Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies

Legal and Regulatory Contingencies

In the ordinary course of business, we are involved in various pending and threatened litigation matters related to our operations, some of which include claims for punitive or exemplary damages. With respect to our title insurance operations, this customary litigation includes but is not limited to a wide variety of cases arising out of or related to title and escrow claims, for which we make provisions through our loss reserves. See Note B. Summary of Reserve for Claim Losses for further discussion. Additionally, like other companies, our ordinary course litigation includes a number of class action and purported class action lawsuits, which make allegations related to aspects of our operations. We believe that no actions, other than the matters discussed below, if any, depart from customary litigation incidental to our business.

We review lawsuits and other legal and regulatory matters (collectively “legal proceedings”) on an ongoing basis when making accrual and disclosure decisions. When assessing reasonably possible and probable outcomes, management bases its decision on its assessment of the ultimate outcome assuming all appeals have been exhausted. For legal proceedings in which it has been determined that a loss is both probable and reasonably estimable, a liability based on known facts and which represents our best estimate has been recorded. Our accrual for legal and regulatory matters was $22 million as of March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019. None of the amounts we have currently recorded are considered to be material to our financial condition individually or in the aggregate. Actual losses may materially differ from the amounts recorded and the ultimate outcome of our pending legal proceedings is generally not yet determinable. While some of these matters could be material to our operating results or cash flows for any particular period if an unfavorable outcome results, at present we do not believe that the ultimate resolution of currently pending legal proceedings, either individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition.

In a class action captioned, Patterson, et al. v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, et al., originally filed on October 27, 2003, and pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, plaintiffs allege the named Company underwriters violated Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (“UTPCPL”) by failing to provide premium discounts in accordance with filed rates in refinancing transactions. Contrary to rulings in similar federal court cases that considered the rate rule and agreed with the Company’s position, the court held that the rate rule should be interpreted such that an institutional mortgage in the public record is a “proxy” for prior title insurance entitling a consumer to a discount rate when refinancing when there is a mortgage of record within the number of years required by the rate rule. The rate rule requires sufficient evidence of a prior policy, and because not all institutional mortgages were insured, the Company’s position is that a recorded first mortgage alone does not constitute sufficient evidence of an earlier policy entitling consumers to a discounted rate. The court certified the class refusing to follow prior Pennsylvania Supreme Court and appellate court decisions holding that the UTPCPL requires proof of reliance, an individual issue that precludes certification. After notice to the class, plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on liability, and defendants moved for summary judgment. On June 27, 2018, the court entered an order granting plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on liability, and denying the Company’s motion. The court also determined that a multiplier of 1.5, not treble, should be applied to the amount of damages, if any, proven by class members at trial, and that Plaintiffs should bear the responsibility of identifying class members and calculating damages. The Company’s requests for interlocutory appeals of both the liability and damage multiplier issues were denied. The parties executed a written settlement agreement and received preliminary approval. Notice must now be given, and the class action settlement administrator will follow the claims process. We do not believe the settlement will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition.

From time to time we receive inquiries and requests for information from state insurance departments, attorneys general and other regulatory agencies about various matters relating to our business. Sometimes these take the form of civil investigative demands or subpoenas. We cooperate with all such inquiries and we have responded to or are currently responding to inquiries from multiple governmental agencies. Also, regulators and courts have been dealing with issues arising from foreclosures and related processes and documentation. Various governmental entities are studying the title insurance product, market, pricing, and business practices, and potential regulatory and legislative changes, which may materially affect our business and operations. From time to time, we are assessed fines for violations of regulations or other matters or enter into settlements with such authorities which may require us to pay fines or claims or take other actions. We do not anticipate such fines and settlements, either individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition.