Note 9: Reinsurance, Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2015

Notes

Note 9: Reinsurance, Commitments and Contingencies

9)      Reinsurance, Commitments and Contingencies

Reinsurance

The Company follows the procedure of reinsuring risks in excess of a specified limit, which ranged from $25,000 to $100,000 during the years 2015 and 2014. The Company is liable for these amounts in the event such reinsurers are unable to pay their portion of the claims. The Company has also assumed insurance from other companies having insurance in force amounting to approximately $2,110,480,000 (unaudited) and approximately $1,462,340,000 (unaudited) at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

Reinsurance Agreement with North America Life Insurance Company

On May 8, 2015, the Company, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Security National Life, signed a paid-up business offer under the coinsurance agreement effective December 1, 2010 to reinsure certain life insurance policies from North America Life Insurance Company (“North America Life”). Pursuant to the paid-up business offer, North America Life ceded and transferred to Security National Life all contractual obligations and risks under the coinsured policies. Security National Life paid a ceding commission to North America Life in the amount of $281,908. As a result of the ceding commission, North America Life transferred $8,900,282 of cash and $9,182,190 in statutory reserves, or liabilities, to Security National Life.

Reinsurance Agreement with American Republic Insurance Company

On February 11, 2015, the Company, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Security National Life, signed a coinsurance agreement to reinsure certain life insurance policies from American Republic Insurance Company (“American Republic”).  The policies were previously reinsured by North America Life under a coinsurance agreement between World Insurance Company (“World Insurance”) and North America Life entered into on July 22, 2009 which was commuted.  World Insurance was subsequently purchased by and merged into American Republic.  The current coinsurance agreement is between Security National Life and American Republic and became effective on January 1, 2015.  As part of the coinsurance agreement, American Republic transferred all contractual obligations and risks to Security National Life and Security National Life took control of $15,004,771 of assets in a trust account held by Texas Capital Bank as the trustee.

Reinsurance Agreement with LJA Insurance Company

On December 19, 2014, the Company entered into a Coinsurance Funds Withheld Reinsurance Agreement with LJA Insurance Company (“LJA Insurance”), a Republic of the Marshall Islands domiciled insurance company. This agreement was effective November 1, 2014. Under the terms of the funds withheld agreement, the Company ceded to LJA Insurance 100% of three blocks of deferred annuities in the amount of $4,337,000 and retained the assets and recorded a funds held under coinsurance liability for the same amount. LJA Insurance agreed to pay the Company an initial ceding commission of $60,000 and an asset management fee of $16,000 per quarter to administer the policies. The Company will also receive a 90% experience refund for any profits from the business. The Company has the right to recapture the business by giving LJA Insurance 90 days written notice, or it may be terminated by mutual consent of both parties.

Mortgage Loan Loss Settlements

Future loan losses can be extremely difficult to estimate; however, management believes that the Company’s reserve methodology and its current practice of property preservation allow it to estimate potential losses on loans sold. The amounts expensed for loan losses in years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014 were $6,295,000 and $3,053,000, respectively. The estimated liability for indemnification losses is included in other liabilities and accrued expenses and, as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, the balances were $2,806,000 and $1,718,000, respectively.

Inquiry Regarding FHA Insured Loans

SecurityNational Mortgage has been cooperating with the U.S. Department of Justice and the Office of the Inspector General for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in a civil investigation regarding compliance with requirements relating to certain loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA).  No demand has been made and SecurityNational Mortgage has not established a liability for this matter absent a specific demand because it is not able to estimate a range of reasonably potential loss due to significant uncertainties regarding:  the absence of any specific demand, the potential remedies, including possible defenses, and the lack of information concerning the performance of its FHA insured originations, the majority of which SecurityNational Mortgage does not service. The investigation has focused on loans originated by SecurityNational Mortgage on or after January 1, 2006.  The FHA mortgage loans that SecurityNational Mortgage originated between January 1, 2006 and May 21, 2013 total approximately 45,900 loans with an original principal balance of approximately $7.9 billion.

Mortgage Loan Loss Litigation

Lehman Brothers and Aurora Loan Services Litigation - Utah

On April 15, 2005, SecurityNational Mortgage entered into a Loan Purchase Agreement with Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB (“Lehman Bank”), which agreement incorporated a Seller’s Guide. Pursuant to the Loan Purchase Agreement, Lehman Bank purchased mortgage loans from time to time from SecurityNational Mortgage. Lehman Bank asserted that certain of the mortgage loans that it purchased several years ago from SecurityNational Mortgage contained alleged misrepresentations and early payment defaults. As a result, Lehman Bank contended it had the right to require SecurityNational Mortgage to repurchase certain loans or be liable for losses related to such Loans under the Loan Purchase Agreement. SecurityNational Mortgage disagreed with these claims.

