-level appellate court) affirmed a decision in one of these group actions 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 (Korean Supreme Court). In 2014 the Korean Supreme Court largely agreed with GM Korea's legal arguments and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court for consideration consistent with earlier Korean 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. In 2015, on reconsideration, the Seoul High Court held in GM Korea's favor, after which the plaintiffs appealed to the Korean Supreme Court. In July 2020, the Korean Supreme Court held in GM Korea's favor. In light of this decision, we believe the probability that we will incur a material loss is remote and we estimate our loss in excess of amounts accrued is insignificant at December 31, 2020.

GM Korea is also party to litigation with current and former salaried employees over allegations relating to Ordinary Wages regulation and whether to include fixed bonuses in the calculation of Ordinary Wages. In 2017, the Seoul High Court held that certain workers are not barred from filing retroactive wage claims. GM Korea appealed this ruling to the Korean Supreme Court. The Korean Supreme Court has not yet rendered a decision. We estimate our reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts accrued to be approximately $190 million at December 31, 2020. 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 or the legal or regulatory frameworks change.

GM Korea is also party to litigation with current and former subcontract workers over allegations that they are entitled to the same wages and benefits provided to full-time employees, and to be hired as full-time employees. In May 2018 and September 2020, the Korean labor authorities issued adverse administrative orders finding that GM Korea must hire certain current subcontract workers as full-time employees. GM Korea appealed the May 2018 order and plans to appeal the September 2020 order. In June 2020, the Seoul High Court ruled against GM Korea in one of the subcontract worker claims. GM Korea has appealed this decision to the Korean Supreme Court. At December 31, 2020, our accrual covering certain asserted claims and claims that we believe are probable of assertion and for which liability is probable was approximately $240 million. We estimate the reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts accrued for other current subcontract workers who may assert similar claims to be approximately $120 million at December 31, 2020. We are currently unable to estimate any possible loss or range of loss that may result from additional claims that may be asserted by former subcontract workers.

GM Brazil Indirect Tax Claim In 2019, the Superior Court of Brazil rendered favorable decisions on three cases brought by GM Brazil challenging whether a certain state value-added tax should be included in the calculation of federal gross receipts taxes. Those decisions granted the Company the right to recover, through offset of federal tax liabilities, certain amounts collected by the government between August 2001 and February 2017. As a result, GM Brazil recorded pre-tax recoveries of $1.4 billion in Automotive and other cost of sales in the year ended December 31, 2019. Realization of these recoveries depends on the timing of administrative approvals and generation of federal tax liabilities eligible for offset. The Brazilian IRS has filed a Motion of Clarification on this matter with the Brazilian Supreme Court, which motion is awaiting decision. In addition, we expect third parties to make claims on some or all of the pre-tax recoveries, against which GM intends to defend.

Other Litigation-Related Liability and Tax Administrative Matters Various other legal actions, including class 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; product and workplace safety, vehicle emissions and fuel economy regulations; product warranties; financial services; dealer, supplier and other contractual relationships; government regulations relating to competition issues; tax-related matters not subject to the provision of Accounting Standards Codification 740, Income Taxes (indirect tax-related matters); product design, manufacture and performance; consumer protection laws; and environmental protection laws, including laws regulating air emissions, water discharges, waste management and environmental remediation from stationary sources.

There are several putative class actions pending against GM in federal courts in the U.S. and in the Provincial Courts in Canada alleging that various vehicles sold, including model year 2011-2016 Duramax Diesel Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra vehicles, violate federal, state and foreign emission standards. We are unable to estimate any reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from these actions. GM has also faced a series of additional lawsuits in the U.S. based on these allegations, including putative shareholder class actions claiming violations of federal securities law and a shareholder demand lawsuit. The securities lawsuits have been voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs in those actions.

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 administrative proceedings are indirect tax-related and may require that we deposit funds in escrow or provide an alternative form of security. 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 December 31, 2020. We believe that appropriate accruals have been established for losses that are

Takata Matters In May 2016, NHTSA issued an amended consent order requiring Takata to file defect information reports (DIRs) for previously unrecalled front airbag inflators that contain phased-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.

