The following table shows claims and claims expense reserves by operating segment and line of business as of December 31:
## Table 0 ##
Allstate Protection Reserve Estimates Factors Affecting Reserve Estimates Reserve estimates are developed based on the processes and historical development trends as previously described.
These estimates are considered in conjunction with known facts and interpretations of circumstances and factors including our experience with similar cases, actual claims paid, differing payment patterns and pending levels of unpaid claims, loss management programs, product mix and contractual terms, changes in law and regulation, judicial decisions, and economic conditions.
When we experience changes of the type previously mentioned, we may need to apply actuarial judgment in the determination and selection of development factors considered more reflective of the new trends, such as combining shorter or longer periods of historical results with current actual results to produce development factors based on two-year, three-year, or longer development periods to reestimate our reserves.
For example, if a legal change is expected to have a significant impact on the development of claim severity for a coverage which is part of a particular line of insurance in a specific state, actuarial judgment is applied to determine appropriate development factors that will most accurately reflect the expected impact on that specific estimate.
Another example would be when a change in economic conditions is expected to affect the cost of repairs to damaged autos or property for a particular line, coverage, or state, actuarial judgment is applied to determine appropriate development factors to use in the reserve estimate that will most accurately reflect the expected impacts on severity development.
As claims are reported, for certain liability claims of sufficient size and complexity, the field adjusting staff establishes case reserve estimates of ultimate cost, based on their assessment of facts and circumstances related to each individual claim.
For other claims which occur in large volumes and settle in a relatively short time frame, it is not practical or efficient to set case reserves for each claim, and a statistical case reserve is set for these claims based on estimation techniques previously described.
In the normal course of business, we may also supplement our claims processes by utilizing third party adjusters, appraisers, engineers, inspectors, other professionals and information sources to assess and settle catastrophe and non-catastrophe related claims.
Historically, the case reserves set by the field adjusting staff have not proven to be an entirely accurate estimate of the ultimate cost of claims.
To provide for this, a development reserve is estimated using previously described processes, and allocated to pending claims as a supplement to case reserves.
Typically, the case and supplemental development reserves comprise about 90% of total reserves.
Another major component of reserves is IBNR.
Typically, IBNR comprises about 10% of total reserves.
Generally, the initial reserves for a new accident year are established based on severity assumptions for different business segments, lines, and coverages based on historical relationships to relevant inflation indicators, and reserves for prior accident years are statistically determined using processes previously described.
Changes in auto current year claim severity are generally influenced by inflation in the medical and auto repair sectors of the economy.
We mitigate these effects through various loss management programs.
Injury claims are affected largely by medical cost inflation while physical damage claims are affected largely by auto repair cost inflation and used car prices.
For auto physical damage coverages, we monitor our rate of increase in average cost per claim against a weighted average of the Maintenance and Repair price index and the Parts & Equipment price index.
We believe our claim settlement initiatives, such as improvements to the claim review and settlement process, the use
Tables of Contents Mint.
com service revenue is derived primarily from lead generation fees.
Intuit Health service revenue is derived from online patient-to-provider communication services and fees for implementation services.
In Canada, product revenue is derived primarily from localized versions of QuickBooks and Quicken as well as consumer desktop tax return preparation software and professional tax preparation products.
Service revenue in Canada consists primarily of revenue from payroll services and QuickBooks support plans.
In the United Kingdom, product revenue is derived primarily from localized versions of QuickBooks and QuickBooks Payroll.
Our newest international offerings include QuickBooks Online in Singapore and Intuit Money Manager, a mobile personal financial management service, in India.
Fiscal 2011 Compared with Fiscal 2010 Other Businesses total net revenue increased $40 million or 15% in fiscal 2011 compared with fiscal 2010 due to strong performance in our Canadian and United Kingdom small business offerings and our fiscal 2010 acquisitions of Mint and Medfusion.
In addition, favorable currency impacts in our Canadian and United Kingdom businesses accounted for approximately three percentage points of Other Businesses revenue growth in fiscal 2011.
Other Businesses segment operating income as a percentage of related revenue decreased to 22% in fiscal 2011 from 25% in fiscal 2010.
