Contingencies, Commitments and Guarantees	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2012
Contingencies, Commitments and Guarantees [Abstract]
Contingencies, Commitments and Guarantees	12. Contingencies, Commitments and Guarantees Contingencies *Litigation* The Company is a defendant in a large number of litigation matters in multiple jurisdictions around the world. 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. and other countries 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, 2012. 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, 2012, the Company estimates the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses in excess of amounts accrued for these matters to be approximately $0 to $145 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 to dismiss. 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 2011 Annual Report, MLIC received approximately 4,972 asbestos-related claims in 2011. During the nine months ended September 30, 2012 and 2011, MLIC received approximately 3,909 and 3,750 new asbestos-related claims, respectively. See Note 16 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in the 2011 Annual Report for historical information concerning asbestos claims and MLIC’s increase in its recorded liability at December 31, 2002. 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. To the extent the Company can estimate reasonably possible losses in excess of amounts accrued, it has been included in the aggregate estimate of reasonably possible loss provided above. 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 U.S., 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, 2012. Regulatory Matters The Company receives and responds to subpoenas or other inquiries 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”) seeking a broad range of information. The issues involved in information requests and regulatory matters vary widely. The Company cooperates in these inquiries. MetLife Bank Mortgage Regulatory and Law Enforcement Authorities’ Inquiries. Since 2008, MetLife, through its affiliate, MetLife Bank, has been engaged in the forward and reverse residential mortgage origination and servicing business. State and federal regulatory and law enforcement authorities have initiated various inquiries, investigations or examinations of alleged irregularities in the foreclosure practices of the residential mortgage servicing industry. Mortgage servicing practices have also been the subject of Congressional attention. Authorities have publicly stated that the scope of the investigations extends beyond foreclosure documentation practices to include mortgage loan modification and loss mitigation practices. On April 13, 2011, the OCC entered into consent decrees with several banks, including MetLife Bank. The consent decrees require an independent review of foreclosure practices and set forth new residential mortgage servicing standards, including a requirement for a designated point of contact for a borrower during the loss mitigation process. In addition, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Federal Reserve Board”) entered into consent decrees with the affiliated bank holding companies of these banks, including MetLife, Inc., to enhance the supervision of the mortgage servicing activities of their banking subsidiaries. On August 6, 2012, the Federal Reserve Board issued an Order of Assessment of a Civil Monetary Penalty Issued Upon Consent against MetLife, Inc. that will impose a penalty of up to $3.2 million for the alleged deficiencies in oversight of MetLife Bank’s servicing of residential mortgage loans and processing foreclosures that were the subject of the 2011 consent decree. MetLife Bank also had a meeting with the Department of Justice regarding mortgage servicing and foreclosure practices. It is possible that various state or federal regulatory and law enforcement authorities may seek monetary penalties from MetLife Bank relating to foreclosure practices. MetLife Bank has also responded to a subpoena issued by the New York State Department of Financial Services (“Department of Financial Services”) regarding hazard insurance and flood insurance that MetLife Bank obtains to protect the lienholder’s interest when the borrower’s insurance has lapsed. In April and May 2012, MetLife Bank received two subpoenas issued by the Office of Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 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. The consent decrees, as well as the inquiries or investigations referred to above, could adversely affect MetLife’s reputation or result in material fines, penalties, equitable remedies or other enforcement actions, and result in significant legal costs in responding to governmental investigations or other litigation. In addition, the changes to the mortgage servicing business required by the consent decrees and the resolution of any other inquiries or investigations may affect the profitability of such business. The Company is unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss arising from the MetLife Bank regulatory matters. Management believes that the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole will not be materially affected by the MetLife Bank regulatory matters. United States of America v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., et al. (W.D. Pa., filed January 4, 2011). On January 4, 2011, the U.S. commenced a civil action in United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against EME Homer City Generation L.P. (“EME Homer City”), Homer City OL6 LLC, and other defendants regarding the operations of the Homer City Generating Station, an electricity generating facility. Homer City OL6 LLC, an entity owned by MLIC, is a passive investor with a noncontrolling interest in the electricity generating facility, which is solely operated by the lessee, EME Homer City. The complaint sought injunctive relief and assessment of civil penalties for alleged violations of the federal Clean Air Act and Pennsylvania’s State