Commitments and Contingent Liabilities	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2014
Notes to Financial Statements [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingent Liabilities	t Liabilities We are a defendant in a number of litigation matters. In some of these matters, no specified amount is sought. In others, very large or indeterminate amounts, including punitive and treble damages, are asserted. There is a wide variation of pleading practice permitted in the United States courts with respect to requests for monetary damages, including some courts in which no specified amount is required and others which allow the plaintiff to state only that the amount sought is sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of that court. Further, some jurisdictions permit plaintiffs to allege damages well in excess of reasonably possible verdicts. Based on our extensive experience and that of others in the industry with respect to litigating or resolving claims through settlement over an extended period of time, we believe that the monetary damages asserted in a lawsuit or claim bear little relation to the merits of the case, or the likely disposition value. Therefore, the specific monetary relief sought is not stated. Unless indicated otherwise in the descriptions below, reserves have not been established for litigation and contingencies. An estimated loss is accrued when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Claims Handling Matters We and our insurance subsidiaries, in the ordinary course of our business, are engaged in claim litigation where disputes arise as a result of a denial or termination of benefits. Most typically these lawsuits are filed on behalf of a single claimant or policyholder, and in some of these individual actions punitive damages are sought, such as claims alleging bad faith in the handling of insurance claims. For our general claim litigation, we maintain reserves based on experience to satisfy judgments and settlements in the normal course. We expect that the ultimate liability, if any, with respect to general claim litigation, after consideration of the reserves maintained, will not be material to our consolidated financial condition. Nevertheless, given the inherent unpredictability of litigation, it is possible that an adverse outcome in certain claim litigation involving punitive damages could, from time to time, have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations in a period, depending on the results of operations for the particular period. From time to time class action allegations are pursued where the claimant or policyholder purports to represent a larger number of individuals who are similarly situated. Since each insurance claim is evaluated based on its own merits, there is rarely a single act or series of actions which can properly be addressed by a class action. Nevertheless, we monitor these cases closely and defend ourselves appropriately where these allegations are made. Miscellaneous Matters In October 2010, Denise Merrimon, Bobby S. Mowery, and all others similarly situated vs. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maine. This class action alleges that we breached fiduciary duties owed to certain beneficiaries under certain group life insurance policies when we paid life insurance proceeds by establishing interest-bearing retained asset accounts rather than by mailing checks. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of beneficiaries under group life insurance contracts that were part of the ERISA employee welfare benefit plans and under which we paid death benefits via retained asset accounts. The plaintiffs' principal theories in the case are: (1) funds held in retained asset accounts were plan assets, and the proceeds earned by us from investing those funds belonged to the beneficiaries, and (2) payment of claims using retained asset accounts did not constitute payment under Maine's late payment statute, requiring us to pay interest on the undrawn retained asset account funds at an annual rate of 18 percent. In February 2012, the District Court issued an opinion rejecting both of plaintiffs' principal theories and ordering judgment for us. At the same time, however, the District Court held that we breached a fiduciary duty to the beneficiaries by failing to pay rates comparable to the best rates available in the market for demand deposits. The District Court also certified a class of people who, during a certain period of time, were beneficiaries under certain group life insurance contracts that were part of ERISA employee welfare benefit plans and were paid death benefits using retained asset accounts. A bench trial was held on the issue of damages in June and July of 2013. In September 2013, the District Court awarded damages based on a benchmark it created by averaging the interest rates paid on money market mutual funds and money market checking accounts. Based on these averages, the District Court found that for certain periods of the class we should have paid additional interest and awarded damages of $12.1 million and prejudgment interest of $1.3 million. Subsequent to this judgment, in September 2013 we filed an appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, and plaintiffs filed a cross appeal. The First Circuit Court of Appeals held oral argument in May 2014 and on July 2, 2014, issued its decision overturning the District Court’s judgment against us, finding our payment of benefits by retained asset account was in full compliance with the policy terms and therefore ERISA. In September 2014, the plaintiffs requested and received an extension of the deadline to file an appeal with the United States Supreme Court. The deadline for their appeal is November 21, 2014. Beginning in 2011, a number of state regulators began requiring insurers to cross-check specified insurance policies with the Social Security Administration’s Death Master File to identify potential matches. If a potential match was identified, insurers were requested to determine if benefits were due, locate beneficiaries, and make payments where appropriate. We initiated this process