Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

Note 5—Commitments and ContingenciesGuarantees: The Parent Company has guaranteed letters of credit in connection with its credit facility with a group of banks. The letters of credit were issued by TMK Re, Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary, to secure TMK Re, Ltd.’s obligation for claims on certain policies reinsured by TMK Re, Ltd. that were sold by other Globe Life insurance subsidiaries. These letters of credit facilitate TMK Re, Ltd.’s ability to reinsure the business of Globe Life's insurance carriers. The agreement expires in 2021. The maximum amount of letters of credit available is $250 million. The Parent Company would be liable to the extent that TMK Re, Ltd. does not pay the reinsured party. As of March 31, 2020, the outstanding balance was $150 million.

On September 12, 2018, putative class action litigation was filed against American Income in California’s Contra Costa County Superior Court (Joh v. American Income Life Insurance Company, Case No. C18-01863) (Joh Action). An amended complaint was filed on October 18, 2018. American Income removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:18-cv-06364-TSH). A second amended complaint was filed on May 20, 2019. The plaintiffs, former insurance sales agents of American Income, are suing on behalf of all current and former trainees and sales agents who sold insurance for American Income in the State of California for the four years prior to the filing of the complaint. The second amended complaint alleges that such individuals are employees and asserts claims under the California Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code, and California Private Attorney General Act. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, penalties and attorney fees on claims for failure to pay wages/commissions, failure to appropriately pay agents at termination, failure to provide itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse expenses, misclassification and unfair business practices.

On October 18, 2018, putative class action litigation was filed against Torchmark Corporation and American Income in California’s Los Angeles County Superior Court (Golz v. American Income Life Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 18STCV01354) (Golz Action). American Income removed the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:18-cv-09879 R (SSx)). An amended complaint was filed on February 5, 2019. On February 6, 2019, Torchmark Corporation was dismissed without prejudice and the case proceeded with respect to American Income. On April 2, 2019, the District Court granted American Income’s motion to dismiss four of the five causes of action asserted. The amended complaint’s remaining claim alleges that plaintiff, as an American Income insurance agent trainee in California, was an employee who should have been compensated accordingly. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of individuals in California who trained to contract as American Income agents and who subsequently worked as contracted agents. The class period is alleged to begin four years prior to the complaint’s filing. The complaint seeks restitution under the California Business and Professions Code for alleged unfair business practices such as failure to pay minimum wage and overtime, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, and failure to reimburse business expenses.

On December 14, 2018, putative class action litigation was filed against American Income in United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Hamilton v. American Income Life Insurance Company, Case No. 4:18-cv-7535-KAW) (Hamilton Action). An amended complaint was filed on January 23, 2019. The plaintiffs, former insurance sales agents of American Income, are suing on behalf of all current and former trainees and sales agents who sold insurance for American Income in the State of California for the last four years prior to the filing of the complaint. The lawsuit alleges that putative class members are employees and asserts claims under the California Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code, and California Private Attorney General Act. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, penalties and attorney fees on claims for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to appropriately pay agents at termination, failure to provide itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse expenses, misclassification and unfair business practices.

On January 16, 2019, putative class action litigation was filed against American Income in Orange County, California Superior Court (Putros v. American Income Life Insurance Company, Case No. 30-2019-01044772-CU-OE-CXC) (Putros Action). An amended complaint was filed on January 22, 2019. The plaintiff, a former insurance sales agent of American Income, sued on behalf of all current and former sales agents who sold insurance for American Income in the State of California for the year prior to the filing of the complaint. The lawsuit alleged that American Income sales agents were employees and asserted claims under the California Private Attorney General Act. The complaint sought penalties for failure to pay minimum wage, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to appropriately pay agents at termination, failure to provide itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse expenses, and misclassification. The case was dismissed on November 20, 2019.

With respect to the related cases above, on August 1, 2019, Plaintiffs in the Joh and Hamilton Actions jointly moved for preliminary approval of a settlement of all class and representative claims, which broadly covers “all individuals who trained to become and/or worked as sales agents in California for Defendant during the last four years prior to the filing of the original Complaint in Joh and whose training and/or work began before the date of preliminary approval of this Settlement.” Plaintiffs’ preliminary motion anticipated that the proposed settlement would resolve all claims in the Joh and Hamilton Actions, and in doing so, encompass all pending claims asserted in the Putros and Golz Actions. On August 16, 2019, the Northern District of California granted the Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and scheduled a hearing for final approval of the settlement for January 9, 2020. The Court denied final approval of the class settlement but invited plaintiff’s counsel to submit a renewed Motion for Final Settlement Approval to address certain issues the court had raised during the final approval hearing. On February 20, 2020, Plaintiffs in the Joh and Hamilton Actions filed a renewed Motion for Final Settlement Approval, which the Court denied on April 15, 2020. In doing so, the Court noted the need for a more equitable distribution of the proposed settlement proceeds among class members. The parties continue to evaluate settlement.

On December 19, 2019, putative collective action litigation was filed against American Income in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Patterson v. American Income Life Insurance Company, et al, Case No. 4:19-cv-918 KGB). The plaintiff, a former insurance sales agent of American Income, is pursuing a national collective action on behalf of all “similarly situated” individuals for the three years prior to the filing of the complaint. The lawsuit alleges that insurance agent trainees should have been classified as employees and asserts claims for minimum wage, overtime, liquidated damages and attorney’s fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff also asserts an individual claim under the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. American Income has filed a motion to compel arbitration of Plaintiff’s individual claims.

On February 27, 2020, putative collective action litigation was filed against American Income in United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (Berry, et al v. American Income Life Insurance Company, et al, Case No. 2:20-cv-00110-LPL). The plaintiffs, former insurance sales agents of American Income, are pursuing relief on behalf of “all individuals who trained to become and/or worked as sales agents/insurance producers for American Income Life Insurance” in the three years prior to the filing of the complaint. The lawsuit alleges that agent trainees and insurance agents should have been classified as employees. It asserts a national collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act seeking compensation for minimum wage, overtime, expense reimbursement, missed meal and rest breaks, recoupment of certain commissions and improper recordkeeping. In addition, the lawsuit asserts a class action under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law seeking similar relief. Plaintiffs also seek liquidated damages and attorney’s fees, and assert an unjust enrichment claim.

With respect to the aforementioned litigation, at this time, management believes that the possibility of a material judgment adverse to the Company is remote.