Contingencies, Commitments and Guarantees	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies, Commitments and Guarantees	14. Contingencies, Commitments and Guarantees Contingencies Litigation The Company is a defendant in a large number of litigation matters. In some of the matters, very large and/or indeterminate amounts, including punitive and treble damages, are sought. Modern pleading practice in the U.S. permits considerable variation in the assertion of monetary damages or other relief. Jurisdictions may permit claimants not to specify the monetary damages sought or may permit claimants to state only that the amount sought is sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the trial court. In addition, jurisdictions may permit plaintiffs to allege monetary damages in amounts well exceeding reasonably possible verdicts in the jurisdiction for similar matters. This variability in pleadings, together with the actual experience of the Company in litigating or resolving through settlement numerous claims over an extended period of time, demonstrates to management that the monetary relief which may be specified in a lawsuit or claim bears little relevance to its merits or disposition value. Due to the vagaries of litigation, the outcome of a litigation matter and the amount or range of potential loss at particular points in time may normally be difficult to ascertain. Uncertainties can include how fact finders will evaluate documentary evidence and the credibility and effectiveness of witness testimony, and how trial and appellate courts will apply the law in the context of the pleadings or evidence presented, whether by motion practice, or at trial or on appeal. Disposition valuations are also subject to the uncertainty of how opposing parties and their counsel will themselves view the relevant evidence and applicable law. The Company establishes liabilities for litigation and regulatory loss contingencies when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Liabilities have been established for a number of the matters noted below. It is possible that some of the matters could require the Company to pay damages or make other expenditures or establish accruals in amounts that could not be estimated at September 30, 2014. While the potential future charges could be material in the particular quarterly or annual periods in which they are recorded, based on information currently known to management, management does not believe any such charges are likely to have a material effect on the Company’s financial position. Matters as to Which an Estimate Can Be Made For some of the matters disclosed below, the Company is able to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss. For such matters where a loss is believed to be reasonably possible, but not probable, no accrual has been made. As of September 30, 2014, the Company estimates the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses in excess of amounts accrued for these matters to be $0 to $390 million. Matters as to Which an Estimate Cannot Be Made For other matters disclosed below, the Company is not currently able to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss. The Company is often unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss until developments in such matters have provided sufficient information to support an assessment of the range of possible loss, such as quantification of a damage demand from plaintiffs, discovery from other parties and investigation of factual allegations, rulings by the court on motions or appeals, analysis by experts, and the progress of settlement negotiations. On a quarterly and annual basis, the Company reviews relevant information with respect to litigation contingencies and updates its accruals, disclosures and estimates of reasonably possible losses or ranges of loss based on such reviews. Asbestos-Related Claims MLIC is and has been a defendant in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts. These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages. MLIC has never engaged in the business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products nor has MLIC issued liability or workers’ compensation insurance to companies in the business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products. The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with respect to certain research, publication and other activities of one or more of MLIC’s employees during the period from the 1920’s through approximately the 1950’s and allege that MLIC learned or should have learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among other things, improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health risks. MLIC believes that it should not have legal liability in these cases. The outcome of most asbestos litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can be impacted by numerous variables, including differences in legal rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims asserted against MLIC. MLIC employs a number of resolution strategies to manage its asbestos loss exposure, including seeking resolution of pending litigation by judicial rulings and settling individual or groups of claims or lawsuits under appropriate circumstances. Claims asserted against MLIC have included negligence, intentional tort and conspiracy concerning the health risks associated with asbestos. MLIC’s defenses (beyond denial of certain factual allegations) include that: (i) MLIC owed no duty to the plaintiffs— it had no special relationship with the plaintiffs and did not manufacture, produce, distribute or sell the asbestos products that allegedly injured plaintiffs; (ii) plaintiffs did not rely on any actions of MLIC; (iii) MLIC’s conduct was not the cause of the plaintiffs’ injuries; (iv) plaintiffs’ exposure occurred after the dangers of asbestos were known; and (v) the applicable time with respect to filing suit has expired. During the course of the litigation, certain trial courts have granted motions dismissing claims against MLIC, while other trial courts have denied MLIC’s motions. There can be no assurance that MLIC will receive favorable decisions on motions in the future. While most cases brought to date have settled, MLIC intends to continue to defend aggressively against claims based on asbestos exposure, including defending claims at trials. As reported in the 2013 Annual Report, MLIC received approximately 5,898 asbestos-related claims in 2013. During the nine months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013, MLIC received approximately 3,641 and 4,256 new asbestos-related claims, respectively. See Note 21 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in the 2013 Annual Report for historical information concerning asbestos claims and MLIC’s increase in its recorded liability at December 31, 2013. The number of asbestos cases that may be brought, the aggregate amount of any liability that MLIC may incur, and the total amount paid in settlements in any given year are uncertain and may vary significantly from year to year. The ability of MLIC to estimate its ultimate asbestos exposure is subject to considerable uncertainty, and the conditions impacting its liability can be dynamic and subject to change. The availability of reliable data is limited and it is difficult to predict the numerous variables that can affect liability estimates, including the number of future claims, the cost to resolve claims, the disease mix and severity of disease in pending and future claims, the impact of the number of new claims filed in a particular jurisdiction and variations in the law in the jurisdictions in which claims are filed, the possible impact of tort reform efforts, the willingness of courts to allow plaintiffs to pursue claims against MLIC when exposure to asbestos took place after the dangers of asbestos exposure were well known, and the impact of any possible future adverse verdicts and their amounts. The ability to make estimates regarding ultimate asbestos exposure declines significantly as the estimates relate to years further in the future. In the Company’s judgment, there is a future point after which losses cease to be probable and reasonably estimable. It is reasonably possible that the Company’s total exposure to asbestos claims may be materially greater than the asbestos liability currently accrued and that future charges to income may be necessary. While the potential future charges could be material in the particular quarterly or annual periods in which they are recorded, based on information currently known by management, management does not believe any such charges are likely to have a material effect on the Company’s financial position. The Company believes adequate provision has been made in its consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably estimable losses for asbestos-related claims. MLIC’s recorded asbestos liability is based on its estimation of the following elements, as informed by the facts presently known to it, its understanding of current law and its past experiences: (i) the probable and reasonably estimable liability for asbestos claims already asserted against MLIC, including claims settled but not yet paid; (ii) the probable and reasonably estimable liability for asbestos claims not yet asserted against MLIC, but which MLIC believes are reasonably probable of assertion; and (iii) the legal defense costs associated with the foregoing claims. Significant assumptions underlying MLIC’s analysis of the adequacy of its recorded liability with respect to asbestos litigation include: (i) the number of future claims; (ii) the cost to resolve claims; and (iii) the cost to defend claims. MLIC reevaluates on a quarterly and annual basis its exposure from asbestos litigation, including studying its claims experience, reviewing external literature regarding asbestos claims experience in the United States, assessing relevant trends impacting asbestos liability and considering numerous variables that can affect its asbestos liability exposure on an overall or per claim basis. These variables include bankruptcies of other companies involved in asbestos litigation, legislative and judicial developments, the number of pending claims involving serious disease, the number of new claims filed against it and other defendants and the jurisdictions in which claims are pending. Based upon its reevaluation of its exposure from asbestos litigation, MLIC has updated its liability analysis for asbestos-related claims through September 30, 2014. Regulatory Matters The Company receives and responds to subpoenas or other inquiries from regulators in the United States, including state insurance commissioners; state attorneys general or other state governmental authorities; federal regulators, including the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”); federal governmental authorities, including congressional committees; the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), as well as from local and national regulators and government authorities in countries outside the United States where MetLife conducts business, seeking a broad range of information. The issues involved in information requests and regulatory matters vary widely. The Company cooperates in these inquiries. Mortgage Regulatory and Law Enforcement Authorities’ Inquiries MetLife, through its affiliate, MetLife Bank, National Association (“MetLife Bank”), was engaged in the origination, sale and servicing of forward and reverse residential mortgage loans since 2008. In 2012, MetLife Bank exited the business of originating residential mortgage loans. In 2012 and 2013, MetLife Bank sold its residential mortgage servicing portfolios, and in 2013 wound down its mortgage servicing business. See Note 3 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in the 2013 Annual Report for information regarding the exiting of the MetLife Bank businesses. In August 2013, MetLife Bank merged with and into MetLife Home Loans LLC (“MLHL”), its former subsidiary, with MLHL as the surviving non-bank entity. In May 2013, MetLife Bank received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice requiring production of documents relating to MetLife Bank’s payment of certain foreclosure-related expenses to law firms and business entities affiliated with law firms and relating to MetLife Bank’s supervision of such payments, including expenses submitted to the Federal National Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) for reimbursement. It is possible that various state or federal regulatory and law enforcement authorities may seek monetary penalties from MLHL relating to foreclosure practices. In April and May 2012, MetLife Bank received two subpoenas issued by the Office of Inspector General for HUD regarding Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”) insured loans. In June and September 2012, MetLife Bank received two Civil Investigative Demands that the U.S. Department of Justice issued as part of a False Claims Act investigation of allegations that MetLife Bank had improperly originated and/or underwritten loans insured by the FHA. MetLife Bank has met with the U.S. Department of Justice to discuss the allegations and possible resolution of the FHA False Claims Act investigation. The Company believes that, although the matter may settle for an amount that could exceed the current accrued liability, the estimated amount of any such potential additional liability is included in the aggregate estimate of reasonably possible loss provided above, and the Company believes that any such potential additional amount would not have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements. The inquiries and investigations referred to above, could adversely affect MetLife’s reputation or result in significant fines, penalties, equitable remedies or other enforcement actions, and result in significant legal costs in responding to governmental investigations or other litigation. Exiting the MetLife Bank businesses may not protect MetLife from inquiries and investigations relating to residential mortgage servicing and foreclosure activities, or any fines, penalties, equitable remedies or enforcement actions that may result, the costs of responding to any such governmental investigations, or other litigation. Management believes that the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole will not be materially affected by these regulatory matters. In the Matter of Chemform, Inc. Site, Pompano Beach, Broward County, Florida In July 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) advised MLIC that it believed payments were due under two settlement agreements, known as “Administrative Orders on Consent,” that New England Mutual Life Insurance Company signed in 1989 and 1992 with respect to the cleanup of a Superfund site in Florida (the “Chemform Site”). The EPA originally contacted MLIC (as successor to New England Mutual Life Insurance Company) and a third party in 2001, and advised that they owed additional clean-up costs for the Chemform Site. The matter was not resolved at that time. The EPA is requesting payment of an amount under $1 million from MLIC and such third party for past costs and an additional amount for future environmental testing costs at the Chemform Site. In September 2012, the EPA, MLIC and the third party executed an Administrative Order on Consent under which MLIC and the third party have agreed to be responsible for certain environmental testing at the Chemform site. The Company estimates that its costs for the environmental testing will not exceed $100,000. The September 2012 Administrative Order on Consent does not resolve the EPA’s claim for past clean-up costs. The EPA may seek