In November 2020, NHTSA denied GM's petitions for inconsequentiality relating to the Takata passenger-side inflators in certain GMT900 vehicles. NHTSA has directed that we replace the airbag inflators in the vehicles in question, and we have decided not to contest NHTSA's decision. While we have already begun the process of executing the recall, given the number of vehicles in this population, the recall will take several years to be completed.

GM has recalled certain vehicles sold outside of the U.S. to replace Takata inflators in those vehicles. There are significant differences in vehicle and inflator design between the relevant vehicles sold internationally and those sold in the U.S. We continue to gather and analyze evidence about these inflators and to share our findings with regulators. Additional recalls, if any, could be material to our results of operations and cash flows. We continue to monitor the international situation.

There are several putative class actions that have been filed against GM, including in the federal courts in the U.S., in the Provincial Courts in Canada, and in Mexico and Israel, arising out of allegations that airbag inflators manufactured by Takata are defective. At this stage of these proceedings, we are unable to provide an estimate of the amounts or range of possible loss.

Product Liability We recorded liabilities of $589 million and $544 million in Accrued liabilities and Other liabilities at December 31, 2020 and 2019, 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. 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. Other than claims relating to the ignition switch recalls discussed above, we believe that any judgment against us involving our and MLC products for actual damages will be adequately covered by our recorded accruals and, where applicable, excess liability insurance coverage.

Guarantees We enter into indemnification agreements for liability claims involving products manufactured primarily by certain joint ventures. These guarantees terminate in years ranging from 2021 to 2026 or upon the occurrence of specific events or are ongoing. We believe that the related potential costs incurred are adequately covered by our recorded accruals, which are insignificant. The maximum future undiscounted payments mainly based on vehicles sold to date were $3.1 billion and $2.6 billion for these guarantees at December 31, 2020 and 2019, the majority of which relates to the indemnification agreements.

We provide payment guarantees on commercial loans outstanding with third parties such as dealers. In some instances certain assets of the party or our payables to the party whose debt or performance we have guaranteed may offset, to some degree, the amount of any potential future payments. We are also exposed to residual value guarantees associated with certain sales to rental car companies.

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. Refer to Note 22 for additional information on our indemnification obligations to PSA Group under the Master Agreement (the Agreement).

Credit Cards Credit card programs offer rebates that can be applied primarily against the purchase or lease of our vehicles. At December 31, 2020 and 2019, our redemption liability was insignificant, our deferred revenue was $252 million and $253 million, and qualified cardholders had rebates available, net of deferred program revenue, of $1.3 billion and $1.4 billion. Our redemption liability and deferred revenue are recorded in Accrued liabilities and Other liabilities.

Operating Leases Our portfolio of leases primarily consists of real estate office space, manufacturing and warehousing facilities, land and equipment. Certain leases contain escalation clauses and renewal or purchase options, and generally our leases have no residual value guarantees or material covenants. We exclude leases with a term of one year or less from our balance sheet, and do not separate non-lease components from our real estate leases.

Rent expense under operating leases was $317 million and $354 million in the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019. Prior to adoption of ASU 2016-02, "Leases", rent expense under operating leases was $300 million in the year ended December 31, 2018. Variable lease costs were insignificant in the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019. At December 31, 2020 and 2019, operating lease right of use assets in Other assets were $1.0 billion and $1.1 billion, operating lease liabilities in Accrued liabilities were $209 million and $239 million and non-current operating lease liabilities in Other liabilities were $969 million and $1.0 billion. Operating lease right of use assets obtained in exchange for lease obligations were $222 million and $497 million in the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019. Our undiscounted future lease obligations related to operating leases having initial terms in excess of one year are $251 million, $205 million, $196 million, $151 million, $122 million and $437 million for the years 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025 and thereafter, with imputed interest of $184 million as of December 31, 2020. The weighted average discount rate was 4.0% and 4.2% and the weighted-average remaining lease term was 7.4 years and 7.2 years at December 31, 2020 and 2019. Payments for operating leases included in Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities were $309 million and $337 million in the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019. Lease agreements that have not yet commenced were $150 million at December 31, 2020.