Contingencies, Commitments and Guarantees	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies, Commitments and Guarantees	15. 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, at trial or on appeal. Disposition valuations are also subject to the uncertainty of how opposing parties and their counsel will 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 reasonably estimated at September 30, 2017. 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, the Company has not made an accrual. As of September 30, 2017, the Company estimates the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses in excess of amounts accrued for these matters to be $0 to $450 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 2016 Annual Report, MLIC received approximately 4,146 asbestos-related claims in 2016. During the nine months ended September 30, 2017 and 2016, MLIC received approximately 2,742 and 3,267 new asbestos-related claims, respectively. See Note 21 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in the 2016 Annual Report for historical information concerning asbestos claims and MLIC’s increase in its recorded liability at December 31, 2014. 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 regular reevaluation of its exposure from asbestos litigation, MLIC has updated its liability analysis for asbestos-related claims through September 30, 2017. Regulatory Matters The Company receives and responds to subpoenas or other inquiries seeking a broad range of information from state regulators, including state insurance commissioners; state attorneys general or other state governmental authorities; federal regulators, including the SEC; federal governmental authorities, including congressional committees; and 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. The issues involved in information requests and regulatory matters vary widely. The Company cooperates in these inquiries. 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 (“New England Mutual”) 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) 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. In September 2012, the EPA, MLIC and the third party executed an Administrative Order on Consent under which MLIC and the third party agreed to be responsible for certain environmental testing at the Chemform Site. The EPA may seek additional costs if the environmental testing identifies issues. The EPA and MLIC have reached a settlement in principal on the EPA’s claim for past costs. The Company estimates that the aggregate cost to resolve this matter, including the settlement for claims of past costs and the costs of environmental testing, will not exceed $300 thousand. Sales Practices Regulatory Matters Regulatory authorities in a 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, MetLife Insurance Company USA, New England Life Insurance Company (“NELICO”), General American Life Insurance Company, First MetLife Investors Insurance Company and broker-dealer, MetLife Securities, Inc. (“MSI”). 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 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 alleges that MetLife, Inc. and several current and former directors and executive officers of MetLife, Inc. violated the Securities Act of 1933, as well as the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 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. On September 22, 2017, the Court granted plaintiff’s motion to certify their proposed class of persons who purchased or acquired MetLife common stock in the Company’s August 3, 2010 Offering or the Company’s March 4, 2011 Offering. The defendants intend to defend this action vigorously. Total Control Accounts Litigation MLIC is a defendant in a lawsuit related to its use of retained asset accounts, known as total control accounts (“TCA”), as a settlement option for death benefits. Owens v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (N.D. Ga., filed April 17, 2014) Plaintiff filed this class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons for whom MLIC established a retained asset account, known as a TCA, to pay death benefits under an Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) plan. The action 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 ERISA. As damages, plaintiff seeks disgorgement of profits that MLIC realized on accounts owned by members of the class. In addition, plaintiff, on behalf of a subgroup of the class, seeks interest under Georgia’s delayed settlement interest statute, alleging that the use of the TCA as the settlement option did not constitute payment. On September 27, 2016, the court denied MLIC’s summary judgment motion in full and granted plaintiff’s partial summary judgment motion. On September 29, 2017, the court certified a nationwide class. The court also certified a Georgia subclass. The Company intends to defend this action vigorously. Diversified Lending Group Litigations Hartshorne v. MetLife, Inc., et al. (Los Angeles County Superior Court, filed March 25, 2015) Plaintiffs named MetLife, Inc., MSI, and NELICO in 12 related lawsuits in California state court alleging various causes of action including multiple negligence and statutory claims relating to a Ponzi scheme involving the Diversified Lending Group. In August 2016, a trial of claims by one of the 98 plaintiffs, Christine Ramirez, resulted in a verdict against MetLife, Inc., MSI, and NELICO for approximately $200 thousand in compensatory damages and $15 million in punitive damages. On November 30, 2016, Ramirez consented to the court’s reduction of punitive damages to approximately $7 million. These companies have filed a notice appealing this judgment to the Second Appellate District of the State of California. On May 2, 2017, the court awarded the plaintiff approximately $6.5 million in attorneys’ fees and costs; the Company has appealed this decision. The Company has reached a settlement in principle with 97 of the plaintiffs, including Ramirez. Other Litigation 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 that were subsequently transferred to Sun Life. 