(6) Unpaid Losses and Loss Expenses

(a) The process of establishing loss reserves is complex and imprecise as it must take into consideration many variables that are subject to the outcome of future events. As a result, informed subjective estimates and judgments as to the P&C Group’s ultimate exposure to losses are an integral component of the loss reserving process. The loss reserve estimation process relies on the basic assumption that past experience, adjusted for the effects of current developments and likely trends, is an appropriate basis for predicting future outcomes.

Most of the P&C Group’s loss reserves relate to long tail liability classes of business. For many liability claims, significant periods of time, ranging up to several years or more, may elapse between the occurrence of the loss, the reporting of the loss and the settlement of the claim. The longer the time span between the incidence of a loss and the settlement of the claim, the more the ultimate settlement amount can vary.

There are numerous factors that contribute to the inherent uncertainty in the process of establishing loss reserves. Among these factors are changes in the inflation rate for goods and services related to covered damages such as medical care and home repair costs; changes in the judicial interpretation of policy provisions relating to the determination of coverage; changes in the general attitude of juries in the determination of liability and damages; legislative actions; changes in the medical condition of claimants; changes in the estimates of the number and/or severity of claims that have been incurred but not reported as of the date of the financial statements; and changes in the P&C Group’s book of business, underwriting standards and/or claim handling procedures.

In addition, the uncertain effects of emerging or potential claims and coverage issues that arise as legal, judicial and social conditions change must be taken into consideration. These issues have had, and may continue to have, a negative effect on loss reserves by either extending coverage beyond the original underwriting intent or by increasing the number or size of claims. As a result of such issues, the uncertainties inherent in estimating ultimate claim costs on the basis of past experience have grown, further complicating the already complex loss reserving process.

Management believes that the aggregate loss reserves of the P&C Group at December 31, 2012 were adequate to cover claims for losses that had occurred as of that date, including both those known and those yet to be reported. In establishing such reserves, management considers facts currently known and the present state of the law and coverage litigation. However, given the significant uncertainties inherent in the loss reserving process, it is possible that management’s estimate of the ultimate liability for losses that had occurred as of December 31, 2012 may change, which could have a material effect on the Corporation’s results of operations and financial condition.

(b) A reconciliation of the beginning and ending liability for unpaid losses and loss expenses, net of reinsurance recoverable, and a reconciliation of the net liability to the corresponding liability on a gross basis is as follows:


	2012			2011			2010
	(in millions)
Gross liability, beginning of year	$	23,068		$	22,718		$	22,839
Reinsurance recoverable, beginning of year		1,739			1,817			2,053

Net liability, beginning of year		21,329			20,901			20,786

Net incurred losses and loss expenses related to
Current year		8,121			8,174			7,245
Prior years		(614	)		(767	)		(746	)

		7,507			7,407			6,499

Net payments for losses and loss expenses related to
Current year		2,323			2,746			2,280
Prior years		4,493			4,300			4,074

		6,816			7,046			6,354


Foreign currency translation effect		2			67			(30	)


Net liability, end of year		22,022			21,329			20,901
Reinsurance recoverable, end of year		1,941			1,739			1,817

Gross liability, end of year	$	23,963		$	23,068		$	22,718

Changes in loss reserve estimates are unavoidable because such estimates are subject to the outcome of future events. Loss trends vary and time is required for changes in trends to be recognized and confirmed. During 2012, the P&C Group experienced overall favorable development of $614 million on net unpaid losses and loss expenses established as of the previous year end. This compares with favorable prior year development of $767 million in 2011 and $746 million in 2010. Such favorable development was reflected in operating results in these respective years.

The net favorable development of $614 million in 2012 was due to various factors. Favorable development of about $250 million in the aggregate was experienced in the personal and commercial liability classes. The most significant favorable development occurred in accident years 2006 to 2009, which more than offset adverse development in accident years 2002 and prior, which included $83 million of incurred losses related to asbestos and toxic waste claims. The overall frequency and severity of prior period liability claims were lower than expected and the effects of underwriting changes that affected these years have been more positive than expected, especially in the commercial excess liability class. Overall favorable development of about $200 million was experienced in the professional liability classes other than fidelity. This favorable development was driven by the directors and officers liability and fiduciary liability classes, partially offset by adverse development experienced in the errors and omissions liability and employment practices liability classes. The reported loss activity was less than expected, with aggregate favorable emergence from accident years 2008 and prior partly offset by some adverse emergence in the more recent accident years. Favorable development of about $125 million in the aggregate was experienced in the personal and commercial property classes, mostly related to the 2007 through 2011 accident years. The severity and frequency of late developing property claims that emerged during 2012 were lower than expected, including those related to catastrophes, and the development of existing case reserves was more favorable than expected. Unfavorable development of about $60 million was experienced in the fidelity class due to higher than expected reported loss emergence, related mostly to accident years 2008 through 2010. Favorable development of about $45 million was experienced in the runoff of our reinsurance assumed business due primarily to better than expected reported loss activity from cedants. Favorable development of about $40 million was experienced in the personal automobile business due primarily to lower than expected frequency of prior period claims. Favorable development of about $25 million was experienced in the surety business due to lower than expected loss emergence in recent accident years.

The net favorable development of $767 million in 2011 was due to various factors. Favorable development of about $355 million in the aggregate was experienced in the personal and commercial liability classes. Favorable development in the more recent accident years, particularly in accident years 2004 to 2009, more than offset adverse development in accident years 2001 and prior, which included $72 million of incurred losses related to asbestos and toxic waste claims. The overall frequency and severity of prior period liability claims were lower than expected and the effects of underwriting changes that affected these years have been more positive than expected, especially in the commercial excess liability class. Overall favorable development of about $310 million was experienced in the professional liability classes other than fidelity. The most significant amount of favorable development occurred in the directors and officers liability class, particularly from our business outside the United States, with additional favorable development in the fiduciary liability class, partially offset by adverse development experienced in the errors and omissions liability class. The aggregate reported loss activity related to accident years 2008 and prior was less than expected. Favorable development of about $80 million in the aggregate was experienced in the personal and commercial property classes, primarily related to the 2009 and 2010 accident years. The severity and frequency of late developing property claims that emerged during 2011 were lower than expected. Unfavorable development of about $70 million was experienced in the fidelity class due to higher than expected reported loss emergence, related to the 2010 accident year and, to a lesser extent, the 2009 accident year. Favorable development of about $30 million was experienced in the personal automobile business due primarily to lower than expected frequency of prior year claims. Favorable development of about $30 million was experienced in the runoff of the reinsurance assumed business due primarily to better than expected reported loss activity from cedants. Favorable development of about $15 million was experienced in the surety business due to lower than expected loss emergence in recent accident years.

The net favorable development of $746 million in 2010 was due to various factors. Overall favorable development of about $315 million was experienced in the professional liability classes other than fidelity, including about $190 million outside the United States. The most significant amount of favorable development occurred in the directors and officers liability class, particularly outside the United States, with additional favorable development in the fiduciary liability and employment practices liability classes, partially offset by adverse development experienced in the errors and omissions liability class. The aggregate reported loss activity related to accident years 2007 and prior was less than expected, reflecting a favorable business climate, lower policy limits and better terms and conditions. Favorable development of about $265 million in the aggregate was experienced in the personal and commercial liability classes. Favorable development in the more recent accident years, particularly in accident years 2004 to 2008, more than offset adverse development in accident years 2000 and prior, which included $61 million of incurred losses related to toxic waste claims. The overall frequency and severity of prior period liability claims were lower than expected and the effects of underwriting changes that affected these years have been more positive than expected, especially in the commercial excess liability class. Favorable development of about $110 million in the aggregate was experienced in the personal and commercial property classes, primarily related to the 2008 and 2009 accident years. The severity and frequency of late developing property claims that emerged during 2010 were lower than expected. Unfavorable development of about $70 million was experienced in the fidelity class due to higher than expected reported loss emergence, mainly related to the 2009 accident year and primarily in the United States. Favorable development of about $40 million was experienced in the personal automobile business due primarily to lower than expected frequency of prior year claims. Favorable development of about $40 million was experienced in the surety business due to lower than expected loss emergence in recent accident years. Favorable development of about $25 million was experienced in the runoff of the reinsurance assumed business due primarily to better than expected reported loss activity from cedants.

(c) The estimation of loss reserves relating to asbestos and toxic waste claims on insurance policies written many years ago is subject to greater uncertainty than other types of claims due to inconsistent court decisions as well as judicial interpretations and legislative actions that in some cases have tended to broaden coverage beyond the original intent of such policies and in others have expanded theories of liability. The insurance industry as a whole is engaged in extensive litigation over these coverage and liability issues and is thus confronted with a continuing uncertainty in its efforts to quantify these exposures.