Higher fiscal 2011 revenue as described above was offset by higher costs and expenses associated with our fiscal 2010 acquisitions of Mint and Medfusion and by our continued investment in emerging market opportunities.
Fiscal 2010 Compared with Fiscal 2009 Other Businesses total net revenue increased $47 million or 22% in fiscal 2010 compared with fiscal 2009.
Revenue increased in fiscal 2010 due to 23% higher Quicken revenue that was driven by higher unit sales and a favorable foreign currency impact in our Canadian business.
The weaker U. S.  dollar accounted for approximately seven percentage points of Other Businesses segment revenue growth in fiscal 2010 compared with fiscal 2009.
Other Businesses segment operating income as a percentage of related revenue decreased to 25% in fiscal 2010 from 29% in fiscal 2009.
Higher fiscal 2010 revenue as described above was offset by higher costs and expenses associated with our November 2009 acquisition of Mint and by our continued investment in emerging market opportunities.
Canadian costs and expenses were also higher in the 2010 periods due to the weaker U. S.  dollar.
Cost of Revenue
## Table 1 ##
Our cost of revenue has three components: (1) cost of product revenue, which includes the direct costs of manufacturing and shipping our desktop software products; (2) cost of service and other revenue, which reflects direct costs associated with providing services, including data center costs related to delivering online services; and (3) amortization of acquired technology, which represents the cost of amortizing developed technologies that we have obtained through acquisitions over their useful lives.
Fiscal 2011 Compared with Fiscal 2010 Cost of service and other revenue as a percentage of service and other revenue decreased slightly in fiscal 2011 compared with fiscal 2010 due to unit growth in TurboTax Online, which has relatively lower costs of revenue compared with our other service offerings.
Amortization of acquired technology decreased in fiscal 2011 compared with fiscal 2010 due to the completion of the amortization for certain Intuit Financial Services intangible assets that we acquired in fiscal 2007.
compared with $6.2 billion in 2013.
Operating profits in 2015 were significantly higher than in both 2014 and 2013.
Excluding facility closure costs, impairment costs and other special items, operating profits in 2015 were 3% lower than in 2014 and 4% higher than in 2013.
Benefits from lower input costs ($18 million), lower costs associated with the closure of our Courtland, Alabama mill ($44 million) and favorable foreign exchange ($33 million) were offset by lower average sales price realizations and mix ($52 million), lower sales volumes ($16 million), higher operating costs ($18 million) and higher planned maintenance downtime costs ($26 million).
In addition, operating profits in 2014 include special items costs of $554 million associated with the closure of our Courtland, Alabama mill.
During 2013, the Company accelerated depreciation for certain Courtland assets, and evaluated certain other assets for possible alternative uses by one of our other businesses.
The net book value of these assets at December 31, 2013 was approximately $470 million.
In the first quarter of 2014, we completed our evaluation and concluded that there were no alternative uses for these assets.
We recognized approximately $464 million of accelerated depreciation related to these assets in 2014.
Operating profits in 2014 also include a charge of $32 million associated with a foreign tax amnesty program, and a gain of $20 million for the resolution of a legal contingency in India, while operating profits in 2013 included costs of $118 million associated with the announced closure of our Courtland, Alabama mill and a $123 million impairment charge associated with goodwill and a trade name intangible asset in our India Papers business.
## Table 2 ##
North American Printing Papers net sales were $1.9 billion in 2015, $2.1 billion in 2014 and $2.6 billion in 2013.
Operating profits in 2015 were $179 million compared with a loss of $398 million (a gain of $156 million excluding costs associated with the shutdown of our Courtland, Alabama mill) in 2014 and a gain of $36 million ($154 million excluding costs associated with the Courtland mill shutdown) in 2013.
Sales volumes in 2015 decreased compared with 2014 primarily due to the closure of our Courtland mill in 2014.
Shipments to the domestic market increased, but export shipments declined.
Average sales price realizations decreased, primarily in the domestic market.
Input costs were lower, mainly for energy.
Planned maintenance downtime costs were $12 million higher in 2015.
Operating profits in 2014 were negatively impacted by costs associated with the shutdown of our Courtland, Alabama mill.