additional costs if the environmental testing identifies issues. The Company estimates that the aggregate cost to resolve this matter will not exceed $1 million. New York Licensing Inquiry The Company entered into a consent order with the Department of Financial Services to resolve its inquiry into whether American Life Insurance Company (“American Life”) and Delaware American Life Insurance Company (“DelAm”) conducted business in New York without a license and whether representatives acting on behalf of these companies solicited, sold or negotiated insurance products in New York without a license. The Company entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the District Attorney, New York County, regarding the same conduct. Pursuant to these agreements, in the first quarter of 2014, the Company paid $50 million to the Department of Financial Services and $10 million to the District Attorney, New York County. The Department of Financial Services consent order allows the Company, through an authorized insurer, to continue activities in New York related to its global employee benefits business through June 30, 2015. The Company is seeking legislation to allow for such activities beyond that date. The Company is continuing to cooperate with the New York State Office of the Attorney General Taxpayer Protection Bureau as to its inquiry concerning American Life’s and DelAm’s New York State tax filings. Sales Practices Regulatory Matters Regulatory authorities in a small number of states and FINRA, and occasionally the SEC, have had investigations or inquiries relating to sales of individual life insurance policies or annuities or other products by MLIC, MICC, New England Life Insurance Company (“NELICO”), General American Life Insurance Company (“GALIC”), MetLife Securities, Inc. and New England Securities Corporation. These investigations often focus on the conduct of particular financial services representatives and the sale of unregistered or unsuitable products or the misuse of client assets. Over the past several years, these and a number of investigations by other regulatory authorities were resolved for monetary payments and certain other relief, including restitution payments. The Company may continue to resolve investigations in a similar manner. The Company believes adequate provision has been made in its consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably estimable losses for these sales practices-related investigations or inquiries. Unclaimed Property Litigation On September 20, 2012, the West Virginia Treasurer filed an action against MLIC in West Virginia state court (West Virginia ex rel. John D. Perdue v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Circuit Court of Putnam County, Civil Action No. 12‑C-295) alleging that the Company violated the West Virginia Uniform Unclaimed Property Act, seeking to compel compliance with the Act, and seeking payment of unclaimed property, interest, and penalties. On November 14, 2012, November 21, 2012, December 28, 2012, and January 9, 2013, the Treasurer filed substantially identical suits against MLI‑USA, NELICO, MICC and GALIC, respectively. On December 30, 2013, the court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss all of the West Virginia Treasurer’s actions. The Treasurer has filed a notice to appeal the dismissal order. Total Asset Recovery Services, LLC on behalf of the State of Florida v. MetLife, Inc., et. al. (Cir. Ct. Leon County, FL, filed October 27, 2010) Alleging that MLIC violated the Florida Disposition of Unclaimed Property law by failing to escheat to Florida benefits of 9,022 life insurance contracts, Total Asset Recovery Services, LLC (“Relator”) brought an action under the Florida False Claims Act seeking to recover damages on behalf of Florida. The Relator alleged that the aggregate damages attributable to MLIC, including statutory damages and treble damages, were $767 million. On August 20, 2013, the court granted MLIC’s motion to dismiss the action. On September 19, 2014, the District Court of Appeal affirmed the decision granting the dismissal. City of Westland Police and Fire Retirement System v. MetLife, Inc., et. al. (S.D.N.Y., filed January 12, 2012) Seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife, Inc. common shares between February 2, 2010, and October 6, 2011, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint alleging that MetLife, Inc. and several current and former executive officers of MetLife, Inc. violated the Securities Act of 1933, as well as the Exchange Act and Rule 10b‑5 promulgated thereunder by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to issue, materially false and misleading statements concerning MetLife, Inc.’s potential liability for millions of dollars in insurance benefits that should have been paid to beneficiaries or escheated to the states. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. The defendants intend to defend this action vigorously. City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System v. MetLife, Inc., et al. (N.D. Alabama, filed in state court on July 5, 2012 and removed to federal court on August 3, 2012) Seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife, Inc. common equity units in or traceable to a public offering in March 2011, the plaintiff filed an action alleging that MetLife, Inc., certain current and former directors and executive officers of MetLife, Inc., and various underwriters violated several provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 related to the filing of the registration statement by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to issue, materially false and misleading statements and/or omissions concerning MetLife, Inc.’s potential liability for millions of dollars in insurance benefits that should have been paid to beneficiaries or escheated to the states. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. Defendants removed this action to federal court, and plaintiff has moved to remand the action to state court. The magistrate judge recommended granting the motion to remand to state court and the defendants have objected to that recommendation. The defendants intend to defend this action vigorously. Derivative Actions and Demands Seeking to sue derivatively on behalf of MetLife, Inc., four shareholders commenced separate actions against members of the MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors, alleging that they breached their fiduciary and other duties to the Company. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to ensure that the Company complied with state unclaimed property laws and to ensure that the Company accurately reported its earnings. Plaintiffs allege that because of the defendants’ breaches of duty, MetLife, Inc. has incurred damage to its reputation and has suffered other unspecified damages. The two state court actions (Fishbaum v. Kandarian, et al. (Sup. Ct., New York County, filed January 27, 2012) and Batchelder v. Burwell, et al. (Sup. Ct., New York County, filed March 6, 2012)), have been consolidated under the caption In re: MetLife Shareholder Derivative Action. On January 22, 2014, the state court issued an order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss on the basis that plaintiffs had not established that their failure to make the required pre-suit demand to the Board of Directors should be excused. On May 16, 2014, the state court denied plaintiffs’ motion for leave to reargue the January 22, 2014 order, granting defendants’ motion to dismiss. The two actions filed in federal court (Mallon v. Kandarian, et al. (S.D.N.Y., filed March 28, 2012) and Martino v. Kandarian, et al. (S.D.N.Y., filed April 19, 2012)) have been consolidated and stayed pending further order of the court. The defendants intend to continue to defend this action vigorously. Total Control Accounts Litigation