Implementation Plan. The alleged violations were the subject of Notices of Violations (“NOVs”) that the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued to EME Homer City, Homer City OL6 LLC, and others in June 2008 and May 2010. On January 7, 2011, the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted the motion by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and the State of New York to intervene in the lawsuit as additional plaintiffs. On February 16, 2011, the State of New Jersey filed an Intervenor’s Complaint in the lawsuit. On October 12, 2011, the court issued an order dismissing the U.S.’s lawsuit with prejudice. The Government entities have appealed from the order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss. EME Homer City has acknowledged its obligation to indemnify Homer City OL6 LLC for any claims relating to the NOVs. Due to the acknowledged indemnification obligation, this matter is not included in the aggregate estimate of range of reasonably possible loss. In a February 13, 2012 letter to EME Homer City, Homer City OL6 LLC and others, the Sierra Club indicated its intent to sue for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act and to seek to enjoin the alleged violations, seek unspecified penalties and attorneys’ fees, and other relief. Homer City OL6 LLC has served a claim for indemnification on EME Homer City with respect to the February 13, 2012 letter. In the Matter of Chemform, Inc. Site, Pompano Beach, Broward County, Florida. In July 2010, the 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. 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 June 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 June 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. Metco Site, Hicksville, Nassau County, New York. On February 22, 2012, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation issued a notice to MLIC, as purported successor in interest to New England Mutual, that it is a potentially responsible party with respect to hazardous substances and hazardous waste located on a property that New England Mutual owned for a time in 1978. MLIC has responded to the Department of Environmental Conservation and asserted that it is not a potentially responsible party under the law. 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, MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut (“MICC”), New England Life Insurance Company and General American Life Insurance Company, and four Company broker-dealers, which are MetLife Securities, Inc., New England Securities Corporation, Walnut Street Securities, Inc. and Tower Square Securities, Inc. 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 Inquiries and Related Litigation In April 2012, the Company reached agreements with representatives of the U.S. jurisdictions that were conducting audits of MetLife, Inc. and certain of its affiliates for compliance with unclaimed property laws, and with state insurance regulators directly involved in a multistate targeted market conduct examination relating to claim-payment practices and compliance with unclaimed property laws. The effectiveness of each agreement was conditioned upon the approval of a specified number of jurisdictions. In each case, the threshold for effectiveness has been reached. Pursuant to the agreements, the Company will, among other things, take specified action to identify liabilities under life insurance, annuity, and retained asset contracts, to adopt specified procedures for seeking to contact and pay owners of the identified liabilities, and, to the extent that it is unable to locate such owners, to escheat these amounts with interest at a specified rate to the appropriate states. Additionally, the Company has agreed to accelerate the final date of certain industrial life policies and to escheat unclaimed benefits of such policies. Pursuant to the agreement to resolve the market conduct examination, the Company made a $40 million multi-state examination payment to be allocated among the settling states. In the third quarter of 2011, the Company incurred a $117 million after tax charge to increase reserves in connection with the Company’s use of the U.S. Social Security Administration’s Death Master File and similar databases to identify potential life insurance claims that had not been presented to the Company. In the first quarter of 2012, the Company recorded a $52 million after tax charge for the multi-state examination payment and the expected acceleration of benefit payments to policyholders under the settlements. 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. At least one other jurisdiction is pursuing a similar market conduct examination concerning compliance with unclaimed property statutes. It is possible that other jurisdictions may pursue similar examinations, audits, or lawsuits and that such actions may result in additional payments to beneficiaries, additional escheatment of funds deemed abandoned under state laws, administrative penalties, interest, and/or further changes to the Company’s procedures. The Company is not currently able to estimate these additional possible costs. Total Asset Recovery Services, LLC on behalf of the State of Illinois v. MetLife, Inc., et. al. (Cir. Ct. Cook County, IL, filed January 24, 2011). Alleging that MetLife, Inc. and another company have violated the Illinois Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act by failing to escheat to Illinois benefits of 4,766 life insurance contracts, Total Asset Recovery Services, LLC (“the Relator”) has brought an action under the Illinois False Claims Whistleblower Reward and Protection Act seeking to recover damages on behalf of Illinois. MetLife, Inc. and MLIC have moved to dismiss the action. On September 6, 2012, the court granted the Relator’s unopposed motion to dismiss all of its claims. Total Asset Recovery Services, LLC on behalf of the State of Minnesota v. MetLife, Inc., et. al. (District Court, County of Hennepin, MN, filed January 31, 2011). Alleging that MetLife, Inc. and