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 agreed to 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 alleging sales practices claims regarding the policies sold by MLIC and transferred to Sun Life. On August 30, 2011, Sun Life notified MLIC that another purported class action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Vancouver, BC 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. MetLife, Inc. v. Financial Stability Oversight Council (D. D.C., January 13, 2015) MetLife, Inc. filed this action in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (“D.C. District Court”) seeking to overturn the FSOC designation of MetLife, Inc. as a non-bank SIFI. The suit is brought under the section of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act providing that a company designated as a non-bank SIFI may petition the federal courts for review, and seeks an order requiring that the final determination be rescinded. The D.C. District Court issued a decision on March 30, 2016 granting, in part, MetLife, Inc.’s cross motion for summary judgment and rescinding the FSOC’s designation of MetLife, Inc. as a non-bank SIFI. On April 8, 2016, the FSOC appealed the D.C. District Court’s order to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (“D.C. Circuit”). On August 2, 2017, the D.C. Circuit ordered that the appeal be held in abeyance pending an upcoming report by the Secretary of the Treasury following its review of the FSOC SIFI designation process and standards. Voshall v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, April 8, 2015) Plaintiff filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and all persons covered under a long-term group disability income insurance policy issued by MLIC to public entities in California between April 8, 2011 and April 8, 2015. Plaintiff alleges that MLIC improperly reduced benefits by including cost of living adjustments and employee paid contributions in the employer retirement benefits and other income that reduces the benefit payable under such policies. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for declaratory relief, violation of the California Business & Professions Code, breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Company intends to defend this action vigorously. Martin v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, (Superior Court of the State of California, County of Contra Costa, filed December 17, 2015) Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all California persons who have been charged compound interest by MLIC in life insurance policy and/or premium loan balances within the last four years. Plaintiffs allege that MLIC has engaged in a pattern and practice of charging compound interest on life insurance policy and premium loans without the borrower authorizing such compounding, and that this constitutes an unlawful business practice under California law. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for declaratory relief, violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law and Usury Law, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution of interest, and damages in an unspecified amount. On April 12, 2016, the court granted MLIC’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs have appealed this ruling. Lau v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (S.D.N.Y. filed, December 3, 2015) This putative class action lawsuit was filed by a single defined contribution plan participant on behalf of all ERISA plans whose assets were invested in MetLife’s “Group Annuity Contract Stable Value Funds” within the past six years. The suit alleges breaches of fiduciary duty under ERISA and challenges the “spread” with respect to the stable value fund group annuity products sold to retirement plans. The allegations focus on the methodology MetLife uses to establish and reset the crediting rate, the terms under which plan participants are permitted to transfer funds from a stable value option to another investment option, the procedures followed if an employer terminates a contract, and the level of disclosure provided. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages in an unspecified amount. The Company intends to defend this action vigorously. Newman v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (N.D. Ill., filed March 23, 2016) Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging causes of action for breach of contract, fraud, and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, based on MLIC’s class-wide increase in premiums charged for long-term care insurance policies. Plaintiff alleges a class consisting of herself and all persons over age 65 who selected a Reduced Pay at Age 65 payment feature and whose premium rates were increased after age 65. Plaintiff asserts that premiums could not be increased for these class members and/or that marketing material was misleading as to MLIC’s right to increase premiums. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, as well as recessionary and injunctive relief. On April 12, 2017, the court granted MLIC’s motion, dismissing the action with prejudice. On April 21, 2017, plaintiff appealed this ruling. Miller, et al. v. MetLife, Inc., et al. (C.D. Cal., filed April 7, 2017) Plaintiffs filed this putative class action against MetLife, Inc. and MLIC in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, purporting to assert claims on behalf of all persons who replaced their MetLife Optional Term Life or Group Universal Life policy for a Group Variable Universal Life policy wherein MetLife allegedly charged smoker rates for certain non-smokers. Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, as well as other relief. On September 25, 2017, Plaintiffs dismissed the action and refiled the complaint in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Company intends to defend this action vigorously. Julian & McKinney v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (S.D.N.Y., filed February 9, 2017) Plaintiffs filed this putative class and collective action on behalf of themselves and all current and former long-term disability (“LTD”) claims specialists between February 2011 and the present for alleged wage and hour violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act. The suit alleges that MetLife improperly reclassified the plaintiffs and similarly situated LTD claims specialists from non-exempt to exempt from overtime pay in November 2013. As a result, they and members of the putative class were no longer eligible for overtime pay even though they allege they continued to work more than 40 hours per week. The Company intends to defend this action vigorously. 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, other products or the misuse of client assets. Some of the current cases seek substantial damages, including punitive and treble damages and attorneys’ fees. The Company continues to defend vigorously 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 consolidated 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 $3.4 billion and $4.0 billion at September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively. Commitments to Fund Partnership 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 $7.5 billion and $6.9 billion at September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively. Guarantees In the normal course of its business, the Company has provided certain indemnities, guarantees and commitments to third parties such that it may be required to make payments now or in the future. In the context of acquisition, disposition, investment and other transactions, the Company has provided indemnities and guarantees, including those related to tax, environmental and other specific liabilities and other indemnities and guarantees that are triggered by, among other things, breaches of representations, warranties or covenants provided by the Company. In addition, in the normal course of business, the Company provides indemnifications to counterparties in contracts with triggers similar to the foregoing, as well as for certain other liabilities, such as third-party lawsuits. These obligations are often subject to time limitations that vary in duration, including contractual limitations and those that arise by operation of law, such as applicable statutes of limitation. In some cases, the maximum potential obligation under the indemnities and guarantees is subject to a contractual limitation ranging from less than $1 million to $329 million, with a cumulative maximum of $709 million, while in other cases such limitations are not specified or applicable. Since certain of these obligations are not subject to limitations, the Company does not believe that it is possible to determine the maximum potential amount that could become due under these guarantees in the future. Management believes that it is unlikely the Company will have to make any material payments under these indemnities, guarantees, or commitments. In addition, the Company indemnifies its directors and officers as provided in its charters and by-laws. Also, the Company indemnifies its agents for liabilities incurred as a result of their representation of the Company’s interests. Since these indemnities are generally not subject to limitation with respect to duration or amount, the Company does not believe that it is possible to determine the maximum potential amount that could become due under these indemnities in the future. The Company has also minimum fund yield requirements on certain international pension funds in accordance with local laws. Since these guarantees are not subject to limitation with respect to duration or amount, the Company does not believe that it is possible to determine the maximum potential amount that could become due under these guarantees in the future. The Company’s recorded liabilities were $6 million and $8 million at September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively, for indemnities, guarantees and commitments.

