COMMITMENT AND CONTINGENCIES	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2022
COMMITMENT AND CONTINGENCIES
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 10 – COMMITMENTS AND 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. Crusader is also subject to regulatory and governmental examinations, requests for information, inquiries, investigations, and threatened legal actions and proceedings by state regulators and others. Crusader receives numerous requests, orders for documents, and information in connection with various aspects of its regulated activities. Regulatory and governmental requests for information, inquiries, certain examinations and investigations are routinely handled by Crusader. Crusader may involve outside counsel in regulatory matters depending on the nature of the matter. 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 Crusader. 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. Crusader has received a number of coronavirus-related business interruption claims. With the exception of one claim for which the investigation is still ongoing, all such claims were denied after the individual circumstances of each claim were reviewed to determine whether insurance coverage applied. Like many companies in the property casualty insurance industry, Crusader was named as defendant in lawsuits seeking insurance coverage under the policies issued by Crusader for alleged economic losses resulting from the shutdown or suspension of their businesses due to COVID-19. Although the allegations vary, the plaintiffs generally seek a declaration of insurance coverage, damages for breach of contract in unspecified amounts for claim denials, interest and attorney fees. Some of the lawsuits also allege that the insurance claims were denied in bad faith or otherwise in violation of state laws and seek extra-contractual or punitive damages. Crusader denies the allegations in these lawsuits and intends to continue to vigorously defend them. Although the policy terms vary in general, the claims at issue in these lawsuits were denied because the policyholder identified had no direct physical loss, such as fire or water damage, to property at the insured premises, and the governmental orders that led to the complete or partial shutdown of the business were not due to the existence of any direct physical loss or damage to property in the immediate vicinity of the insured premises and did not prohibit access to the insured premises, as required by the terms of the insurance policies. Depending on the individual policy, additional policy terms and conditions may also prohibit coverage, such as exclusions for pollutants, ordinance or law, loss of use, and acts or decisions. Most of Crusader’s policies also contain an exclusion for losses caused directly or indirectly by “virus or bacteria.” In addition to the inherent difficulty in predicting litigation outcomes, COVID-19 business income coverage lawsuits present a number of uncertainties and contingencies that are not yet known, including how many policyholders will ultimately file claims, the number of lawsuits that will be filed, the extent to which any class may be certified, and the size and scope of any such classes. The legal theories advanced by plaintiffs vary by case. These lawsuits are in the early stages of litigation; many complaints continue to be amended; several have been dismissed voluntarily and may be refiled; and others have been dismissed by trial courts. Some early decisions on motion filings have been appealed. On March 23, 2021, ten policyholders sued Crusader in a putative class action entitled Anchors & Whales LLC et al. v. Crusader Insurance Company, Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco (CGC-21-590999). The action alleged that Crusader wrongly denied claims for business interruption coverage made by bars and restaurants related to COVID-19 and related government orders that limited or halted operations of bars and restaurants. The action further alleged that Crusader acted unreasonably in denying the claims, and it sought as damages the amounts allegedly due as contract benefits under the insurance policies, attorneys’ fees and costs, punitive damages, and other unspecified damages. The lawsuit alleged a putative class of all bars and restaurants in California that were insured by Crusader for loss of business income, who made such a claim as a result of “one or more Governmental Orders and the presence of the COVID-19 virus on the property,” and whose claim was denied by Crusader. On October 1, 2021, Crusader was granted its motions on the pleadings without leave to amend and the lawsuit was dismissed. On December 15, 2021, Anchors & Whales LLC filed a notice of appeal with California Court of Appeals, 1^st Appellate District, Division 2 (A164412). The opening brief of Anchors & Whales LLC was filed August 12, 2022, and the Company has 90 days to respond. The Company cannot predict the actions of the Court of Appeals. Crusader has received seven claims related to civil unrest through August 20 2022. One claim remains