MLIC is a defendant in lawsuits related to its use of retained asset accounts, known as Total Control Accounts (“TCA”), as a settlement option for death benefits. Keife, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (D. Nev., filed in state court on July 30, 2010 and removed to federal court on September 7, 2010); and Simon v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (D. Nev., filed November 3, 2011) These putative class action lawsuits, which have been consolidated, raise breach of contract claims arising from MLIC’s use of the TCA to pay life insurance benefits under the Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance program. On March 8, 2013, the court granted MLIC’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Owens v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (N.D. Ga., filed April 17, 2014) This putative class action lawsuit alleges that MLIC’s use of the TCA as the settlement option for life insurance benefits under some group life insurance policies violates MLIC’s fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). As damages, plaintiff seeks disgorgement of profits that MLIC realized on accounts owned by members of the putative class. Other Litigation McGuire v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (E.D. Mich., filed February 22, 2012) This lawsuit was filed by the fiduciary for the Union Carbide Employees’ Pension Plan and alleges that MLIC, which issued annuity contracts to fund some of the benefits the Plan provides, engaged in transactions that ERISA prohibits and violated duties under ERISA and federal common law by determining that no dividends were payable with respect to the contracts from and after 1999. On September 26, 2012, the court denied MLIC’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The trial has been scheduled for February 2015. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada Indemnity Claim In 2006, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (“Sun Life”), as successor to the purchaser of MLIC’s Canadian operations, filed a lawsuit in Toronto, seeking a declaration that MLIC remains liable for “market conduct claims” related to certain individual life insurance policies sold by MLIC and that were transferred to Sun Life. Sun Life had asked that the court require MLIC to indemnify Sun Life for these claims pursuant to indemnity provisions in the sale agreement for the sale of MLIC’s Canadian operations entered into in June of 1998. In January 2010, the court found that Sun Life had given timely notice of its claim for indemnification but, because it found that Sun Life had not yet incurred an indemnifiable loss, granted MLIC’s motion for summary judgment. Both parties appealed but subsequently agreed to withdraw the appeal and consider the indemnity claim through arbitration. In September 2010, Sun Life notified MLIC that a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Toronto, Fehr v. Sun Life Assurance Co. (Super. Ct., Ontario, September 2010), alleging sales practices claims regarding the same individual policies sold by MLIC and transferred to Sun Life. An amended class action complaint in that case was served on Sun Life in May 2013, again without naming MLIC as a party. On August 30, 2011, Sun Life notified MLIC that a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Vancouver, Alamwala v. Sun Life Assurance Co. (Sup. Ct., British Columbia, August 2011), alleging sales practices claims regarding certain of the same policies sold by MLIC and transferred to Sun Life. Sun Life contends that MLIC is obligated to indemnify Sun Life for some or all of the claims in these lawsuits. These sales practices cases against Sun Life are ongoing, and the Company is unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss arising from this litigation. C‑Mart, Inc. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., et al. (S.D. Fla., January 10, 2013); Cadenasso v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al. (N.D. Cal., November 26, 2013, subsequently transferred to S.D. Fla.); and Fauley v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al. (Circuit Court of the 19th Judicial Circuit, Lake County, Ill., July 3, 2014). Plaintiffs filed these lawsuits against defendants, including MLIC and a former MetLife financial services representative, alleging that the defendants sent unsolicited fax advertisements to plaintiff and others in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227. MLIC has agreed to pay up to $23 million to resolve claims as to fax ads sent between August 23, 2008 and the date of the court’s preliminary approval of the settlement. Following this agreement, the Fauley case was filed in Illinois, seeking certification of a nationwide class of plaintiffs and the C-Mart and Cadenasso cases were voluntarily dismissed. In August 2014, the Fauley court preliminarily approved the settlement, certified a nationwide settlement class, and scheduled the final approval hearing for November 2014. Sales Practices Claims Over the past several years, the Company has faced numerous claims, including class action lawsuits, alleging improper marketing or sales of individual life insurance policies, annuities, mutual funds or other products. Some of the current cases seek substantial damages, including punitive and treble damages and attorneys’ fees. The Company continues to vigorously defend against the claims in these matters. The Company believes adequate provision has been made in its consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably estimable losses for sales practices matters. Summary Putative or certified class action litigation and other litigation and claims and assessments against the Company, in addition to those discussed previously and those otherwise provided for in the Company’s consolidated financial statements, have arisen in the course of the Company’s business, including, but not limited to, in connection with its activities as an insurer, mortgage lending bank, employer, investor, investment advisor and taxpayer. Further, state insurance regulatory authorities and other federal and state authorities regularly make inquiries and conduct investigations concerning the Company’s compliance with applicable insurance and other laws and regulations. It is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of all pending investigations and legal proceedings. In some of the matters referred to previously, very large and/or indeterminate amounts, including punitive and treble damages, are sought. Although in light of these considerations it is possible that an adverse outcome in certain cases could have a material effect upon the Company’s financial position, based on information currently known by the Company’s management, in its opinion, the outcomes of such pending investigations and legal proceedings are not likely to have such an effect. However, given the large and/or indeterminate amounts sought in certain of these matters and the inherent unpredictability of litigation, it is possible that an adverse outcome in certain matters could, from time to time, have a material effect on the Company’s net income or cash flows in particular quarterly or annual periods. Commitments Mortgage Loan Commitments The Company commits to lend funds under mortgage loan commitments. The amounts of these mortgage loan commitments were $4.0 billion and $3.4 billion at September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively. Commitments to Fund Partnerships Investments, Bank Credit Facilities, Bridge Loans and Private Corporate Bond Investments The Company commits to fund partnership investments and to lend funds under bank credit facilities, bridge loans and private corporate bond investments. The amounts of these unfunded commitments were $5.0 billion and $5.3 billion at September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively.