Entering the first quarter of 2016, sales volumes are expected to be up slightly compared with the fourth quarter of 2015.
Average sales margins should be about flat reflecting lower average sales price realizations offset by a more favorable product mix.
Input costs are expected to be stable.
Planned maintenance downtime costs are expected to be about $14 million lower with an outage scheduled in the 2016 first quarter at our Georgetown mill compared with outages at our Eastover and Riverdale mills in the 2015 fourth quarter.
In January 2015, the United Steelworkers, Domtar Corporation, Packaging Corporation of America, Finch Paper LLC and P.  H.  Glatfelter Company (the Petitioners) filed an anti-dumping petition before the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) and the United States Department of Commerce (DOC) alleging that paper producers in China, Indonesia, Australia, Brazil, and Portugal are selling uncoated free sheet paper in sheet form (the Products) in violation of international trade rules.
The Petitioners also filed a countervailing-duties petition with these agencies regarding imports of the Products from China and Indonesia.
In January 2016, the DOC announced its final countervailing duty rates on imports of the Products to the United States from certain producers from China and Indonesia.
Also, in January 2016, the DOC announced its final anti-dumping duty rates on imports of the Products to the United States from certain producers from Australia, Brazil, China, Indonesia and Portugal.
In February 2016, the ITC concluded its antidumping and countervailing duties investigations and made a final determination that the U. S.  market had been injured by imports of the Products.
Accordingly, the DOC’s previously announced countervailing duty rates and anti-dumping duty rates will be in effect for a minimum of five years.
We do not believe the impact of these rates will have a material, adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements.
Brazilian Papers net sales for 2015 were $878 million compared with $1.1 billion in 2014 and $1.1 billion in 2013.
Operating profits for 2015 were $186 million compared with $177 million ($209 million excluding costs associated with a tax amnesty program) in 2014 and $210 million in 2013.
Sales volumes in 2015 were lower compared with 2014 reflecting weak economic conditions and the absence of 2014 one-time events.
Average sales price realizations improved for domestic uncoated freesheet paper due to the realization of price increases implemented in the second half of 2015.
Margins were unfavorably affected by an increased proportion of sales to the lower-margin export markets.
Raw material costs increased for energy and wood.
Operating costs were higher than in 2014, while planned maintenance downtime costs were $4 million lower.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014 (currencies in millions) 81 The (income) expense recognized in earnings related to economic hedges was as follows:
## Table 3 ##
P.  FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS Fair value represents the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date.
Inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value are either observable or unobservable.
These inputs have been categorized into the fair value hierarchy described below.
Level 1 – Valuations are based on quoted prices that the Company has the ability to obtain in actively traded markets for identical assets or liabilities.
Since valuations are based on quoted prices that are readily and regularly available in an active market or exchange traded market, valuation of these instruments does not require a significant degree of judgment.
Level 2 – Valuations are based on quoted prices for similar instruments in active markets, quoted prices for identical or similar instruments in markets that are not active, and model-based valuation techniques for which all significant assumptions are observable in the market.
Level 3 – Valuations are based on model-based techniques for which some or all of the assumptions are obtained from indirect market information that is significant to the overall fair value measurement and which require a significant degree of management judgment.
There were no transfers of assets or liabilities between Level 1 and Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy during the year ended December 31, 2016.
The Company’s policy is to recognize transfers between levels at the end of the reporting period.
The Company uses the following methods and assumptions to measure fair value for assets and liabilities subject to recurring fair value measurements.
Marketable Securities: The Company’s marketable debt securities consist of municipal bonds, government obligations, investment-grade corporate obligations, commercial paper, asset-backed securities and term deposits.
The fair value of U. S.  government obligations is determined using the market approach and is based on quoted prices in active markets and are categorized as Level 1.
The fair value of U. S.  government agency obligations, non-U.
S.  government bonds, municipal bonds, corporate bonds, asset-backed securities, commercial paper and term deposits is determined using the market approach and is primarily based on matrix pricing as a practical expedient which does not rely exclusively on quoted prices for a specific security.
Significant inputs used to determine fair value include interest rates, yield curves, credit rating of the security and other observable market information and are categorized as Level 2.