open for potential subrogation. The losses and loss adjustment expenses associated with this claim will not exceed Crusader’s $500,000 excess of loss reinsurance treaty retention. On May 9, 2022, Donald Esparza filed an action in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, against the Company, Michael Budnitsky and Steven L. Shea (22VECV00627) relating to the termination of the employment of Mr. Esparza by the Company. The action was entitled Donald Esparza v. Unico American Corporation, Michael Budnitsky and Stephen Shea ( The action alleges that the Company (i) failed to timely pay wages upon termination of employment in violation of the California Labor Code (ii) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements in violation of the California Labor Code (iii) violated the California unfair competition law by the forgoing alleged violations of the California Labor Code; and (iv) failure to provide the personnel file of Mr. Esparza after written demand in violation of the California Labor Code. The action seeks general and statutory damages, including without limitation lost wages, back pay, front pay, and lost earning capacity; special damages, statutory penalties and other relief, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. The employment of Mr. Esparza, a former officer, director and employee of Crusader, was terminated in connection with a reduction in force of employees in connection with the runoff of Crusader. Defendant Budnitsky is a former officer of the Company and Crusader. Defendant Shea is the current Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Crusader. The Company and Mr. Esparza settled all claims in a confidential settlement releasing the Company of any further claims. As a property and casualty insurance company, Crusader is subject to Risk Based Capital (“RBC”) requirements. RBC is a method developed by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (“NAIC”) and adopted in the CIC to determine the minimum amount of statutory capital appropriate for an insurance company to support its overall business operations in consideration of its size and risk profile. The RBC requirements require Crusader to report the results of RBC calculations to the CA DOI, as its domiciliary insurance regulator, and the NAIC. If Crusader fails to meet certain standards related to its RBC Authorized Control Level and its RBC total adjusted capital standards and requirements, the CA DOI may require specified actions to be taken, which could have a material and adverse impact on the Company’s competitiveness, operational flexibility, and operations. Crusader’s adjusted capital at December 31, 2021 and 2020, was 214% and 278%, respectively, of the authorized control level RBC, which is less than the required 300%. As of December 31, 2021, and December 31, 2020, Crusader’s RBC Level was less than 300% of its Authorized Control Level RBC, and its statutory accounting basis combined ratio was in excess of 120% for the years then ended. The RBC Level when coupled with the statutory accounting basis combined ratio triggered Company Action Level Events under the RBC for the years then ended. On March 24, 2021, Crusader submitted to the CA DOI a comprehensive Risk Based Capital Plan (the "RBC Plan") to increase the adjusted capital above 300% and to address the actions that Crusader would take to correct the conditions that resulted in the Company Action Level Event. The CA DOI found the RBC Plan to be deficient and requested that a revised RBC Plan be submitted. On July 2, 2021, the Company submitted a revised RBC Plan, which addressed issues raised by the CA DOI (the “2021 Revised RBC Plan”). No action was taken by the CA DOI regarding the 2021 Revised RBC Plan. As of December 31, 2021, a second Company Action Event occurred. At December 31, 2021, Crusader’s RBC Level was less than 300%, with a combined ratio greater than 130%, which resulted in another Company Action Level event (the “2022 Company Action Level Event”). As a result of the 2022 Company Action Level Event, Crusader was required to submit another comprehensive Risk Based Capital Plan (“2022 RBC Plan”) to the CA DOI. Crusader submitted its 2022 RBC Plan on May 15, 2022. On June 9, 2022, the CA DOI requested additional information regarding the 2022 RBC Plan, which information is to be submitted by August 24, 2022. The CA DOI may accept Crusader’s revised 2022 RBC Plan to correct the conditions that lead to the 2022 Company Action Event, or it may request that an additional revised plan be submitted, or it may take no action with respect to the 2022 RBC Plan. After the Plans are submitted, the CA DOI may request additional changes to the revised RBC Plan to address various corrective actions that Crusader and/or the Company will take. Depending on the scope and nature of any such requests from the CA DOI, regarding the 2022 RBC Plan the Company and Crusader may not be able to implement certain corrective actions. The Company continues to be engaged in discussions with the CA DOI on various strategic alternatives to address the RBC issues.