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, at trial or on appeal. Disposition valuations are also subject to the uncertainty of how opposing parties and their counsel will 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 reasonably estimated at September 30, 2017. 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, the Company has not made an accrual. As of September 30, 2017, the Company estimates the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses in excess of amounts accrued for these matters to be $0 to $450 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 2016 Annual Report, MLIC received approximately 4,146 asbestos-related claims in 2016. During the nine months ended September 30, 2017 and 2016, MLIC received approximately 2,742 and 3,267 new asbestos-related claims, respectively. See Note 21 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in the 2016 Annual Report for historical information concerning asbestos claims and MLIC’s increase in its recorded liability at December 31, 2014. 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 regular reevaluation of its exposure from asbestos litigation, MLIC has updated its liability analysis for asbestos-related claims through September 30, 2017.

Regulatory Matters

The Company receives and responds to subpoenas or other inquiries seeking a broad range of information from state regulators, including state insurance commissioners; state attorneys general or other state governmental authorities; federal regulators, including the SEC; federal governmental authorities, including congressional committees; and 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. The issues involved in information requests and regulatory matters vary widely. The Company cooperates in these inquiries.

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 (“New England Mutual”) 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) 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. In September 2012, the EPA, MLIC and the third party executed an Administrative Order on Consent under which MLIC and the third party agreed to be responsible for certain environmental testing at the Chemform Site. The EPA may seek additional costs if the environmental testing identifies issues. The EPA and MLIC have reached a settlement in principal on the EPA’s claim for past costs. The Company estimates that the aggregate cost to resolve this matter, including the settlement for claims of past costs and the costs of environmental testing, will not exceed $300 thousand.

Sales Practices Regulatory Matters

Regulatory authorities in a 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, MetLife Insurance Company USA, New England Life Insurance Company (“NELICO”), General American Life Insurance Company, First MetLife Investors Insurance Company and broker-dealer, MetLife Securities, Inc. (“MSI”). 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

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 alleges that MetLife, Inc. and several current and former directors and executive officers of MetLife, Inc. violated the Securities Act of 1933, as well as the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 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. On September 22, 2017, the Court granted plaintiff’s motion to certify their proposed class of persons who purchased or acquired MetLife common stock in the Company’s August 3, 2010 Offering or the Company’s March 4, 2011 Offering. The defendants intend to defend this action vigorously.

Total Control Accounts Litigation

MLIC is a defendant in a lawsuit related to its use of retained asset accounts, known as total control accounts (“TCA”), as a settlement option for death benefits.

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

Plaintiff filed this class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons for whom MLIC established a retained asset account, known as a TCA, to pay death benefits under an Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) plan. The action 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 ERISA. As damages, plaintiff seeks disgorgement of profits that MLIC realized on accounts owned by members of the class. In addition, plaintiff, on behalf of a subgroup of the class, seeks interest under Georgia’s delayed settlement interest statute, alleging that the use of the TCA as the settlement option did not constitute payment. On September 27, 2016, the court denied MLIC’s summary judgment motion in full and granted plaintiff’s partial summary judgment motion. On September 29, 2017, the court certified a nationwide class. The court also certified a Georgia subclass. The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.

Diversified Lending Group Litigations

Hartshorne v. MetLife, Inc., et al. (Los Angeles County Superior Court, filed March 25, 2015)

Plaintiffs named MetLife, Inc., MSI, and NELICO in 12 related lawsuits in California state court alleging various causes of action including multiple negligence and statutory claims relating to a Ponzi scheme involving the Diversified Lending Group. In August 2016, a trial of claims by one of the 98 plaintiffs, Christine Ramirez, resulted in a verdict against MetLife, Inc., MSI, and NELICO for approximately $200 thousand in compensatory damages and $15 million in punitive damages. On November 30, 2016, Ramirez consented to the court’s reduction of punitive damages to approximately $7 million. These companies have filed a notice appealing this judgment to the Second Appellate District of the State of California. On May 2, 2017, the court awarded the plaintiff approximately $6.5 million in attorneys’ fees and costs; the Company has appealed this decision. The Company has reached a settlement in principle with 97 of the plaintiffs, including Ramirez.

Other Litigation

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 that were subsequently transferred to Sun Life. 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 agreed to 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 alleging sales practices claims regarding the policies sold by MLIC and transferred to Sun Life. On August 30, 2011, Sun Life notified MLIC that another purported class action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Vancouver, BC 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.

MetLife, Inc. v. Financial Stability Oversight Council (D. D.C., January 13, 2015)

MetLife, Inc. filed this action in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (“D.C. District Court”) seeking to overturn the FSOC designation of MetLife, Inc. as a non-bank SIFI. The suit is brought under the section of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act providing that a company designated as a non-bank SIFI may petition the federal courts for review, and seeks an order requiring that the final determination be rescinded. The D.C. District Court issued a decision on March 30, 2016 granting, in part, MetLife, Inc.’s cross motion for summary judgment and rescinding the FSOC’s designation of MetLife, Inc. as a non-bank SIFI. On April 8, 2016, the FSOC appealed the D.C. District Court’s order to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (“D.C. Circuit”). On August 2, 2017, the D.C. Circuit ordered that the appeal be held in abeyance pending an upcoming report by the Secretary of the Treasury following its review of the FSOC SIFI designation process and standards.