Contingencies

Litigation

The Company is a defendant in a large number of litigation matters. In some of the matters, very large and/or indeterminate amounts, including punitive and treble damages, are sought. Modern pleading practice in the U.S. permits considerable variation in the assertion of monetary damages or other relief. Jurisdictions may permit claimants not to specify the monetary damages sought or may permit claimants to state only that the amount sought is sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the trial court. In addition, jurisdictions may permit plaintiffs to allege monetary damages in amounts well exceeding reasonably possible verdicts in the jurisdiction for similar matters. This variability in pleadings, together with the actual experience of the Company in litigating or resolving through settlement numerous claims over an extended period of time, demonstrates to management that the monetary relief which may be specified in a lawsuit or claim bears little relevance to its merits or disposition value.

Due to the vagaries of litigation, the outcome of a litigation matter and the amount or range of potential loss at particular points in time may normally be difficult to ascertain. Uncertainties can include how fact finders will evaluate documentary evidence and the credibility and effectiveness of witness testimony, and how trial and appellate courts will apply the law in the context of the pleadings or evidence presented, whether by motion practice, or at trial or on appeal. Disposition valuations are also subject to the uncertainty of how opposing parties and their counsel will themselves view the relevant evidence and applicable law.

The Company establishes liabilities for litigation and regulatory loss contingencies when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Liabilities have been established for a number of the matters noted below. It is possible that some of the matters could require the Company to pay damages or make other expenditures or establish accruals in amounts that could not be estimated at September 30, 2014. While the potential future charges could be material in the particular quarterly or annual periods in which they are recorded, based on information currently known to management, management does not believe any such charges are likely to have a material effect on the Company’s financial position.

Matters as to Which an Estimate Can Be Made

For some of the matters disclosed below, the Company is able to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss. For such matters where a loss is believed to be reasonably possible, but not probable, no accrual has been made. As of September 30, 2014, the Company estimates the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses in excess of amounts accrued for these matters to be $0 to $390 million.

Matters as to Which an Estimate Cannot Be Made

For other matters disclosed below, the Company is not currently able to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss. The Company is often unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss until developments in such matters have provided sufficient information to support an assessment of the range of possible loss, such as quantification of a damage demand from plaintiffs, discovery from other parties and investigation of factual allegations, rulings by the court on motions or appeals, analysis by experts, and the progress of settlement negotiations. On a quarterly and annual basis, the Company reviews relevant information with respect to litigation contingencies and updates its accruals, disclosures and estimates of reasonably possible losses or ranges of loss based on such reviews.

Asbestos-Related Claims

MLIC is and has been a defendant in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts. These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages. MLIC has never engaged in the business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products nor has MLIC issued liability or workers’ compensation insurance to companies in the business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products. The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with respect to certain research, publication and other activities of one or more of MLIC’s employees during the period from the 1920’s through approximately the 1950’s and allege that MLIC learned or should have learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among other things, improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health risks. MLIC believes that it should not have legal liability in these cases. The outcome of most asbestos litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can be impacted by numerous variables, including differences in legal rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims asserted against MLIC. MLIC employs a number of resolution strategies to manage its asbestos loss exposure, including seeking resolution of pending litigation by judicial rulings and settling individual or groups of claims or lawsuits under appropriate circumstances.

Claims asserted against MLIC have included negligence, intentional tort and conspiracy concerning the health risks associated with asbestos. MLIC’s defenses (beyond denial of certain factual allegations) include that: (i) MLIC owed no duty to the plaintiffs— it had no special relationship with the plaintiffs and did not manufacture, produce, distribute or sell the asbestos products that allegedly injured plaintiffs; (ii) plaintiffs did not rely on any actions of MLIC; (iii) MLIC’s conduct was not the cause of the plaintiffs’ injuries; (iv) plaintiffs’ exposure occurred after the dangers of asbestos were known; and (v) the applicable time with respect to filing suit has expired. During the course of the litigation, certain trial courts have granted motions dismissing claims against MLIC, while other trial courts have denied MLIC’s motions. There can be no assurance that MLIC will receive favorable decisions on motions in the future. While most cases brought to date have settled, MLIC intends to continue to defend aggressively against claims based on asbestos exposure, including defending claims at trials.

As reported in the 2013 Annual Report, MLIC received approximately 5,898 asbestos-related claims in 2013. During the nine months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013, MLIC received approximately 3,641 and 4,256 new asbestos-related claims, respectively. See Note 21 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in the 2013 Annual Report for historical information concerning asbestos claims and MLIC’s increase in its recorded liability at December 31, 2013. The number of asbestos cases that may be brought, the aggregate amount of any liability that MLIC may incur, and the total amount paid in settlements in any given year are uncertain and may vary significantly from year to year.

The ability of MLIC to estimate its ultimate asbestos exposure is subject to considerable uncertainty, and the conditions impacting its liability can be dynamic and subject to change. The availability of reliable data is limited and it is difficult to predict the numerous variables that can affect liability estimates, including the number of future claims, the cost to resolve claims, the disease mix and severity of disease in pending and future claims, the impact of the number of new claims filed in a particular jurisdiction and variations in the law in the jurisdictions in which claims are filed, the possible impact of tort reform efforts, the willingness of courts to allow plaintiffs to pursue claims against MLIC when exposure to asbestos took place after the dangers of asbestos exposure were well known, and the impact of any possible future adverse verdicts and their amounts.