another company have violated the Minnesota Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act by failing to escheat to Minnesota benefits of 584 life insurance contracts, the Relator has brought an action under the Minnesota False Claims Act seeking to recover damages on behalf of Minnesota. Based on the allegations in the complaint, it appears that the Relator may have improperly named MetLife, Inc. as a defendant instead of MLIC. The action was sealed by court order until March 22, 2012. The Relator alleges that the aggregate damages, including statutory damages and treble damages, are $228 million. The Relator does not allocate this claimed damage amount between MetLife, Inc. and the other defendant. The Relator also bases its damage calculation in part on its assumption that the average face amount of the subject policies is $130,000. MetLife, Inc. strongly disputes this assumption, the Relator’s alleged damages amounts, and other allegations in the complaint. MetLife, Inc. and MLIC have moved to dismiss the action. 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 an action alleging that MetLife, Inc. and several current and former executive officers of MetLife, Inc. violated 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. In May 2012, plaintiff amended the complaint to add defendants including members of the MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors and several other parties and to add claims for violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. Defendants have moved to dismiss the action. 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 defendants intend to defend this action vigorously. Derivative Actions and Demands. Seeking to sue derivatively on behalf of MetLife, Inc., four shareholders have commenced separate actions against members of the MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors, alleging that they breached their fiduciary and other duties to the Company. The actions are Fishbaum v. Kandarian, et al. (Sup. Ct., New York County, filed January 27, 2012), Batchelder v. Burwell, et al. (Sup. Ct., New York County, filed March 6, 2012), 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). The two federal court actions have been consolidated and have been stayed pending further order of the court. The two state court actions have been consolidated under the caption In re: MetLife Shareholder Derivative Action and an amended complaint has been filed. Plaintiffs in all four actions 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 defendants intend to defend these actions vigorously. A fifth shareholder, Western Pennsylvania Electrical Workers Pension Fund, has written to the MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors demanding that MetLife, Inc. take action against current and former Board members, executive officers, and MetLife, Inc.’s independent auditor, for similar alleged breaches of duty with respect to the Company’s compliance with unclaimed property laws and financial disclosures. The MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors has appointed a Special Committee to investigate these allegations. On September 24, 2012, counsel for the Special Committee apprised this shareholder’s counsel that the Board of Directors had reviewed the issues and rejected the demand. Total Control Accounts Litigation and Regulatory Actions MLIC is a defendant in a consolidated lawsuit 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 (“FEGLI”) program. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that under the terms of the FEGLI policy, MLIC is required to make “immediate” payment of death benefits in “one sum.” MLIC, plaintiff alleges, breached this duty by instead retaining the death benefits in its general investment account and sending beneficiaries a “book of drafts” known as the “TCA Money Market Option” as the only means by which funds can be accessed. As damages, plaintiffs seek disgorgement of the difference between the interest paid to the account holders and the investment earnings on the assets backing the accounts. In September 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification of the breach of contract claim, which the court has stayed. On April 28, 2011, the court denied MLIC’s motion to dismiss. On May 4, 2012, MLIC moved for summary judgment. Various state regulators have also taken actions with respect to retained asset accounts. The Department of Financial Services issued a circular letter on March 29, 2012 stating that an insurer should only use a retained asset account when a policyholder or beneficiary affirmatively chooses to receive life insurance proceeds through such an account and providing for certain disclosures to a beneficiary, including that payment by a single check is an option. In connection with an ongoing market conduct exam, MLIC has entered into a consent order with the Minnesota Department of Commerce regarding MLIC’s use of TCAs as a default option. The Company is unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss arising from the TCA matters. Other U.S. Litigation Roberts, et al. v. Tishman Speyer Properties, et al. (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, filed January 22, 2007). This lawsuit was filed by a putative class of market rate tenants at Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village against parties including Metropolitan Tower Life Insurance Company (“MTL”) and Metropolitan Insurance and Annuity Company. Metropolitan Insurance and Annuity Company has merged into MTL and no longer exists as a separate entity. These tenants claim that MTL, as former owner, and the current owner improperly deregulated apartments while receiving J-51 tax abatements. The lawsuit seeks declaratory relief and damages for rent overcharges. In October 2009, the New York State Court of Appeals issued an opinion denying MTL’s motion to dismiss the complaint. MTL has reached a settlement in principle, subject to finalizing the settlement terms and court approval. The Company believes adequate