Asbestos remains the most significant and difficult mass tort for the insurance industry in terms of claims volume and dollar exposure. Asbestos claims relate primarily to bodily injuries asserted by those who came in contact with asbestos or products containing asbestos. Tort theory affecting asbestos litigation has evolved over the years. Early court cases established the “continuous trigger” theory with respect to insurance coverage. Under this theory, insurance coverage is deemed to be triggered from the time a claimant is first exposed to asbestos until the manifestation of any disease. This interpretation of a policy trigger can involve insurance policies over many years and increases insurance companies’ exposure to liability.

New asbestos claims and new exposures on existing claims have continued despite the fact that usage of asbestos has declined since the mid-1970’s. Many claimants were exposed to multiple asbestos products over an extended period of time. As a result, claim filings typically name dozens of defendants. The plaintiffs’ bar has solicited new claimants through extensive advertising and through asbestos medical screenings. A vast majority of asbestos bodily injury claims have been filed by claimants who do not show any signs of asbestos related disease. New asbestos cases are often filed in those jurisdictions with a reputation for judges and juries that are extremely sympathetic to plaintiffs.

Approximately 95 manufacturers and distributors of asbestos products have filed for bankruptcy protection as a result of asbestos related liabilities. A bankruptcy sometimes involves an agreement to a plan between the debtor and its creditors, including the creation of a trust to pay current and future asbestos claimants for their injuries. Although the debtor is negotiating in part with its insurers’ money, insurers are generally given only limited opportunity to be heard. In addition to contributing to the overall number of claims, bankruptcy proceedings have also caused increased settlement demands against remaining solvent defendants.

There have been some positive legislative and judicial developments in the asbestos environment over the past several years. Various challenges to the mass screening of claimants have been mounted which have led to higher medical evidentiary standards. Also, a number of states have implemented legislative and judicial reforms that focus the courts’ resources on the claims of the most seriously injured. Those who allege serious injury and can present credible evidence of their injuries are receiving priority trial settings in the courts, while those who have not shown any credible disease manifestation are having their hearing dates delayed or placed on an inactive docket, which preserves the right to pursue litigation in the future. Further, a number of key jurisdictions have adopted venue reform that requires plaintiffs to have a connection to the jurisdiction in order to file a complaint. Finally, in recognition that many aspects of bankruptcy plans are unfair to certain classes of claimants and to the insurance industry, these plans are being more closely scrutinized by the courts and rejected when appropriate.

The P&C Group’s most significant individual asbestos exposures involve products liability on the part of “traditional” defendants who were engaged in the manufacture, distribution or installation of asbestos products. The P&C Group wrote excess liability and/or general liability coverages for these insureds. While these insureds are relatively few in number, their exposure has become substantial due to the increased volume of claims, the erosion of the underlying limits and the bankruptcies of target defendants.

The P&C Group’s other asbestos exposures involve products and non-products liability on the part of “peripheral” defendants, including a mix of manufacturers, distributors and installers of certain products that contain asbestos in small quantities and owners or operators of properties where asbestos was present. Generally, these insureds are named defendants on a regional rather than a nationwide basis. As the financial resources of traditional asbestos defendants have been depleted, plaintiffs are targeting these viable peripheral parties with greater frequency and, in many cases, for large awards.

Asbestos claims against the major manufacturers, distributors or installers of asbestos products were typically presented under the products liability section of primary general liability policies as well as under excess liability policies, both of which typically had aggregate limits that capped an insurer’s exposure. In recent years, a number of asbestos claims by insureds are being presented as “non-products” claims, such as those by installers of asbestos products and by property owners or operators who allegedly had asbestos on their property, under the premises or operations section of primary general liability policies. Unlike products exposures, these non-products exposures typically had no aggregate limits on coverage, creating potentially greater exposure. Further, in an effort to seek additional insurance coverage, some insureds with installation activities who have substantially eroded their products coverage are presenting new asbestos claims as non-products operations claims or attempting to reclassify previously settled products claims as non-products claims to restore a portion of previously exhausted products aggregate limits. It is difficult to predict whether insureds will be successful in asserting claims under non-products coverage or whether insurers will be successful in asserting additional defenses. Accordingly, the ultimate cost to insurers of the claims for coverage not subject to aggregate limits is uncertain.

