(5) 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 even decades, 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, economic 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 net loss reserves of the P&C Group at December 31, 2014 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, 2014 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:


	2014			2013			2012
	(in millions)
Gross liability, beginning of year	$	23,146		$	23,963		$	23,068
Reinsurance recoverable, beginning of year		1,802			1,941			1,739

Net liability, beginning of year		21,344			22,022			21,329

Net incurred losses and loss expenses related to
Current year		7,621			7,232			8,121
Prior years		(636	)		(712	)		(614	)

		6,985			6,520			7,507

Net payments for losses and loss expenses related to
Current year		2,496			2,150			2,323
Prior years		4,534			4,952			4,493

		7,030			7,102			6,816


Foreign currency translation effect		(260	)		(96	)		2


Net liability, end of year		21,039			21,344			22,022
Reinsurance recoverable, end of year		1,639			1,802			1,941

Gross liability, end of year	$	22,678		$	23,146		$	23,963

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 2014, the P&C Group experienced overall favorable development of $636 million on net unpaid losses and loss expenses established as of the previous year end. This compares with favorable prior year development of $712 million in 2013 and $614 million in 2012. Such favorable development was reflected in operating results in these respective years.

The net favorable development of $636 million in 2014 was due to various factors. Overall favorable development of about $320 million was experienced in the professional liability classes other than fidelity. This favorable development was driven mainly by the directors and officers liability and fiduciary liability classes. The reported loss activity for these classes was less than expected, mostly in terms of claim severity. The aggregate favorable emergence was driven by accident years 2010 and prior. Favorable development of about $205 million in the aggregate was experienced in the personal and commercial liability classes. The most significant favorable development occurred in the excess liability classes, particularly in accident years 2011 and prior. This was partially offset by adverse development experienced in other liability classes, most notably due to $100 million of incurred losses related to asbestos and toxic waste claims in older accident years. Overall, prior accident year claim activity for the personal and commercial liability classes was less severe than expected. Favorable development of about $60 million in the aggregate was experienced in the personal and commercial property classes, with the most significant amounts related to the 2013 and 2012 accident years. The severity of late developing property claims that emerged during 2014 was lower than expected. Favorable development of about $50 million was experienced in the workers’ compensation class, with favorable development occurring in most accident years. The severity of prior accident year claim activity for this class was lower than expected.

The net favorable development of $712 million in 2013 was due to various factors. Favorable development of about $265 million in the aggregate, including $30 million related to catastrophes, was experienced in the personal and commercial property classes, mostly related to the 2012 and 2011 accident years. The severity and frequency of late developing property claims that emerged during 2013 were lower than expected, including those related to catastrophes, and the development of existing case reserves was more favorable than expected. Overall favorable development of about $260 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 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 2010 and prior. Favorable development of about $160 million in the aggregate was experienced in the personal and commercial liability classes. The most significant favorable development occurred in the excess liability classes, particularly in accident years 2010 and prior. There was some offsetting adverse development in other liability classes, most notably due to $106 million of incurred losses related to asbestos and toxic waste claims in older accident years. Overall, prior period liability claims were lower than expected, particularly the severity of such claims, and the effects of underwriting changes that affected these years have been more positive than expected. Unfavorable development of about $50 million was experienced in the fidelity class due to higher than expected reported loss emergence, related mostly to accident years subsequent to 2007. Favorable development of about $35 million was experienced in the personal automobile business due primarily to more favorable case reserve development and lower severity of prior period claims than expected. Favorable development of about $30 million was experienced in the surety business due to lower than expected loss emergence in recent accident 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.

(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 instances 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 remains engaged in extensive litigation over coverage, accident year allocation 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-1970s. 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 sympathetic to plaintiffs.

Approximately 110 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 not only result in increased settlement demands against remaining solvent defendants, but also create the potential for recoveries from multiple trusts by the same claimant for the same alleged injuries.

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 occurred which have led to higher medical evidentiary standards for asbestos and other exposure-type claims. 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 jurisdictions have adopted venue reform that requires plaintiffs to have a connection to the jurisdiction in order to file a complaint, although in more recent years, this type of reform has slowed. 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. Finally, a number of jurisdictions have passed or are considering legislation that will require fuller disclosure by plaintiffs of amounts received from asbestos bankruptcy trusts.

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 primary general liability and/or excess liability coverages for these insureds. While these insureds are relatively few in number, their exposure has been substantial due to the high 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. In these instances, claimants contend that they came into contact with asbestos at premises owned or operated by the P&C Group’s insureds and/or were exposed to asbestos during asbestos installation at a particular location. These non-products claims are presented under the premises or operations section of primary general liability policies. Unlike products coverage, the premises or operations coverages in these older policies 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 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 volume of claims by severely impaired plaintiffs, such as those with mesothelioma, and the size of settlements and judgments received by those plaintiffs; the volume of claims by plaintiffs suffering from other malignancies such as lung cancer and their ability to establish a causal link between their disease and exposure to asbestos; 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 associated 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 PRPs named to date are parties who have been generators, transporters, past or present landowners or past or present site operators. Most sites have multiple PRPs. 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, allocation of potential loss to the appropriate accident year, past settlement values of similar claims, relevant judicial interpretations, applicable coverage defenses as well as facts that are unique to each insured.

Based on facts currently known and the present state of the law and coverage litigation, management believes that the loss reserves carried at December 31, 2014 for asbestos and toxic waste claims were adequate. However, given the inherent uncertainties, as well as 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.