provision has been made in its consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably estimable losses for this lawsuit. Merrill Haviland, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (E.D. Mich., removed to federal court on July 22, 2011). This lawsuit was filed by 45 retired General Motors (“GM”) employees against MLIC and the amended complaint includes claims for conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraudulent insurance acts, unfair trade practices, and Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) claims based upon GM’s 2009 reduction of the employees’ life insurance coverage under GM’s ERISA-governed plan. The complaint includes a count seeking class action status. MLIC is the insurer of GM’s group life insurance plan and administers claims under the plan. According to the complaint, MLIC had previously provided plaintiffs with a “written guarantee” that their life insurance benefits under the GM plan would not be reduced for the rest of their lives. On June 26, 2012, the district court granted MLIC’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. 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 Company is defending the 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 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. International Litigation Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (Super. Ct., Ontario, October 2006). In 2006, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (“Sun Life”), as successor to the purchaser of MLIC’s Canadian operations, filed this 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 have been 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. In September 2010, Sun Life notified MLIC that a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Toronto, Kang 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, 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. The Company is unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss arising from this litigation. Italy Fund Redemption Suspension Complaints and Litigation. As a result of suspension of withdrawals and diminution in value in certain funds offered within certain unit-linked policies sold by the Italian branch of Alico Life International, Ltd. (“ALIL”), a number of policyholders invested in those funds have either commenced or threatened litigation against ALIL, alleging misrepresentation, inadequate disclosures and other related claims. These policyholders contacted ALIL beginning in July 2009 alleging that the funds operated at variance to the published prospectus and that prospectus risk disclosures were allegedly wrong, unclear, and misleading. The limited number of lawsuits or complaints that have been filed to date have either been resolved or are proceeding. In March 2011, ALIL implemented a plan to resolve policyholder claims. Under the plan, ALIL provided liquidity to the suspended funds so that policyholders may withdraw investments in these funds, and ALIL offered policyholders amounts in addition to the liquidation value of the suspended funds based on the performance of other relevant financial products. The settlement program achieved a 97% acceptance rate. Those policyholders who did not accept the settlement may still pursue other remedies or commence individual litigation. Under the terms of the stock purchase agreement dated as of March 7, 2010, as amended, by and among MetLife, Inc., AIG and AM Holdings LLC, AIG agreed to indemnify MetLife, Inc. and its affiliates for third party claims and regulatory fines associated with ALIL’s suspended funds. Due to the acknowledged indemnification obligation, this matter is not included in the aggregate estimate of range of reasonably possible loss. 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 *Commitments to Fund Partnership Investments* The Company makes commitments to fund partnership investments in the normal course of business. The amounts of these unfunded commitments were $3.5 billion and $4.0 billion at September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively. The Company anticipates that these amounts will be invested in partnerships over the next five years. *Mortgage Loan Commitments* Prior to exiting the business of originating forward and reverse residential mortgage loans, in the ordinary course of business, the Company issued interest rate lock commitments on certain residential mortgage loan applications which totaled $5.6 billion at December 31, 2011. There were no outstanding interest rate lock commitments at September 30, 2012. The Company sells the originated residential mortgage loans. Interest rate lock commitments to fund mortgage loans that will be held-for-sale are considered derivatives and their estimated fair value and notional amounts are included within interest rate forwards. See Notes 2 and 4. The Company also commits to lend funds under certain mortgage loan commitments that will be held-for-investment. The amounts of these mortgage loan commitments were $2.9 billion and $4.1 billion at September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively. *Commitments to Fund Bank Credit Facilities, Bridge Loans and Private Corporate Bond Investments* The Company commits to lend funds under bank credit facilities, bridge loans and private corporate bond investments. The amounts of these unfunded commitments were $1.5 billion and $1.4 billion at September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively. Guarantees In the normal course of its business, the Company has provided certain indemnities, guarantees and commitments to third parties pursuant to which 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 $800 million, with a cumulative maximum of $2.3 billion, 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 guaranteed minimum investment returns on certain international retirement 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 $5 million at September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively, for indemnities, guarantees and commitments.