On December 17, 2007, SecurityNational Mortgage entered into an Indemnification Agreement with Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services. Under the terms of the Indemnification Agreement, SecurityNational Mortgage agreed to indemnify Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services for 75% of actual losses, as defined, that Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services may incur on account of the breaches pertaining to certain identified loans. The Indemnification Agreement also required SecurityNational Mortgage to indemnify Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services for 100% of any future actual losses, as defined, incurred on mortgage loans with breaches not covered by the 75% provision. A reserve account was set up for covering said losses.

In addition to initial payments into the reserve account, SecurityNational Mortgage was to pay to Aurora Loan Services each calendar month the difference between the reserve account balance and $645,000, but in no event would SecurityNational Mortgage be required to make payments into the reserve account in excess of $125,000 for any calendar month. Since the time the reserve account was established, approximately $4,300,000 was taken from the reserve account to indemnify Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services for alleged losses. On March 28, 2011 Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services assigned certain rights and remedies under the Indemnification Agreement to Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“Lehman Holdings”).

On May 11, 2011, SecurityNational Mortgage filed a complaint against Aurora Bank FSB (formerly known as Lehman Bank) and Aurora Loan Services in the United States District Court, Utah, which was assigned to Judge David Nuffer. The allegations in the complaint include breach of the Indemnification Agreement. SecurityNational Mortgage claimed it was entitled to a judgment of approximately $4,000,000 against Lehman Bank, as well as Aurora Loan Services to the extent of its involvement, for payments which should not have been taken from the reserve account.

On June 8, 2011, Lehman Holdings, which had filed for bankruptcy in September 2008, filed a complaint in the United States District Court, Utah against SecurityNational Mortgage. The case was assigned to Judge Ted Stewart. The complaint alleged claims for damages for breach of contract and breach of warranty pursuant to the Loan Purchase Agreement, and initially claimed damages in excess of $5,000,000. Lehman Holdings further alleged that Lehman Bank sold mortgage loans to it and assigned the contractual rights. SecurityNational Mortgage strongly disagreed with the claims in Lehman Holdings’ complaint.

Discovery was completed in the two foregoing lawsuits. On December 24, 2014, Judge Nuffer issued an amended order granting SecurityNational Mortgage’s motion for summary judgment against Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services for $3,892,974, plus prejudgment interest at 9% per annum. The total amount of prejudgment interest awarded was $1,674,240 through May 31, 2014, with a per diem of $960 for each day after May 31, 2014 until final judgment. The court also indicated that further replenishment of the reserve account under the Indemnification Agreement appeared to be barred by a waiver, but that this issue had not been briefed.

Additionally, the court stated that the offset that Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services pled as an affirmative defense had not yet been adjudicated by the court. SecurityNational Mortgage asserts that Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services have no rights to a replenishment of the Indemnification Agreement reserve account, or for any offset. On March 30, 2015, SecurityNational Mortgage filed a response in opposition to the partial summary judgment motion of Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services concerning the reserve account replenishment and offset; SecurityNational Mortgage also filed its own partial summary judgment motion on the same issues. These motions are currently under advisement.

On April 21, 2015, Judge Stewart issued a memorandum decision and order denying SecurityNational Mortgage’s motion for summary judgment against Lehman Holdings in the Lehman Holdings case. On January 16, 2015, SecurityNational Mortgage filed a separate motion for summary judgment against Lehman Holdings based on the statute of limitations. Because certain cases that arose in Colorado were pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit concerning statute of limitations issues involving Lehman Holdings, Judge Stewart inquired at a hearing as to whether his ruling on SecurityNational Mortgage’s motion should be held in abeyance until a ruling is rendered by the Tenth Circuit. The parties agreed to an abeyance and Judge Stewart issued an order on May 11, 2015 postponing his ruling.

On January 27, 2016, the Tenth Circuit entered its order and judgment concerning the five cases before it upholding rulings of the U.S. District Court, Colorado dismissing the cases filed by Lehman Holdings with prejudice. Pursuant to an order from Judge Stewart, SecurityNational Mortgage and Lehman Holdings filed supplemental briefs on March 3, 2016 pertaining to SecurityNational Mortgage’s summary judgment motion in view of the ruling of the Tenth Circuit. On March 23, 2016, the court denied SecurityNational Mortgage’s motion based on a certain tolling provision in one of the agreements.