Derivative Financial Instruments: The Company’s derivative contracts consist of interest-rate swaps, cross currency swaps and foreign currency exchange contracts.
These derivative contracts are traded over the counter and their fair value is determined using industry standard valuation models, which are based on the income approach (i. e. , discounted cash flows).
The significant observable inputs into the valuation models include interest rates, yield curves, currency exchange rates, credit default swap spreads and forward rates and are categorized as Level 2.

<table><tr><td> ($ in millions) </td><td> 2008</td><td> 2007</td><td> 2006</td></tr><tr><td>Allstate Protection</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Auto</td><td>$10,220</td><td>$10,175</td><td>$9,995</td></tr><tr><td>Homeowners</td><td>2,824</td><td>2,279</td><td>2,226</td></tr><tr><td>Other lines</td><td>2,207</td><td>2,131</td><td>2,235</td></tr><tr><td>Total Allstate Protection</td><td>15,251</td><td>14,585</td><td>14,456</td></tr><tr><td>Discontinued Lines and Coverages</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Asbestos</td><td>1,228</td><td>1,302</td><td>1,375</td></tr><tr><td>Environmental</td><td>195</td><td>232</td><td>194</td></tr><tr><td>Other discontinued lines</td><td>508</td><td>541</td><td>585</td></tr><tr><td>Total Discontinued Lines and Coverages</td><td>1,931</td><td>2,075</td><td>2,154</td></tr><tr><td>Total Property-Liability</td><td>$17,182</td><td>$16,660</td><td>$16,610</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>(Dollars in millions)</td><td>Fiscal2011</td><td>% ofRelatedRevenue</td><td>Fiscal2010</td><td>% ofRelatedRevenue</td><td>Fiscal2009</td><td>% ofRelatedRevenue</td></tr><tr><td>Cost of product revenue</td><td>$144</td><td>10%</td><td>$144</td><td>10%</td><td>$156</td><td>11%</td></tr><tr><td>Cost of service and other revenue</td><td>510</td><td>22%</td><td>460</td><td>23%</td><td>422</td><td>24%</td></tr><tr><td>Amortization of acquired technology</td><td>17</td><td>n/a</td><td>49</td><td>n/a</td><td>59</td><td>n/a</td></tr><tr><td>Total cost of revenue</td><td>$671</td><td>17%</td><td>$653</td><td>19%</td><td>$637</td><td>20%</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>In millions</td><td>2015</td><td>2014</td><td>2013</td></tr><tr><td>Sales</td><td>$5,031</td><td>$5,720</td><td>$6,205</td></tr><tr><td>Operating Profit (Loss)</td><td>533</td><td>-16</td><td>271</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td> <i>Year Ended December 31,</i> </td><td colspan="2">2016</td><td colspan="2">2015</td><td colspan="2">2014</td></tr><tr><td></td><td> INTEREST- RATE CONTRACTS</td><td>FOREIGN- EXCHANGE CONTRACTS</td><td>INTEREST- RATE CONTRACTS</td><td>FOREIGN- EXCHANGE CONTRACTS</td><td>INTEREST- RATE CONTRACTS</td><td>FOREIGN- EXCHANGE CONTRACTS</td></tr><tr><td>Truck, Parts and Other:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Net sales and revenues</td><td></td><td>$-.4</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cost of sales and revenues</td><td></td><td>.4</td><td></td><td>$-.7</td><td></td><td>$-5.3</td></tr><tr><td>Interest and other expense, net</td><td></td><td>14.9</td><td></td><td>3.0</td><td></td><td>3.8</td></tr><tr><td>Financial Services:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Interest and other borrowing expenses</td><td>$.1</td><td>-28.4</td><td></td><td>-7.6</td><td></td><td>4.2</td></tr><tr><td>Selling, general and administrative</td><td></td><td>1.8</td><td></td><td>-2.3</td><td></td><td>5.2</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>$.1</td><td>$-11.7</td><td></td><td>$-7.6</td><td></td><td>$7.9</td></tr></table>

Question: Which year is Interest and other expense, net in terms of Truck, Parts and Other for FOREIGN- EXCHANGE CONTRACTS the most?