Contingencies, Commitments and Guarantees

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2012

Contingencies, Commitments and Guarantees [Abstract]

Contingencies, Commitments and Guarantees

12. Contingencies, Commitments and Guarantees

Contingencies

Litigation

The Company is a defendant in a large number of litigation matters in multiple jurisdictions around the world. 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. and other countries 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, 2012. 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, 2012, the Company estimates the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses in excess of amounts accrued for these matters to be approximately $0 to $145 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 to dismiss. 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 2011 Annual Report, MLIC received approximately 4,972 asbestos-related claims in 2011. During the nine months ended September 30, 2012 and 2011, MLIC received approximately 3,909 and 3,750 new asbestos-related claims, respectively. See Note 16 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in the 2011 Annual Report for historical information concerning asbestos claims and MLIC’s increase in its recorded liability at December 31, 2002. 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. To the extent the Company can estimate reasonably possible losses in excess of amounts accrued, it has been included in the aggregate estimate of reasonably possible loss provided above. 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 U.S., 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, 2012.

Regulatory Matters

The Company receives and responds to subpoenas or other inquiries 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”) seeking a broad range of information. The issues involved in information requests and regulatory matters vary widely. The Company cooperates in these inquiries.

MetLife Bank Mortgage Regulatory and Law Enforcement Authorities’ Inquiries. Since 2008, MetLife, through its affiliate, MetLife Bank, has been engaged in the forward and reverse residential mortgage origination and servicing business. State and federal regulatory and law enforcement authorities have initiated various inquiries, investigations or examinations of alleged irregularities in the foreclosure practices of the residential mortgage servicing industry. Mortgage servicing practices have also been the subject of Congressional attention. Authorities have publicly stated that the scope of the investigations extends beyond foreclosure documentation practices to include mortgage loan modification and loss mitigation practices.

On April 13, 2011, the OCC entered into consent decrees with several banks, including MetLife Bank. The consent decrees require an independent review of foreclosure practices and set forth new residential mortgage servicing standards, including a requirement for a designated point of contact for a borrower during the loss mitigation process. In addition, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Federal Reserve Board”) entered into consent decrees with the affiliated bank holding companies of these banks, including MetLife, Inc., to enhance the supervision of the mortgage servicing activities of their banking subsidiaries. On August 6, 2012, the Federal Reserve Board issued an Order of Assessment of a Civil Monetary Penalty Issued Upon Consent against MetLife, Inc. that will impose a penalty of up to $3.2 million for the alleged deficiencies in oversight of MetLife Bank’s servicing of residential mortgage loans and processing foreclosures that were the subject of the 2011 consent decree.

MetLife Bank also had a meeting with the Department of Justice regarding mortgage servicing and foreclosure practices. It is possible that various state or federal regulatory and law enforcement authorities may seek monetary penalties from MetLife Bank relating to foreclosure practices.

MetLife Bank has also responded to a subpoena issued by the New York State Department of Financial Services (“Department of Financial Services”) regarding hazard insurance and flood insurance that MetLife Bank obtains to protect the lienholder’s interest when the borrower’s insurance has lapsed. In April and May 2012, MetLife Bank received two subpoenas issued by the Office of Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 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.

The consent decrees, as well as the inquiries or investigations referred to above, could adversely affect MetLife’s reputation or result in material fines, penalties, equitable remedies or other enforcement actions, and result in significant legal costs in responding to governmental investigations or other litigation. In addition, the changes to the mortgage servicing business required by the consent decrees and the resolution of any other inquiries or investigations may affect the profitability of such business. The Company is unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss arising from the MetLife Bank regulatory matters. Management believes that the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole will not be materially affected by the MetLife Bank regulatory matters.