COMMITMENT AND CONTINGENCIES

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2022

NOTE 10 – COMMITMENTS AND 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.

Crusader is also subject to regulatory and governmental examinations, requests for information, inquiries, investigations, and threatened legal actions and proceedings by state regulators and others. Crusader receives numerous requests, orders for documents, and information in connection with various aspects of its regulated activities. Regulatory and governmental requests for information, inquiries, certain examinations and investigations are routinely handled by Crusader. Crusader may involve outside counsel in regulatory matters depending on the nature of the matter.

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 Crusader. 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.

Crusader has received a number of coronavirus-related business interruption claims. With the exception of one claim for which the investigation is still ongoing, all such claims were denied after the individual circumstances of each claim were reviewed to determine whether insurance coverage applied. Like many companies in the property casualty insurance industry, Crusader was named as defendant in lawsuits seeking insurance coverage under the policies issued by Crusader for alleged economic losses resulting from the shutdown or suspension of their businesses due to COVID-19. Although the allegations vary, the plaintiffs generally seek a declaration of insurance coverage, damages for breach of contract in unspecified amounts for claim denials, interest and attorney fees. Some of the lawsuits also allege that the insurance claims were denied in bad faith or otherwise in violation of state laws and seek extra-contractual or punitive damages.

Crusader denies the allegations in these lawsuits and intends to continue to vigorously defend them. Although the policy terms vary in general, the claims at issue in these lawsuits were denied because the policyholder identified had no direct physical loss, such as fire or water damage, to property at the insured premises, and the governmental orders that led to the complete or partial shutdown of the business were not due to the existence of any direct physical loss or damage to property in the immediate vicinity of the insured premises and did not prohibit access to the insured premises, as required by the terms of the insurance policies. Depending on the individual policy, additional policy terms and conditions may also prohibit coverage, such as exclusions for pollutants, ordinance or law, loss of use, and acts or decisions. Most of Crusader’s policies also contain an exclusion for losses caused directly or indirectly by “virus or bacteria.”

In addition to the inherent difficulty in predicting litigation outcomes, COVID-19 business income coverage lawsuits present a number of uncertainties and contingencies that are not yet known, including how many policyholders will ultimately file claims, the number of lawsuits that will be filed, the extent to which any class may be certified, and the size and scope of any such classes. The legal theories advanced by plaintiffs vary by case. These lawsuits are in the early stages of litigation; many complaints continue to be amended; several have been dismissed voluntarily and may be refiled; and others have been dismissed by trial courts. Some early decisions on motion filings have been appealed.

On March 23, 2021, ten policyholders sued Crusader in a putative class action entitled Anchors & Whales LLC et al. v. Crusader Insurance Company, Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco (CGC-21-590999). The action alleged that Crusader wrongly denied claims for business interruption coverage made by bars and restaurants related to COVID-19 and related government orders that limited or halted operations of bars and restaurants. The action further alleged that Crusader acted unreasonably in denying the claims, and it sought as damages the amounts allegedly due as contract benefits under the insurance policies, attorneys’ fees and costs, punitive damages, and other unspecified damages. The lawsuit alleged a putative class of all bars and restaurants in California that were insured by Crusader for loss of business income, who made such a claim as a result of “one or more Governmental Orders and the presence of the COVID-19 virus on the property,” and whose claim was denied by Crusader. On October 1, 2021, Crusader was granted its motions on the pleadings without leave to amend and the lawsuit was dismissed. On December 15, 2021, Anchors & Whales LLC filed a notice of appeal with California Court of Appeals, 1^st Appellate District, Division 2 (A164412). The opening brief of Anchors & Whales LLC was filed August 12, 2022, and the Company has 90 days to respond. The Company cannot predict the actions of the Court of Appeals.

Crusader has received seven claims related to civil unrest through August 20 2022. One claim remains open for potential subrogation. The losses and loss adjustment expenses associated with this claim will not exceed Crusader’s $500,000 excess of loss reinsurance treaty retention.