Lehman Brothers Litigation – Delaware and New York

In January 2014, Lehman Holdings entered into a settlement with the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) concerning the mortgage loan claims asserted by Fannie Mae against Lehman Holdings that were allegedly based on breaches of certain representations and warranties by Lehman Holdings. Lehman Holdings had acquired these loans from Lehman Bank, which in turn purchased the loans from residential mortgage loan originators, including SecurityNational Mortgage.  A settlement based on similar circumstances was entered into between Lehman Holdings and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) in February 2014. As a result of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac settlements, Lehman Holdings filed a motion in May 2014 with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York to require the mortgage loan originators, including SecurityNational Mortgage, to engage in mediation, a nonbinding alternative dispute resolution process, as Lehman Holdings asserted alleged indemnification claims against the mortgage loan originators.

The mediation was not successful in resolving the potential issues between SecurityNational Mortgage and Lehman Holdings relative to the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac settlements with Lehman Holdings.  On January 26, 2016, SecurityNational Mortgage filed a declaratory judgment action against Lehman Holdings in the Superior Court for the State of Delaware. In the Delaware action, SecurityNational Mortgage asserted its right to obtain a declaration of rights in that there is allegedly millions of dollars in dispute with Lehman Holdings pertaining to approximately 136 loans. SecurityNational Mortgage seeks declaratory judgment as to its rights as it contends that it has no liability to Lehman Holdings as a result of Lehman Holdings’ settlements with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

On February 3, 2016, Lehman Holdings filed an adversary proceeding against approximately 150 parties, including SecurityNational Mortgage, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York seeking a declaration of rights similar in nature to the declaration of rights that SecurityNational Mortgage seeks in its Delaware lawsuit, and for damages relating to the defendants’ obligations under indemnification provisions of the alleged agreements in an amount to be determined at trial, including interest, and attorneys’ fees and related costs incurred by Lehman Holdings in enforcing the obligations of the defendants.  The complaint filed on February 3, 2016 was not served on SecurityNational Mortgage and an amended complaint materially similar to the original complaint was filed March 7, 2016.  As with SecurityNational Mortgage’s Delaware action, and although SecurityNational Mortgage has not yet filed a response to the amended complaint, SecurityNational Mortgage denies that it has any liability to Lehman Holdings and intends to vigorously protect and defend such position.

Non-Cancelable Leases

The Company leases office space and equipment under various non-cancelable agreements, with remaining terms up to five years. Minimum lease payments under these non-cancelable operating leases as of December 31, 2015, are approximately as follows:

Years Ending
December 31
2016	$       5,447,528
2017	4,520,592
2018	2,493,007
2019	1,036,826
2020	218,923
Total	$     13,716,876

Total rent expense related to non-cancelable operating leases for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014, and 2013 was approximately $7,199,000, $5,589,000 and $4,307,000, respectively.

Other Contingencies and Commitments

The Company has entered into commitments to fund new residential construction loans. As of December 31, 2015, the Company’s commitments were $61,067,000, for these loans of which $34,852,000 had been funded. The Company will advance funds once the work has been completed and an independent inspection is made. The maximum loan commitment ranges between 50% and 80% of appraised value. The Company receives fees from the borrowers and the interest rate is generally 2% to 6.75% over the bank prime rate (3.50% as of December 31, 2015). Maturities range between six and twelve months.

The Company belongs to a captive insurance group for certain casualty insurance, worker compensation and liability programs. Insurance reserves are maintained relative to these programs. The level of exposure from catastrophic events is limited by the purchase of stop-loss and aggregate liability reinsurance coverage. When estimating the insurance liabilities and related reserves, the captive insurance management considers a number of factors, which include historical claims experience, demographic factors, severity factors and valuations provided by independent third-party actuaries. If actual claims or adverse development of loss reserves occurs and exceed these estimates, additional reserves may be required. The estimation process contains uncertainty since captive insurance management must use judgment to estimate the ultimate cost that will be incurred to settle reported claims and unreported claims for incidents incurred but not reported as of the balance sheet date. At December 31, 2015, $834,855 of reserves was established related to such insurance programs versus $929,417 at December 31, 2014.

The Company is a defendant in various other legal actions arising from the normal conduct of business. Management believes that none of the actions will have a material effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. Based on management’s assessment and legal counsel’s representations concerning the likelihood of unfavorable outcomes, no amounts have been accrued for the above claims in the consolidated financial statements.

The Company is not a party to any other material legal proceedings outside the ordinary course of business or to any other legal proceedings, which, if adversely determined, would have a material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of operations.