United States of America v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., et al. (W.D. Pa., filed January 4, 2011). On January 4, 2011, the U.S. commenced a civil action in United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against EME Homer City Generation L.P. (“EME Homer City”), Homer City OL6 LLC, and other defendants regarding the operations of the Homer City Generating Station, an electricity generating facility. Homer City OL6 LLC, an entity owned by MLIC, is a passive investor with a noncontrolling interest in the electricity generating facility, which is solely operated by the lessee, EME Homer City. The complaint sought injunctive relief and assessment of civil penalties for alleged violations of the federal Clean Air Act and Pennsylvania’s State Implementation Plan. The alleged violations were the subject of Notices of Violations (“NOVs”) that the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued to EME Homer City, Homer City OL6 LLC, and others in June 2008 and May 2010. On January 7, 2011, the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted the motion by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and the State of New York to intervene in the lawsuit as additional plaintiffs. On February 16, 2011, the State of New Jersey filed an Intervenor’s Complaint in the lawsuit. On October 12, 2011, the court issued an order dismissing the U.S.’s lawsuit with prejudice. The Government entities have appealed from the order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss. EME Homer City has acknowledged its obligation to indemnify Homer City OL6 LLC for any claims relating to the NOVs. Due to the acknowledged indemnification obligation, this matter is not included in the aggregate estimate of range of reasonably possible loss. In a February 13, 2012 letter to EME Homer City, Homer City OL6 LLC and others, the Sierra Club indicated its intent to sue for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act and to seek to enjoin the alleged violations, seek unspecified penalties and attorneys’ fees, and other relief. Homer City OL6 LLC has served a claim for indemnification on EME Homer City with respect to the February 13, 2012 letter.

In the Matter of Chemform, Inc. Site, Pompano Beach, Broward County, Florida. In July 2010, the 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. 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 June 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 June 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.

Metco Site, Hicksville, Nassau County, New York. On February 22, 2012, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation issued a notice to MLIC, as purported successor in interest to New England Mutual, that it is a potentially responsible party with respect to hazardous substances and hazardous waste located on a property that New England Mutual owned for a time in 1978. MLIC has responded to the Department of Environmental Conservation and asserted that it is not a potentially responsible party under the law.

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, MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut (“MICC”), New England Life Insurance Company and General American Life Insurance Company, and four Company broker-dealers, which are MetLife Securities, Inc., New England Securities Corporation, Walnut Street Securities, Inc. and Tower Square Securities, Inc. 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 Inquiries and Related Litigation

In April 2012, the Company reached agreements with representatives of the U.S. jurisdictions that were conducting audits of MetLife, Inc. and certain of its affiliates for compliance with unclaimed property laws, and with state insurance regulators directly involved in a multistate targeted market conduct examination relating to claim-payment practices and compliance with unclaimed property laws. The effectiveness of each agreement was conditioned upon the approval of a specified number of jurisdictions. In each case, the threshold for effectiveness has been reached. Pursuant to the agreements, the Company will, among other things, take specified action to identify liabilities under life insurance, annuity, and retained asset contracts, to adopt specified procedures for seeking to contact and pay owners of the identified liabilities, and, to the extent that it is unable to locate such owners, to escheat these amounts with interest at a specified rate to the appropriate states. Additionally, the Company has agreed to accelerate the final date of certain industrial life policies and to escheat unclaimed benefits of such policies. Pursuant to the agreement to resolve the market conduct examination, the Company made a $40 million multi-state examination payment to be allocated among the settling states. In the third quarter of 2011, the Company incurred a $117 million after tax charge to increase reserves in connection with the Company’s use of the U.S. Social Security Administration’s Death Master File and similar databases to identify potential life insurance claims that had not been presented to the Company. In the first quarter of 2012, the Company recorded a $52 million after tax charge for the multi-state examination payment and the expected acceleration of benefit payments to policyholders under the settlements. 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. At least one other jurisdiction is pursuing a similar market conduct examination concerning compliance with unclaimed property statutes. It is possible that other jurisdictions may pursue similar examinations, audits, or lawsuits and that such actions may result in additional payments to beneficiaries, additional escheatment of funds deemed abandoned under state laws, administrative penalties, interest, and/or further changes to the Company’s procedures. The Company is not currently able to estimate these additional possible costs.

Total Asset Recovery Services, LLC on behalf of the State of Illinois v. MetLife, Inc., et. al. (Cir. Ct. Cook County, IL, filed January 24, 2011). Alleging that MetLife, Inc. and another company have violated the Illinois Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act by failing to escheat to Illinois benefits of 4,766 life insurance contracts, Total Asset Recovery Services, LLC (“the Relator”) has brought an action under the Illinois False Claims Whistleblower Reward and Protection Act seeking to recover damages on behalf of Illinois. MetLife, Inc. and MLIC have moved to dismiss the action. On September 6, 2012, the court granted the Relator’s unopposed motion to dismiss all of its claims.