Various U.S. federal proposals to solve the ongoing asbestos litigation crisis have been considered by the U.S. Congress over the past few years, but none have yet been enacted. The prospect of federal asbestos reform legislation remains uncertain.

In establishing asbestos reserves, the exposure presented by each insured is evaluated. As part of this evaluation, consideration is given to a variety of factors including the available insurance coverage; limits and deductibles; the jurisdictions involved; the number of claimants; the disease mix exhibited by the claimants; the past settlement values of similar claims; the potential role of other insurance, particularly underlying coverage below excess liability policies; potential bankruptcy impact; relevant judicial interpretations; and applicable coverage defenses, including asbestos exclusions.

Significant uncertainty remains as to the ultimate liability of the P&C Group related to asbestos related claims. This uncertainty is due to several factors including the long latency period between asbestos exposure and disease manifestation and the resulting potential for involvement of multiple policy periods for individual claims; plaintiffs’ expanding theories of liability and increased focus on peripheral defendants; the volume of claims by unimpaired plaintiffs and the extent to which they can be precluded from making claims; the efforts by insureds to claim the right to non-products coverage not subject to aggregate limits; the number of insureds seeking bankruptcy protection as a result of asbestos related liabilities; the ability of claimants to bring a claim in a state in which they have no residency or exposure; the impact of the exhaustion of primary limits and the resulting increase in claims on excess liability policies that the P&C Group has issued; inconsistent court decisions and diverging legal interpretations; and the possibility, however remote, of federal legislation that would address the asbestos problem. These significant uncertainties are not likely to be resolved in the near future.

Toxic waste claims relate primarily to pollution and related cleanup costs. The P&C Group’s insureds have two potential areas of exposure: hazardous waste dump sites and pollution at the insured site primarily from underground storage tanks and manufacturing processes.

The U.S. federal Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (Superfund) has been interpreted to impose strict, retroactive and joint and several liability on potentially responsible parties (PRPs) for the cost of remediating hazardous waste sites. Most sites have multiple PRPs.

Most PRPs named to date are parties who have been generators, transporters, past or present landowners or past or present site operators. Insurance policies issued to PRPs were not intended to cover claims arising from gradual pollution. Environmental remediation claims tendered by PRPs and others to insurers have frequently resulted in disputes over insurers’ contractual obligations with respect to pollution claims. The resulting litigation against insurers extends to issues of liability, coverage and other policy provisions.

There is substantial uncertainty involved in estimating the P&C Group’s liabilities related to these claims. First, the liabilities of the claimants are extremely difficult to estimate. At any given waste site, the allocation of remediation costs among governmental authorities and the PRPs varies greatly depending on a variety of factors. Second, different courts have addressed liability and coverage issues regarding pollution claims and have reached inconsistent conclusions in their interpretation of several issues. These significant uncertainties are not likely to be resolved definitively in the near future.

Uncertainties also remain as to the Superfund law itself. Superfund’s taxing authority expired on December 31, 1995 and has not been re-enacted. Federal legislation appears to be at a standstill. At this time, it is not possible to predict the direction that any reforms may take, when they may occur or the effect that any changes may have on the insurance industry.

Without federal movement on Superfund reform, the enforcement of Superfund liability has occasionally shifted to the states. States are being forced to reconsider state-level cleanup statutes and regulations. As individual states move forward, the potential for conflicting state regulation becomes greater. In a few states, cases have been brought against insureds or directly against insurance companies for environmental pollution and natural resources damages. To date, only a few natural resource claims have been filed and they are being vigorously defended. Significant uncertainty remains as to the cost of remediating the state sites. Because of the large number of state sites, such sites could prove even more costly in the aggregate than Superfund sites.

In establishing toxic waste reserves, the exposure presented by each insured is evaluated. As part of this evaluation, consideration is given to a variety of factors including: the probable liability, available insurance coverage, past settlement values of similar claims, relevant judicial interpretations, applicable coverage defenses as well as facts that are unique to each insured.

Management believes that the loss reserves carried at December 31, 2012 for asbestos and toxic waste claims were adequate. However, given the judicial decisions and legislative actions that have broadened the scope of coverage and expanded theories of liability in the past and the possibilities of similar interpretations in the future, it is possible that the estimate of loss reserves relating to these exposures may increase in future periods as new information becomes available and as claims develop.