{"pre_text": ["american tower corporation and subsidiaries notes to consolidated financial statements mexico litigation 2014one of the company 2019s subsidiaries , spectrasite communications , inc .", "( 201csci 201d ) , is involved in a lawsuit brought in mexico against a former mexican subsidiary of sci ( the subsidiary of sci was sold in 2002 , prior to the company 2019s merger with sci 2019s parent in 2005 ) .", "the lawsuit concerns a terminated tower construction contract and related agreements with a wireless carrier in mexico .", "the primary issue for the company is whether sci itself can be found liable to the mexican carrier .", "the trial and lower appellate courts initially found that sci had no such liability in part because mexican courts do not have the necessary jurisdiction over sci .", "following several decisions by mexican appellate courts , including the supreme court of mexico , and related appeals by both parties , an intermediate appellate court issued a new decision that would , if enforceable , reimpose liability on sci in september 2010 .", "in its decision , the intermediate appellate court identified potential damages of approximately $ 6.7 million , and on october 14 , 2010 , the company filed a new constitutional appeal to again dispute the decision .", "as a result , at this stage of the proceeding , the company is unable to determine whether the liability imposed on sci by the september 2010 decision will survive or to estimate its share , if any , of that potential liability if the decision survives the pending appeal .", "xcel litigation 2014on june 3 , 2010 , horse-shoe capital ( 201chorse-shoe 201d ) , a company formed under the laws of the republic of mauritius , filed a complaint in the supreme court of the state of new york , new york county , with respect to horse-shoe 2019s sale of xcel to american tower mauritius ( 201catmauritius 201d ) , the company 2019s wholly-owned subsidiary formed under the laws of the republic of mauritius .", "the complaint names atmauritius , ati and the company as defendants , and the dispute concerns the timing and amount of distributions to be made by atmauritius to horse-shoe from a $ 7.5 million holdback escrow account and a $ 15.7 million tax escrow account , each established by the transaction agreements at closing .", "the complaint seeks release of the entire holdback escrow account , plus an additional $ 2.8 million , as well as the release of approximately $ 12.0 million of the tax escrow account .", "the complaint also seeks punitive damages in excess of $ 69.0 million .", "the company filed an answer to the complaint in august 2010 , disputing both the amounts alleged to be owed under the escrow agreements as well as the timing of the escrow distributions .", "the company also asserted in its answer that the demand for punitive damages is meritless .", "the parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment concerning the release of the tax escrow account and in january 2011 the court granted the company 2019s motion for summary judgment , finding no obligation for the company to release the disputed portion of the tax escrow until 2013 .", "other claims are pending .", "the company is vigorously defending the lawsuit .", "lease obligations 2014the company leases certain land , office and tower space under operating leases that expire over various terms .", "many of the leases contain renewal options with specified increases in lease payments upon exercise of the renewal option .", "escalation clauses present in operating leases , excluding those tied to cpi or other inflation-based indices , are recognized on a straight-line basis over the non-cancellable term of the lease .", "future minimum rental payments under non-cancellable operating leases include payments for certain renewal periods at the company 2019s option because failure to renew could result in a loss of the applicable tower site and related revenues from tenant leases , thereby making it reasonably assured that the company will renew the lease .", "such payments in effect at december 31 , 2010 are as follows ( in thousands ) : year ending december 31 ."], "post_text": ["."], "table": [["2011", "$ 257971"], ["2012", "254575"], ["2013", "251268"], ["2014", "246392"], ["2015", "238035"], ["thereafter", "2584332"], ["total", "$ 3832573"]], "table_ori": [["2011", "$257,971"], ["2012", "254,575"], ["2013", "251,268"], ["2014", "246,392"], ["2015", "238,035"], ["Thereafter", "2,584,332"], ["Total", "$3,832,573"]]}

Question: what was the percent of the total future minimum rental payments under non-cancellable that was due in 2015
Evidence:
table_4: 2011 the 2015 of $ 257971 is 238035 ;
table_6: 2011 the total of $ 257971 is $ 3832573 ;
Program: divide(238035, 3832573)
Answer:
str_answer: 6.2%
exe_answer: 0.06211