On May 9, 2022, Donald Esparza filed an action in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, against the Company, Michael Budnitsky and Steven L. Shea (22VECV00627) relating to the termination of the employment of Mr. Esparza by the Company. The action was entitled Donald Esparza v. Unico American Corporation, Michael Budnitsky and Stephen Shea ( The action alleges that the Company (i) failed to timely pay wages upon termination of employment in violation of the California Labor Code (ii) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements in violation of the California Labor Code (iii) violated the California unfair competition law by the forgoing alleged violations of the California Labor Code; and (iv) failure to provide the personnel file of Mr. Esparza after written demand in violation of the California Labor Code. The action seeks general and statutory damages, including without limitation lost wages, back pay, front pay, and lost earning capacity; special damages, statutory penalties and other relief, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. The employment of Mr. Esparza, a former officer, director and employee of Crusader, was terminated in connection with a reduction in force of employees in connection with the runoff of Crusader. Defendant Budnitsky is a former officer of the Company and Crusader. Defendant Shea is the current Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Crusader. The Company and Mr. Esparza settled all claims in a confidential settlement releasing the Company of any further claims.

As a property and casualty insurance company, Crusader is subject to Risk Based Capital (“RBC”) requirements. RBC is a method developed by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (“NAIC”) and adopted in the CIC to determine the minimum amount of statutory capital appropriate for an insurance company to support its overall business operations in consideration of its size and risk profile. The RBC requirements require Crusader to report the results of RBC calculations to the CA DOI, as its domiciliary insurance regulator, and the NAIC. If Crusader fails to meet certain standards related to its RBC Authorized Control Level and its RBC total adjusted capital standards and requirements, the CA DOI may require specified actions to be taken, which could have a material and adverse impact on the Company’s competitiveness, operational flexibility, and operations. Crusader’s adjusted capital at December 31, 2021 and 2020, was 214% and 278%, respectively, of the authorized control level RBC, which is less than the required 300%.

As of December 31, 2021, and December 31, 2020, Crusader’s RBC Level was less than 300% of its Authorized Control Level RBC, and its statutory accounting basis combined ratio was in excess of 120% for the years then ended. The RBC Level when coupled with the statutory accounting basis combined ratio triggered Company Action Level Events under the RBC for the years then ended. On March 24, 2021, Crusader submitted to the CA DOI a comprehensive Risk Based Capital Plan (the "RBC Plan") to increase the adjusted capital above 300% and to address the actions that Crusader would take to correct the conditions that resulted in the Company Action Level Event. The CA DOI found the RBC Plan to be deficient and requested that a revised RBC Plan be submitted. On July 2, 2021, the Company submitted a revised RBC Plan, which addressed issues raised by the CA DOI (the “2021 Revised RBC Plan”). No action was taken by the CA DOI regarding the 2021 Revised RBC Plan. As of December 31, 2021, a second Company Action Event occurred. At December 31, 2021, Crusader’s RBC Level was less than 300%, with a combined ratio greater than 130%, which resulted in another Company Action Level event (the “2022 Company Action Level Event”). As a result of the 2022 Company Action Level Event, Crusader was required to submit another comprehensive Risk Based Capital Plan (“2022 RBC Plan”) to the CA DOI. Crusader submitted its 2022 RBC Plan on May 15, 2022. On June 9, 2022, the CA DOI requested additional information regarding the 2022 RBC Plan, which information is to be submitted by August 24, 2022. The CA DOI may accept Crusader’s revised 2022 RBC Plan to correct the conditions that lead to the 2022 Company Action Event, or it may request that an additional revised plan be submitted, or it may take no action with respect to the 2022 RBC Plan. After the Plans are submitted, the CA DOI may request additional changes to the revised RBC Plan to address various corrective actions that Crusader and/or the Company will take. Depending on the scope and nature of any such requests from the CA DOI, regarding the 2022 RBC Plan the Company and Crusader may not be able to implement certain corrective actions. The Company continues to be engaged in discussions with the CA DOI on various strategic alternatives to address the RBC issues.