Total Asset Recovery Services, LLC on behalf of the State of Minnesota v. MetLife, Inc., et. al. (District Court, County of Hennepin, MN, filed January 31, 2011). Alleging that MetLife, Inc. and another company have violated the Minnesota Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act by failing to escheat to Minnesota benefits of 584 life insurance contracts, the Relator has brought an action under the Minnesota False Claims Act seeking to recover damages on behalf of Minnesota. Based on the allegations in the complaint, it appears that the Relator may have improperly named MetLife, Inc. as a defendant instead of MLIC. The action was sealed by court order until March 22, 2012. The Relator alleges that the aggregate damages, including statutory damages and treble damages, are $228 million. The Relator does not allocate this claimed damage amount between MetLife, Inc. and the other defendant. The Relator also bases its damage calculation in part on its assumption that the average face amount of the subject policies is $130,000. MetLife, Inc. strongly disputes this assumption, the Relator’s alleged damages amounts, and other allegations in the complaint. MetLife, Inc. and MLIC have moved to dismiss the action.

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 an action alleging that MetLife, Inc. and several current and former executive officers of MetLife, Inc. violated 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. In May 2012, plaintiff amended the complaint to add defendants including members of the MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors and several other parties and to add claims for violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. Defendants have moved to dismiss the action.

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 defendants intend to defend this action vigorously.

Derivative Actions and Demands. Seeking to sue derivatively on behalf of MetLife, Inc., four shareholders have commenced separate actions against members of the MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors, alleging that they breached their fiduciary and other duties to the Company. The actions are Fishbaum v. Kandarian, et al. (Sup. Ct., New York County, filed January 27, 2012), Batchelder v. Burwell, et al. (Sup. Ct., New York County, filed March 6, 2012), 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). The two federal court actions have been consolidated and have been stayed pending further order of the court. The two state court actions have been consolidated under the caption In re: MetLife Shareholder Derivative Action and an amended complaint has been filed. Plaintiffs in all four actions 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 defendants intend to defend these actions vigorously. A fifth shareholder, Western Pennsylvania Electrical Workers Pension Fund, has written to the MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors demanding that MetLife, Inc. take action against current and former Board members, executive officers, and MetLife, Inc.’s independent auditor, for similar alleged breaches of duty with respect to the Company’s compliance with unclaimed property laws and financial disclosures. The MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors has appointed a Special Committee to investigate these allegations. On September 24, 2012, counsel for the Special Committee apprised this shareholder’s counsel that the Board of Directors had reviewed the issues and rejected the demand.

Total Control Accounts Litigation and Regulatory Actions

MLIC is a defendant in a consolidated lawsuit 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 (“FEGLI”) program. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that under the terms of the FEGLI policy, MLIC is required to make “immediate” payment of death benefits in “one sum.” MLIC, plaintiff alleges, breached this duty by instead retaining the death benefits in its general investment account and sending beneficiaries a “book of drafts” known as the “TCA Money Market Option” as the only means by which funds can be accessed. As damages, plaintiffs seek disgorgement of the difference between the interest paid to the account holders and the investment earnings on the assets backing the accounts. In September 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification of the breach of contract claim, which the court has stayed. On April 28, 2011, the court denied MLIC’s motion to dismiss. On May 4, 2012, MLIC moved for summary judgment.

Various state regulators have also taken actions with respect to retained asset accounts. The Department of Financial Services issued a circular letter on March 29, 2012 stating that an insurer should only use a retained asset account when a policyholder or beneficiary affirmatively chooses to receive life insurance proceeds through such an account and providing for certain disclosures to a beneficiary, including that payment by a single check is an option. In connection with an ongoing market conduct exam, MLIC has entered into a consent order with the Minnesota Department of Commerce regarding MLIC’s use of TCAs as a default option.

The Company is unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss arising from the TCA matters.

Other U.S. Litigation

Roberts, et al. v. Tishman Speyer Properties, et al. (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, filed January 22, 2007). This lawsuit was filed by a putative class of market rate tenants at Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village against parties including Metropolitan Tower Life Insurance Company (“MTL”) and Metropolitan Insurance and Annuity Company. Metropolitan Insurance and Annuity Company has merged into MTL and no longer exists as a separate entity. These tenants claim that MTL, as former owner, and the current owner improperly deregulated apartments while receiving J-51 tax abatements. The lawsuit seeks declaratory relief and damages for rent overcharges. In October 2009, the New York State Court of Appeals issued an opinion denying MTL’s motion to dismiss the complaint. MTL has reached a settlement in principle, subject to finalizing the settlement terms and court approval. The Company believes adequate provision has been made in its consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably estimable losses for this lawsuit.