The ability to make estimates regarding ultimate asbestos exposure declines significantly as the estimates relate to years further in the future. In the Company’s judgment, there is a future point after which losses cease to be probable and reasonably estimable. It is reasonably possible that the Company’s total exposure to asbestos claims may be materially greater than the asbestos liability currently accrued and that future charges to income may be necessary. While the potential future charges could be material in the particular quarterly or annual periods in which they are recorded, based on information currently known by management, management does not believe any such charges are likely to have a material effect on the Company’s financial position.

The Company believes adequate provision has been made in its consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably estimable losses for asbestos-related claims. MLIC’s recorded asbestos liability is based on its estimation of the following elements, as informed by the facts presently known to it, its understanding of current law and its past experiences: (i) the probable and reasonably estimable liability for asbestos claims already asserted against MLIC, including claims settled but not yet paid; (ii) the probable and reasonably estimable liability for asbestos claims not yet asserted against MLIC, but which MLIC believes are reasonably probable of assertion; and (iii) the legal defense costs associated with the foregoing claims. Significant assumptions underlying MLIC’s analysis of the adequacy of its recorded liability with respect to asbestos litigation include: (i) the number of future claims; (ii) the cost to resolve claims; and (iii) the cost to defend claims.

MLIC reevaluates on a quarterly and annual basis its exposure from asbestos litigation, including studying its claims experience, reviewing external literature regarding asbestos claims experience in the United States, assessing relevant trends impacting asbestos liability and considering numerous variables that can affect its asbestos liability exposure on an overall or per claim basis. These variables include bankruptcies of other companies involved in asbestos litigation, legislative and judicial developments, the number of pending claims involving serious disease, the number of new claims filed against it and other defendants and the jurisdictions in which claims are pending. Based upon its reevaluation of its exposure from asbestos litigation, MLIC has updated its liability analysis for asbestos-related claims through September 30, 2014.

Regulatory Matters

The Company receives and responds to subpoenas or other inquiries from regulators in the United States, including state insurance commissioners; state attorneys general or other state governmental authorities; federal regulators, including the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”); federal governmental authorities, including congressional committees; the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), as well as from local and national regulators and government authorities in countries outside the United States where MetLife conducts business, seeking a broad range of information. The issues involved in information requests and regulatory matters vary widely. The Company cooperates in these inquiries.

Mortgage Regulatory and Law Enforcement Authorities’ Inquiries

MetLife, through its affiliate, MetLife Bank, National Association (“MetLife Bank”), was engaged in the origination, sale and servicing of forward and reverse residential mortgage loans since 2008. In 2012, MetLife Bank exited the business of originating residential mortgage loans. In 2012 and 2013, MetLife Bank sold its residential mortgage servicing portfolios, and in 2013 wound down its mortgage servicing business. See Note 3 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in the 2013 Annual Report for information regarding the exiting of the MetLife Bank businesses. In August 2013, MetLife Bank merged with and into MetLife Home Loans LLC (“MLHL”), its former subsidiary, with MLHL as the surviving non-bank entity.

In May 2013, MetLife Bank received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice requiring production of documents relating to MetLife Bank’s payment of certain foreclosure-related expenses to law firms and business entities affiliated with law firms and relating to MetLife Bank’s supervision of such payments, including expenses submitted to the Federal National Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) for reimbursement. It is possible that various state or federal regulatory and law enforcement authorities may seek monetary penalties from MLHL relating to foreclosure practices.

In April and May 2012, MetLife Bank received two subpoenas issued by the Office of Inspector General for HUD regarding Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”) insured loans. In June and September 2012, MetLife Bank received two Civil Investigative Demands that the U.S. Department of Justice issued as part of a False Claims Act investigation of allegations that MetLife Bank had improperly originated and/or underwritten loans insured by the FHA. MetLife Bank has met with the U.S. Department of Justice to discuss the allegations and possible resolution of the FHA False Claims Act investigation. The Company believes that, although the matter may settle for an amount that could exceed the current accrued liability, the estimated amount of any such potential additional liability is included in the aggregate estimate of reasonably possible loss provided above, and the Company believes that any such potential additional amount would not have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

The inquiries and investigations referred to above, could adversely affect MetLife’s reputation or result in significant fines, penalties, equitable remedies or other enforcement actions, and result in significant legal costs in responding to governmental investigations or other litigation. Exiting the MetLife Bank businesses may not protect MetLife from inquiries and investigations relating to residential mortgage servicing and foreclosure activities, or any fines, penalties, equitable remedies or enforcement actions that may result, the costs of responding to any such governmental investigations, or other litigation. Management believes that the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole will not be materially affected by these regulatory matters.

In the Matter of Chemform, Inc. Site, Pompano Beach, Broward County, Florida

In July 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) advised MLIC that it believed payments were due under two settlement agreements, known as “Administrative Orders on Consent,” that New England Mutual Life Insurance Company signed in 1989 and 1992 with respect to the cleanup of a Superfund site in Florida (the “Chemform Site”). The EPA originally contacted MLIC (as successor to New England Mutual Life Insurance Company) and a third party in 2001, and advised that they owed additional clean-up costs for the Chemform Site. The matter was not resolved at that time. The EPA is requesting payment of an amount under $1 million from MLIC and such third party for past costs and an additional amount for future environmental testing costs at the Chemform Site. In September 2012, the EPA, MLIC and the third party executed an Administrative Order on Consent under which MLIC and the third party have agreed to be responsible for certain environmental testing at the Chemform site. The Company estimates that its costs for the environmental testing will not exceed $100,000. The September 2012 Administrative Order on Consent does not resolve the EPA’s claim for past clean-up costs. The EPA may seek additional costs if the environmental testing identifies issues. The Company estimates that the aggregate cost to resolve this matter will not exceed $1 million.

