Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2016
Notes to Financial Statements
Contingencies	NOTE 10 – CONTINGENCIES The Company, by virtue of the nature of the business conducted by it, becomes involved in numerous legal proceedings as either plaintiff or defendant. From time to time, the Company is required to resort to legal proceedings against vendors providing services to the Company or against customers or their agents to enforce collection of premiums, commissions, or fees. These routine items of litigation do not materially affect the Company and are handled on a routine basis by the Company through its counsel. The Company establishes reserves for lawsuits, regulatory actions, and other contingencies for which the Company is able to estimate its potential exposure and believes a loss is probable. For loss contingencies believed to be reasonably possible, the Company discloses the nature of the loss contingency, an estimate of the possible loss, a range of loss, or a statement that such an estimate cannot be made. Likewise, the Company is sometimes named as a cross-defendant in litigation, which is principally directed against an insured who was issued a policy of insurance directly or indirectly through the Company. Incidental actions related to disputes concerning the issuance or non-issuance of individual policies are sometimes brought by customers or others. These items are also handled on a routine basis by counsel, and they do not generally affect the operations of the Company. Management is confident that the ultimate outcome of pending litigation should not have an adverse effect on the Company's consolidated results of operations or financial position. The Company vigorously defends itself unless a reasonable settlement appears appropriate. In December 2015, a judgment was finalized on a Crusader policy liability claim. Crusader is appealing the judgment. As a part of the appeal, Crusader deposited $7,924,178 in cash in lieu of an appeal bond with the Los Angeles Superior Court on December 28, 2015. This cash deposit was required to appeal the judgment. In March 2016, an additional judgment for plaintiff’s attorney fees and costs on this Crusader policy liability claim was finalized. The Company is also appealing this additional judgment. That additional appeal required an additional cash deposit in lieu of an appeal bond of $5,449,615. The additional cash deposit was made on March 21, 2016. These cash deposits for the appeals represent 150% of the judgments. The cash deposits in lieu of an appeal bond of $13,373,793 and $7,924,178 were included in “Other assets” in the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of June 30, 2016, and December 31, 2015, respectively. Management believes the ultimate outcome of this litigation will be covered by Crusader’s reinsurance, subject to retention and participation. Since this litigation was related to a Crusader claim in its normal course of business, management’s best estimate for ultimate liability related to this litigation was included in Crusader’s IBNR as of June 30, 2016, and December 31, 2015. One of the Company’s agents, which was appointed in 2008 to assist the Company in implementing its Trucking Program, failed to pay the net premium and policy fees due Unifax, the exclusive general agent for Crusader. The agent was initially late in paying its February 2009 production that was due to Unifax on April 15, 2009. In May 2009, as a result of the agent’s failure to timely pay its balance due to Unifax, the Company terminated its agency agreement and assumed ownership and control of that agent’s policy expirations written with the Company. The Company subsequently commenced legal proceedings against the agent corporation, its three principals (who personally guaranteed the agent’s obligations) and another individual for the recovery of the balance due and any related recovery costs incurred. All related recovery costs have been expensed as incurred. The agent corporation and two of its principals filed bankruptcy. The corporation was adjudicated bankrupt. The Company obtained judgments, non-dischargeable in bankruptcy, for the full amount due from the two principals who filed bankruptcy. The other principal stipulated to a judgment of $1,200,000. The other individual paid the Company to settle the claim against him. The Company collected $0 during the three and six months ended June 30, 2016 and 2015. As of June 30, 2016, and December 31, 2015, the agent’s balance due to Unifax was $1,181,272. As of June 30, 2016, and December 31, 2015, the Company’s bad debt reserve associated with this matter was $1,181,272, which represents 100% of the balance due to Unifax. Although the receivable is fully reserved for financial reporting purposes at June 30, 2016, the Company continues to pursue collection of the judgments from the three principals. On October 9, 2015, the Company filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Central District against a software vendor, Insurance Systems, Inc. (“ISI”). The lawsuit sought an unspecified amount in monetary damages plus punitive damages against ISI. Causes of action stated in the lawsuit included fraudulent inducement and intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, violation of business and professional code, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of implied warranty of fitness, breach of contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealings. Subsequently, the lawsuit was removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California and all causes of action have been disallowed by the court except for breach of contract. On May 16, 2016, ISI filed a countersuit against the Company for $1,792,398 for unpaid invoices plus damages for alleged breach of the contract related to implementation of the ISI computer software by the Company. The Company is vigorously defending the countersuit and believes it to be without merit. The Company has asserted various affirmative defenses in opposition to the ISI countersuit including defenses of fraud in inducement, fraudulent concealment, and negligent misrepresentation.

Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2016

NOTE 10 – CONTINGENCIES

The Company, by virtue of the nature of the business conducted by it, becomes involved in numerous legal proceedings as either plaintiff or defendant. From time to time, the Company is required to resort to legal proceedings against vendors providing services to the Company or against customers or their agents to enforce collection of premiums, commissions, or fees. These routine items of litigation do not materially affect the Company and are handled on a routine basis by the Company through its counsel.

The Company establishes reserves for lawsuits, regulatory actions, and other contingencies for which the Company is able to estimate its potential exposure and believes a loss is probable. For loss contingencies believed to be reasonably possible, the Company discloses the nature of the loss contingency, an estimate of the possible loss, a range of loss, or a statement that such an estimate cannot be made.

Likewise, the Company is sometimes named as a cross-defendant in litigation, which is principally directed against an insured who was issued a policy of insurance directly or indirectly through the Company. Incidental actions related to disputes concerning the issuance or non-issuance of individual policies are sometimes brought by customers or others. These items are also handled on a routine basis by counsel, and they do not generally affect the operations of the Company. Management is confident that the ultimate outcome of pending litigation should not have an adverse effect on the Company's consolidated results of operations or financial position. The Company vigorously defends itself unless a reasonable settlement appears appropriate.

In December 2015, a judgment was finalized on a Crusader policy liability claim. Crusader is appealing the judgment. As a part of the appeal, Crusader deposited $7,924,178 in cash in lieu of an appeal bond with the Los Angeles Superior Court on December 28, 2015. This cash deposit was required to appeal the judgment. In March 2016, an additional judgment for plaintiff’s attorney fees and costs on this Crusader policy liability claim was finalized. The Company is also appealing this additional judgment. That additional appeal required an additional cash deposit in lieu of an appeal bond of $5,449,615. The additional cash deposit was made on March 21, 2016. These cash deposits for the appeals represent 150% of the judgments. The cash deposits in lieu of an appeal bond of $13,373,793 and $7,924,178 were included in “Other assets” in the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of June 30, 2016, and December 31, 2015, respectively. Management believes the ultimate outcome of this litigation will be covered by Crusader’s reinsurance, subject to retention and participation. Since this litigation was related to a Crusader claim in its normal course of business, management’s best estimate for ultimate liability related to this litigation was included in Crusader’s IBNR as of June 30, 2016, and December 31, 2015.

One of the Company’s agents, which was appointed in 2008 to assist the Company in implementing its Trucking Program, failed to pay the net premium and policy fees due Unifax, the exclusive general agent for Crusader. The agent was initially late in paying its February 2009 production that was due to Unifax on April 15, 2009. In May 2009, as a result of the agent’s failure to timely pay its balance due to Unifax, the Company terminated its agency agreement and assumed ownership and control of that agent’s policy expirations written with the Company. The Company subsequently commenced legal proceedings against the agent corporation, its three principals (who personally guaranteed the agent’s obligations) and another individual for the recovery of the balance due and any related recovery costs incurred. All related recovery costs have been expensed as incurred. The agent corporation and two of its principals filed bankruptcy. The corporation was adjudicated bankrupt. The Company obtained judgments, non-dischargeable in bankruptcy, for the full amount due from the two principals who filed bankruptcy. The other principal stipulated to a judgment of $1,200,000. The other individual paid the Company to settle the claim against him. The Company collected $0 during the three and six months ended June 30, 2016 and 2015. As of June 30, 2016, and December 31, 2015, the agent’s balance due to Unifax was $1,181,272. As of June 30, 2016, and December 31, 2015, the Company’s bad debt reserve associated with this matter was $1,181,272, which represents 100% of the balance due to Unifax. Although the receivable is fully reserved for financial reporting purposes at June 30, 2016, the Company continues to pursue collection of the judgments from the three principals.

On October 9, 2015, the Company filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Central District against a software vendor, Insurance Systems, Inc. (“ISI”). The lawsuit sought an unspecified amount in monetary damages plus punitive damages against ISI. Causes of action stated in the lawsuit included fraudulent inducement and intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, violation of business and professional code, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of implied warranty of fitness, breach of contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealings. Subsequently, the lawsuit was removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California and all causes of action have been disallowed by the court except for breach of contract. On May 16, 2016, ISI filed a countersuit against the Company for $1,792,398 for unpaid invoices plus damages for alleged breach of the contract related to implementation of the ISI computer software by the Company. The Company is vigorously defending the countersuit and believes it to be without merit. The Company has asserted various affirmative defenses in opposition to the ISI countersuit including defenses of fraud in inducement, fraudulent concealment, and negligent misrepresentation.