Voshall v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, April 8, 2015)

Plaintiff filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and all persons covered under a long-term group disability income insurance policy issued by MLIC to public entities in California between April 8, 2011 and April 8, 2015. Plaintiff alleges that MLIC improperly reduced benefits by including cost of living adjustments and employee paid contributions in the employer retirement benefits and other income that reduces the benefit payable under such policies. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for declaratory relief, violation of the California Business & Professions Code, breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.

Martin v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, (Superior Court of the State of California, County of Contra Costa, filed December 17, 2015)

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all California persons who have been charged compound interest by MLIC in life insurance policy and/or premium loan balances within the last four years. Plaintiffs allege that MLIC has engaged in a pattern and practice of charging compound interest on life insurance policy and premium loans without the borrower authorizing such compounding, and that this constitutes an unlawful business practice under California law. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for declaratory relief, violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law and Usury Law, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution of interest, and damages in an unspecified amount. On April 12, 2016, the court granted MLIC’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs have appealed this ruling.

Lau v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (S.D.N.Y. filed, December 3, 2015)

This putative class action lawsuit was filed by a single defined contribution plan participant on behalf of all ERISA plans whose assets were invested in MetLife’s “Group Annuity Contract Stable Value Funds” within the past six years. The suit alleges breaches of fiduciary duty under ERISA and challenges the “spread” with respect to the stable value fund group annuity products sold to retirement plans. The allegations focus on the methodology MetLife uses to establish and reset the crediting rate, the terms under which plan participants are permitted to transfer funds from a stable value option to another investment option, the procedures followed if an employer terminates a contract, and the level of disclosure provided. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages in an unspecified amount. The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.

Newman v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (N.D. Ill., filed March 23, 2016)

Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging causes of action for breach of contract, fraud, and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, based on MLIC’s class-wide increase in premiums charged for long-term care insurance policies. Plaintiff alleges a class consisting of herself and all persons over age 65 who selected a Reduced Pay at Age 65 payment feature and whose premium rates were increased after age 65. Plaintiff asserts that premiums could not be increased for these class members and/or that marketing material was misleading as to MLIC’s right to increase premiums. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, as well as recessionary and injunctive relief. On April 12, 2017, the court granted MLIC’s motion, dismissing the action with prejudice. On April 21, 2017, plaintiff appealed this ruling.

Miller, et al. v. MetLife, Inc., et al. (C.D. Cal., filed April 7, 2017)

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action against MetLife, Inc. and MLIC in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, purporting to assert claims on behalf of all persons who replaced their MetLife Optional Term Life or Group Universal Life policy for a Group Variable Universal Life policy wherein MetLife allegedly charged smoker rates for certain non-smokers. Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, as well as other relief. On September 25, 2017, Plaintiffs dismissed the action and refiled the complaint in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.

Julian & McKinney v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (S.D.N.Y., filed February 9, 2017)

Plaintiffs filed this putative class and collective action on behalf of themselves and all current and former long-term disability (“LTD”) claims specialists between February 2011 and the present for alleged wage and hour violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act. The suit alleges that MetLife improperly reclassified the plaintiffs and similarly situated LTD claims specialists from non-exempt to exempt from overtime pay in November 2013. As a result, they and members of the putative class were no longer eligible for overtime pay even though they allege they continued to work more than 40 hours per week. The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.

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, other products or the misuse of client assets. Some of the current cases seek substantial damages, including punitive and treble damages and attorneys’ fees. The Company continues to defend vigorously 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 consolidated net income or cash flows in particular quarterly or annual periods.