1.0.0.3 false Contingencies, Guarantees and Indemnifications false 1 $ false false USD Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 0 USDPerShare Divide http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares xbrli 0 2 Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements 0 pfg_NotesToConsolidatedFinancialStatementsAbstract pfg false na duration string Footnote disclosures that provide additional details to specific information summarized in the consolidated financial... false false false false false true false false false 1 false false 0 0 false false Footnote disclosures that provide additional details to specific information summarized in the consolidated financial statements to comply with GAAP disclosure requirements. false 3 Contingencies, Guarantees and Indemnifications 1 pfg_ContingenciesGuaranteesAndIndemnificationsDisclosureTextBlock pfg false na duration string The entire disclosure related to contingencies, guarantees, and indemnifications. false false false false false false false false false 1 false false 0 0 <table style="font-size:10pt; font-family:'Times New Roman',times,serif;"> <tr> <td> 7. Contingencies, Guarantees and Indemnifications   Litigation and Regulatory Contingencies   We are regularly involved in litigation, both as a defendant and as a plaintiff, but primarily as a defendant. Litigation naming us as a defendant ordinarily arises out of our business operations as a provider of asset management and accumulation products and services, life, health and disability insurance. Some of the lawsuits are class actions, or purport to be, and some include claims for punitive damages. In addition, regulatory bodies, such as state insurance departments, the SEC, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, the Department of Labor and other regulatory bodies regularly make inquiries and conduct examinations or investigations concerning our compliance with, among other things, insurance laws, securities laws, ERISA and laws governing the activities of broker-dealers. We receive requests from regulators and other governmental authorities relating to other industry issues and may receive additional requests, including subpoenas and interrogatories, in the future.   On November 8, 2006, a trustee of Fairmount Park Inc. Retirement Savings Plan filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois against Principal Life. Principal Lifes Motion to Transfer Venue was granted and the case is now pending in the Southern District of Iowa. The complaint alleged, among other things, that Principal Life breached its alleged fiduciary duties while performing services to 401(k) plans by failing to disclose, or adequately disclose, to employers or plan participants the fact that Principal Life receives revenue sharing fees from mutual funds that are included in its pre-packaged 401(k) plans and allegedly failed to use the revenue to defray the expenses of the services provided to the plans. Plaintiff further alleged that these acts constitute prohibited transactions under ERISA. Plaintiff sought to certify a class of all retirement plans to which Principal Life was a service provider and for which Principal Life received and retained revenue sharing fees from mutual funds. On August 27, 2008, the Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification was denied. The Plaintiff filed a petition seeking permission to appeal that ruling. The petition was denied on October 28, 2008. On May 11, 2009, Plaintiff filed a new Motion for Class Certification. Principal Life is aggressively defending the lawsuit.   On August 28, 2007, two plaintiffs, Walsh and Young, filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa against Principal Life and Princor Financial Services Corporation (the Principal Defendants). The lawsuit alleges that the Principal Defendants breached alleged fiduciary duties to participants in employer-sponsored 401(k) plans who were retiring or leaving their respective plans, including providing misleading information and failing to act solely in the interests of the participants, resulting in alleged violations of ERISA. The Principal Defendants are aggressively defending the lawsuit.   On February 28, 2007, Luz Zapien (Zapien) filed a securities class action against Washington Mutual, Inc. (WaMu), us and certain mutual fund-related entities. The Complaint alleged that WaMu had inadequately disclosed an alleged shelf-space arrangement that misled fund investors during the putative class period. We were named in the Complaint based on our December 2006 purchase of the distributor, investment advisor and assets of the relevant WaMu mutual funds (the acquired business). This action was dismissed with prejudice on June 17, 2008. Plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On March 26, 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the parties stipulation to dismiss the appeal against the Principal defendants. On August 20, 2008, counsel for the Plaintiffs filed a new class action, Robinson v. WM Trust I, et al., in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, making the same allegations that were contained in Zapien. On September 26, 2008, the Robinson Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint which dropped the WaMu defendants, added four directors of the Principal Mutual Funds entity in their individual capacity, and amended the putative class to include all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired shares, units or like interests in any of the WM Funds (including through the reinvestment of Fund dividends) between March 1, 2002, and December 31, 2006, inclusive. A new lead plaintiff, Dumdie, was substituted for Robinson. On April 17, 2009, the court approved the parties stipulated dismissal, ending the case.   On July 15, 2009, Integrative Chiropractic Center, P.C. filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court of New Jersey against us and Principal Life (together, the Principal Defendants). The complaint alleges the Principal Defendants systematically underpaid out of network health claims through use of a national database used to calculate the usual and customary rate. The plaintiff is also suing on behalf of a subset of purported class members who submitted claims under a group health plan subject to ERISA that was insured or administered by us, and were paid less than the amount submitted on the claim. The complaint alleges violations of ERISA, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and the Sherman Act. The Principal Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint and are aggressively defending the lawsuit.   While the outcome of any pending or future litigation or regulatory matter cannot be predicted, management does not believe that any pending litigation or regulatory matter will have a material adverse effect on our business or financial position. The outcome of such matters is always uncertain, and unforeseen results can occur. It is possible that such outcomes could materially affect net income in a particular quarter or annual period.   Guarantees and Indemnifications   In the normal course of business, we have provided guarantees to third parties primarily related to a former subsidiary, joint ventures and industrial revenue bonds. These agreements generally expire through 2019. The maximum exposure under these agreements as of September 30, 2009, was approximately $238.0 million. At inception, the fair value of such guarantees was insignificant. In addition, we believe the likelihood is remote that material payments will be required. Therefore, any liability accrued within our consolidated statements of financial position is insignificant. Should we be required to perform under these guarantees, we generally could recover a portion of the loss from third parties through recourse provisions included in agreements with such parties, the sale of assets held as collateral that can be liquidated in the event that performance is required under the guarantees or other recourse generally available to us; therefore, such guarantees would not result in a material adverse effect on our business or financial position. It is possible that performance under these guarantees could materially affect net income in a particular quarter or annual period.   We are also subject to various other indemnification obligations issued in conjunction with certain transactions, primarily the sale of Principal Residential Mortgage, Inc. and other divestitures, acquisitions and financing transactions whose terms range in duration and often are not explicitly defined. Certain portions of these indemnifications may be capped, while other portions are not subject to such limitations; therefore, the overall maximum amount of the obligation under the indemnifications cannot be reasonably estimated. At inception, the fair value of such indemnifications was insignificant. In addition, we believe the likelihood is remote that material payments will be required. Therefore, any liability accrued within our consolidated statements of financial position is insignificant. While we are unable to estimate with certainty the ultimate legal and financial liability with respect to these indemnifications, we believe that performance under these indemnifications would not result in a material adverse effect on our business or financial position. It is possible that performance under these indemnifications could materially affect net income in a particular quarter or annual period.</td></tr></table> 7. Contingencies, Guarantees and Indemnifications   Litigation and Regulatory Contingencies   We are regularly involved in false false The entire disclosure related to contingencies, guarantees, and indemnifications. No authoritative reference available. false false 1 2 false UnKnown UnKnown UnKnown false true