(13) Commitments and Contingent Liabilities

(a) On August 1, 2005, Chubb and certain of its subsidiaries were named in a putative class action entitled In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (N.J. District Court). This action, brought against several brokers and insurers on behalf of a class of persons who purchased insurance through the broker defendants, asserted claims under the Sherman Act, state law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) arising from the alleged unlawful use of contingent commission agreements and an alleged conspiracy to reduce competition in the insurance markets. The action sought treble damages, injunctive and declaratory relief. Certain other related or similar putative class actions that were filed in a number of federal and state courts were transferred to the U.S. District Court and consolidated with In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation. Subsequently, several of the other defendants entered into settlement agreements with the plaintiffs, which were approved by the N.J. District Court on September 25, 2012. On January 11, 2013, the Corporation and another defendant agreed in principle with the plaintiffs to settle the lawsuit. As part of the settlement, the Corporation has agreed to pay $4 million. The settlement is subject to finalization and execution of a settlement agreement by the parties, which is in the process of being negotiated, and approval of the settlement by the N.J. District Court.

Chubb and certain of its subsidiaries also have been named as defendants in other putative class actions similar to the In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation that have been filed in various state courts or in U.S. district courts between 2005 and 2007. These actions were subsequently removed and ultimately transferred to the N.J. District Court for consolidation with the In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation for certain pre-trial proceedings. Chubb settled one of these actions, which was dismissed on August 14, 2012. The parties currently are conducting discovery in the remaining two actions. The Corporation believes it has substantial defenses to the allegations in these actions and intends to continue to defend the actions vigorously. Management believes that these actions will not have a material adverse effect on the Corporation’s results of operations or financial condition.

(b) Chubb Financial Solutions (CFS), a wholly owned subsidiary of Chubb, participated in derivative financial instruments and has been in runoff since 2003. At December 31, 2012, CFS’s remaining derivative contracts were insignificant.

CFS’s aggregate exposure, or retained risk, from its derivative contracts is referred to as notional amount. Notional amounts are used to calculate the exchange of contractual cash flows and are not necessarily representative of the potential for gain or loss. Notional amounts are not recorded on the balance sheet. The notional amount of future obligations under CFS’s derivative contracts at December 31, 2012 and 2011 was approximately $90 million and $340 million, respectively.

Future obligations with respect to the derivative contracts are carried at fair value at the balance sheet date and are included in other liabilities. The fair value of future obligations under CFS’s derivative contracts at both December 31, 2012 and 2011 was approximately $2 million.

(c) A property and casualty insurance subsidiary issued a reinsurance contract to an insurer that provides financial guarantees on debt obligations. At December 31, 2012, the aggregate principal commitments related to this contract for which the subsidiary was contingently liable amounted to approximately $400 million. These commitments expire by 2023.

(d) The Corporation occupies office facilities under lease agreements that expire at various dates through 2029; such leases are generally renewed or replaced by other leases. Most facility leases contain renewal options for increments ranging from two to ten years. The Corporation also leases data processing, office and transportation equipment. All leases are operating leases.

Rent expense was as follows:


	Years Ended December 31
	2012		2011		2010
	(in millions)
Office facilities	$	71	$	73	$	77
Equipment		11		10		9

	$	82	$	83	$	86

At December 31, 2012, future minimum rental payments required under non-cancellable operating leases were as follows:


Years Ending December 31	(in millions)
2013	$	66
2014		53
2015		43
2016		33
2017		26
After 2017		66

	$	287

(e) The Corporation had commitments totaling $580 million at December 31, 2012 to fund limited partnership investments. These commitments can be called by the partnerships (generally over a period of 5 years or less) to fund certain partnership expenses or the purchase of investments.