Merrill Haviland, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (E.D. Mich., removed to federal court on July 22, 2011). This lawsuit was filed by 45 retired General Motors (“GM”) employees against MLIC and the amended complaint includes claims for conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraudulent insurance acts, unfair trade practices, and Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) claims based upon GM’s 2009 reduction of the employees’ life insurance coverage under GM’s ERISA-governed plan. The complaint includes a count seeking class action status. MLIC is the insurer of GM’s group life insurance plan and administers claims under the plan. According to the complaint, MLIC had previously provided plaintiffs with a “written guarantee” that their life insurance benefits under the GM plan would not be reduced for the rest of their lives. On June 26, 2012, the district court granted MLIC’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

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 Company is defending the 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 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.

International Litigation

Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (Super. Ct., Ontario, October 2006). In 2006, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (“Sun Life”), as successor to the purchaser of MLIC’s Canadian operations, filed this 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 have been 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. In September 2010, Sun Life notified MLIC that a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Toronto, Kang 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, 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. The Company is unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss arising from this litigation.

Italy Fund Redemption Suspension Complaints and Litigation. As a result of suspension of withdrawals and diminution in value in certain funds offered within certain unit-linked policies sold by the Italian branch of Alico Life International, Ltd. (“ALIL”), a number of policyholders invested in those funds have either commenced or threatened litigation against ALIL, alleging misrepresentation, inadequate disclosures and other related claims. These policyholders contacted ALIL beginning in July 2009 alleging that the funds operated at variance to the published prospectus and that prospectus risk disclosures were allegedly wrong, unclear, and misleading. The limited number of lawsuits or complaints that have been filed to date have either been resolved or are proceeding. In March 2011, ALIL implemented a plan to resolve policyholder claims. Under the plan, ALIL provided liquidity to the suspended funds so that policyholders may withdraw investments in these funds, and ALIL offered policyholders amounts in addition to the liquidation value of the suspended funds based on the performance of other relevant financial products. The settlement program achieved a 97% acceptance rate. Those policyholders who did not accept the settlement may still pursue other remedies or commence individual litigation. Under the terms of the stock purchase agreement dated as of March 7, 2010, as amended, by and among MetLife, Inc., AIG and AM Holdings LLC, AIG agreed to indemnify MetLife, Inc. and its affiliates for third party claims and regulatory fines associated with ALIL’s suspended funds. Due to the acknowledged indemnification obligation, this matter is not included in the aggregate estimate of range of reasonably possible loss.

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

Commitments to Fund Partnership Investments

The Company makes commitments to fund partnership investments in the normal course of business. The amounts of these unfunded commitments were $3.5 billion and $4.0 billion at September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively. The Company anticipates that these amounts will be invested in partnerships over the next five years.

Mortgage Loan Commitments

Prior to exiting the business of originating forward and reverse residential mortgage loans, in the ordinary course of business, the Company issued interest rate lock commitments on certain residential mortgage loan applications which totaled $5.6 billion at December 31, 2011. There were no outstanding interest rate lock commitments at September 30, 2012. The Company sells the originated residential mortgage loans. Interest rate lock commitments to fund mortgage loans that will be held-for-sale are considered derivatives and their estimated fair value and notional amounts are included within interest rate forwards. See Notes 2 and 4.

The Company also commits to lend funds under certain mortgage loan commitments that will be held-for-investment. The amounts of these mortgage loan commitments were $2.9 billion and $4.1 billion at September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively.

Commitments to Fund Bank Credit Facilities, Bridge Loans and Private Corporate Bond Investments

The Company commits to lend funds under bank credit facilities, bridge loans and private corporate bond investments. The amounts of these unfunded commitments were $1.5 billion and $1.4 billion at September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively.

Guarantees

In the normal course of its business, the Company has provided certain indemnities, guarantees and commitments to third parties pursuant to which 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 $800 million, with a cumulative maximum of $2.3 billion, 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 guaranteed minimum investment returns on certain international retirement 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 $5 million at September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively, for indemnities, guarantees and commitments.