New York Licensing Inquiry

The Company entered into a consent order with the Department of Financial Services to resolve its inquiry into whether American Life Insurance Company (“American Life”) and Delaware American Life Insurance Company (“DelAm”) conducted business in New York without a license and whether representatives acting on behalf of these companies solicited, sold or negotiated insurance products in New York without a license. The Company entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the District Attorney, New York County, regarding the same conduct. Pursuant to these agreements, in the first quarter of 2014, the Company paid $50 million to the Department of Financial Services and $10 million to the District Attorney, New York County. The Department of Financial Services consent order allows the Company, through an authorized insurer, to continue activities in New York related to its global employee benefits business through June 30, 2015. The Company is seeking legislation to allow for such activities beyond that date. The Company is continuing to cooperate with the New York State Office of the Attorney General Taxpayer Protection Bureau as to its inquiry concerning American Life’s and DelAm’s New York State tax filings.

Sales Practices Regulatory Matters

Regulatory authorities in a small number of states and FINRA, and occasionally the SEC, have had investigations or inquiries relating to sales of individual life insurance policies or annuities or other products by MLIC, MICC, New England Life Insurance Company (“NELICO”), General American Life Insurance Company (“GALIC”), MetLife Securities, Inc. and New England Securities Corporation. These investigations often focus on the conduct of particular financial services representatives and the sale of unregistered or unsuitable products or the misuse of client assets. Over the past several years, these and a number of investigations by other regulatory authorities were resolved for monetary payments and certain other relief, including restitution payments. The Company may continue to resolve investigations in a similar manner. The Company believes adequate provision has been made in its consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably estimable losses for these sales practices-related investigations or inquiries.

Unclaimed Property Litigation

On September 20, 2012, the West Virginia Treasurer filed an action against MLIC in West Virginia state court (West Virginia ex rel. John D. Perdue v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Circuit Court of Putnam County, Civil Action No. 12‑C-295) alleging that the Company violated the West Virginia Uniform Unclaimed Property Act, seeking to compel compliance with the Act, and seeking payment of unclaimed property, interest, and penalties. On November 14, 2012, November 21, 2012, December 28, 2012, and January 9, 2013, the Treasurer filed substantially identical suits against MLI‑USA, NELICO, MICC and GALIC, respectively. On December 30, 2013, the court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss all of the West Virginia Treasurer’s actions. The Treasurer has filed a notice to appeal the dismissal order.

Total Asset Recovery Services, LLC on behalf of the State of Florida v. MetLife, Inc., et. al. (Cir. Ct. Leon County, FL, filed October 27, 2010)

Alleging that MLIC violated the Florida Disposition of Unclaimed Property law by failing to escheat to Florida benefits of 9,022 life insurance contracts, Total Asset Recovery Services, LLC (“Relator”) brought an action under the Florida False Claims Act seeking to recover damages on behalf of Florida. The Relator alleged that the aggregate damages attributable to MLIC, including statutory damages and treble damages, were $767 million. On August 20, 2013, the court granted MLIC’s motion to dismiss the action. On September 19, 2014, the District Court of Appeal affirmed the decision granting the dismissal.

City of Westland Police and Fire Retirement System v. MetLife, Inc., et. al. (S.D.N.Y., filed January 12, 2012)

Seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife, Inc. common shares between February 2, 2010, and October 6, 2011, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint alleging that MetLife, Inc. and several current and former executive officers of MetLife, Inc. violated the Securities Act of 1933, as well as the Exchange Act and Rule 10b‑5 promulgated thereunder by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to issue, materially false and misleading statements concerning MetLife, Inc.’s potential liability for millions of dollars in insurance benefits that should have been paid to beneficiaries or escheated to the states. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. The defendants intend to defend this action vigorously.

City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System v. MetLife, Inc., et al. (N.D. Alabama, filed in state court on July 5, 2012 and removed to federal court on August 3, 2012)

Seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife, Inc. common equity units in or traceable to a public offering in March 2011, the plaintiff filed an action alleging that MetLife, Inc., certain current and former directors and executive officers of MetLife, Inc., and various underwriters violated several provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 related to the filing of the registration statement by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to issue, materially false and misleading statements and/or omissions concerning MetLife, Inc.’s potential liability for millions of dollars in insurance benefits that should have been paid to beneficiaries or escheated to the states. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. Defendants removed this action to federal court, and plaintiff has moved to remand the action to state court. The magistrate judge recommended granting the motion to remand to state court and the defendants have objected to that recommendation. The defendants intend to defend this action vigorously.

Derivative Actions and Demands

Seeking to sue derivatively on behalf of MetLife, Inc., four shareholders commenced separate actions against members of the MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors, alleging that they breached their fiduciary and other duties to the Company. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to ensure that the Company complied with state unclaimed property laws and to ensure that the Company accurately reported its earnings. Plaintiffs allege that because of the defendants’ breaches of duty, MetLife, Inc. has incurred damage to its reputation and has suffered other unspecified damages. The two state court actions (Fishbaum v. Kandarian, et al. (Sup. Ct., New York County, filed January 27, 2012) and Batchelder v. Burwell, et al. (Sup. Ct., New York County, filed March 6, 2012)), have been consolidated under the caption In re: MetLife Shareholder Derivative Action. On January 22, 2014, the state court issued an order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss on the basis that plaintiffs had not established that their failure to make the required pre-suit demand to the Board of Directors should be excused. On May 16, 2014, the state court denied plaintiffs’ motion for leave to reargue the January 22, 2014 order, granting defendants’ motion to dismiss. The two actions filed in federal court (Mallon v. Kandarian, et al. (S.D.N.Y., filed March 28, 2012) and Martino v. Kandarian, et al. (S.D.N.Y., filed April 19, 2012)) have been consolidated and stayed pending further order of the court. The defendants intend to continue to defend this action vigorously.

Total Control Accounts Litigation

MLIC is a defendant in lawsuits related to its use of retained asset accounts, known as Total Control Accounts (“TCA”), as a settlement option for death benefits.

Keife, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (D. Nev., filed in state court on July 30, 2010 and removed to federal court on September 7, 2010); and Simon v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (D. Nev., filed November 3, 2011)

These putative class action lawsuits, which have been consolidated, raise breach of contract claims arising from MLIC’s use of the TCA to pay life insurance benefits under the Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance program. On March 8, 2013, the court granted MLIC’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Owens v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (N.D. Ga., filed April 17, 2014)

This putative class action lawsuit alleges that MLIC’s use of the TCA as the settlement option for life insurance benefits under some group life insurance policies violates MLIC’s fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). As damages, plaintiff seeks disgorgement of profits that MLIC realized on accounts owned by members of the putative class.

Other Litigation

McGuire v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (E.D. Mich., filed February 22, 2012)

This lawsuit was filed by the fiduciary for the Union Carbide Employees’ Pension Plan and alleges that MLIC, which issued annuity contracts to fund some of the benefits the Plan provides, engaged in transactions that ERISA prohibits and violated duties under ERISA and federal common law by determining that no dividends were payable with respect to the contracts from and after 1999. On September 26, 2012, the court denied MLIC’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The trial has been scheduled for February 2015.

Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada Indemnity Claim

In 2006, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (“Sun Life”), as successor to the purchaser of MLIC’s Canadian operations, filed a lawsuit in Toronto, seeking a declaration that MLIC remains liable for “market conduct claims” related to certain individual life insurance policies sold by MLIC and that were transferred to Sun Life. Sun Life had asked that the court require MLIC to indemnify Sun Life for these claims pursuant to indemnity provisions in the sale agreement for the sale of MLIC’s Canadian operations entered into in June of 1998. In January 2010, the court found that Sun Life had given timely notice of its claim for indemnification but, because it found that Sun Life had not yet incurred an indemnifiable loss, granted MLIC’s motion for summary judgment. Both parties appealed but subsequently agreed to withdraw the appeal and consider the indemnity claim through arbitration. In September 2010, Sun Life notified MLIC that a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Toronto, Fehr v. Sun Life Assurance Co. (Super. Ct., Ontario, September 2010), alleging sales practices claims regarding the same individual policies sold by MLIC and transferred to Sun Life. An amended class action complaint in that case was served on Sun Life in May 2013, again without naming MLIC as a party. On August 30, 2011, Sun Life notified MLIC that a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Vancouver, Alamwala v. Sun Life Assurance Co. (Sup. Ct., British Columbia, August 2011), alleging sales practices claims regarding certain of the same policies sold by MLIC and transferred to Sun Life. Sun Life contends that MLIC is obligated to indemnify Sun Life for some or all of the claims in these lawsuits. These sales practices cases against Sun Life are ongoing, and the Company is unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss arising from this litigation.

C‑Mart, Inc. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., et al. (S.D. Fla., January 10, 2013); Cadenasso v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al. (N.D. Cal., November 26, 2013, subsequently transferred to S.D. Fla.); and Fauley v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al. (Circuit Court of the 19th Judicial Circuit, Lake County, Ill., July 3, 2014).

Plaintiffs filed these lawsuits against defendants, including MLIC and a former MetLife financial services representative, alleging that the defendants sent unsolicited fax advertisements to plaintiff and others in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227. MLIC has agreed to pay up to $23 million to resolve claims as to fax ads sent between August 23, 2008 and the date of the court’s preliminary approval of the settlement. Following this agreement, the Fauley case was filed in Illinois, seeking certification of a nationwide class of plaintiffs and the C-Mart and Cadenasso cases were voluntarily dismissed. In August 2014, the Fauley court preliminarily approved the settlement, certified a nationwide settlement class, and scheduled the final approval hearing for November 2014.

Sales Practices Claims

Over the past several years, the Company has faced numerous claims, including class action lawsuits, alleging improper marketing or sales of individual life insurance policies, annuities, mutual funds or other products. Some of the current cases seek substantial damages, including punitive and treble damages and attorneys’ fees. The Company continues to vigorously defend against the claims in these matters. The Company believes adequate provision has been made in its consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably estimable losses for sales practices matters.

Summary

Putative or certified class action litigation and other litigation and claims and assessments against the Company, in addition to those discussed previously and those otherwise provided for in the Company’s consolidated financial statements, have arisen in the course of the Company’s business, including, but not limited to, in connection with its activities as an insurer, mortgage lending bank, employer, investor, investment advisor and taxpayer. Further, state insurance regulatory authorities and other federal and state authorities regularly make inquiries and conduct investigations concerning the Company’s compliance with applicable insurance and other laws and regulations.

It is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of all pending investigations and legal proceedings. In some of the matters referred to previously, very large and/or indeterminate amounts, including punitive and treble damages, are sought. Although in light of these considerations it is possible that an adverse outcome in certain cases could have a material effect upon the Company’s financial position, based on information currently known by the Company’s management, in its opinion, the outcomes of such pending investigations and legal proceedings are not likely to have such an effect. However, given the large and/or indeterminate amounts sought in certain of these matters and the inherent unpredictability of litigation, it is possible that an adverse outcome in certain matters could, from time to time, have a material effect on the Company’s net income or cash flows in particular quarterly or annual periods.