where requested, and in 2012 we began implementing this process in all states on a forward-looking basis. In addition to implementing this on a forward-looking basis, in 2013 we began an initiative to search for potential claims from previous years. During 2013, we completed our assessment of benefits which we estimate will be paid under this initiative, and as such, established additional reserves for payment of these benefits. Similar to other insurers, we are undergoing an examination by a third party acting on behalf of a number of state treasurers concerning our compliance with the unclaimed property laws of the participating states. We are cooperating fully with this examination, as well as with a Delaware Market Conduct examination and a Voluntary Disclosure Agreement process with the state of Minnesota. The legal and regulatory environment around unclaimed death benefits continues to evolve. It is possible that the current examination and/or similar investigations by other state jurisdictions may result in additional payments to beneficiaries, the payment of abandoned funds under state law, and/or administrative penalties, the total of which may be in excess of the reserves established. In December 2012, State of West Virginia ex rel. John D. Perdue v. Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company and State of West Virginia ex rel. John D. Perdue v. Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Company were filed in the Circuit Court of Putnam County, West Virginia. These two separate complaints alleged violations of the West Virginia Uniform Unclaimed Property Act by failing to identify and report all unclaimed insurance policy proceeds due to be escheated to West Virginia. The complaints sought to examine company records and assess penalties and costs in an undetermined amount. In December 2013, the court dismissed both complaints, holding that the West Virginia Uniform Unclaimed Property Act does not require insurance companies to periodically search the Social Security Administrations' Death Master File or escheat unclaimed life insurance benefits until a claim has been submitted. In January 2014, the plaintiff appealed the dismissal of both complaints. The appeal is now fully briefed, with oral argument occurring on a date to be determined. In May 2013, a purported class action complaint entitled Ruben Don v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, Wedner Insurance Group, Inc. dba The Morton Wedner Insurance Agency, and Does 1-30, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of California insureds who were issued long-term care policies containing an inflation protection feature. The plaintiff alleges we incorrectly administer the inflation protection feature, resulting in an underpayment of benefits. The complaint makes allegations against us for breach of contract, bad faith, fraud, violation of Business and Professions Code 17200, and injunctive relief. In June 2013, we removed the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In March 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the case. Rather than oppose the motion, plaintiff filed an amended purported class action complaint in April 2014 entitled Ruben Don v. Unum Group and Unum Life Insurance Company of America in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class and a California class of insureds who were issued long-term care policies containing an inflation protection feature. Similar to the original complaint, the plaintiff alleges we incorrectly administer the inflation protection feature, resulting in an underpayment of benefits. The complaint makes allegations of breach of contract, bad faith, fraud, violation of Business and Professions Code 17200, and declaratory and injunctive relief. In May 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In August 2014, the District Court dismissed the fraud claim as well as plaintiff’s requests for injunctive and declaratory relief, but granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. In August 2014, the plaintiff filed a second amended purported class action complaint entitled Michael Don, Executor of The Estate of Ruben Don v. Unum Group, and Unum Life Insurance Company of America in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges breach of contract, bad faith, fraud, and violation of Business and Professions Code 17200 on behalf of a nationwide class of insureds who were issued long-term care policies containing an inflation protection feature. In October 2014, we answered the second amended complaint. Summary Various lawsuits against us, in addition to those discussed above, have arisen in the normal course of business. Further, state insurance regulatory authorities and other federal and state authorities regularly make inquiries and conduct investigations concerning our compliance with applicable insurance and other laws and regulations. Given the complexity and scope of our litigation and regulatory matters, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of all pending investigations or legal proceedings or provide reasonable estimates of potential losses, except if noted in connection with specific matters. It is possible that our results of operations or cash flows in a particular period could be materially affected by an ultimate unfavorable outcome of pending litigation or regulatory matters depending, in part, on our results of operations or cash flows for the particular period. We believe, however, that the ultimate outcome of all pending litigation and regulatory matters, after consideration of applicable reserves and rights to indemnification, should not have a material adverse effect on our financial position.

t Liabilities

We are a defendant in a number of litigation matters. In some of these matters, no specified amount is sought. In others, very large or indeterminate amounts, including punitive and treble damages, are asserted. There is a wide variation of pleading practice permitted in the United States courts with respect to requests for monetary damages, including some courts in which no specified amount is required and others which allow the plaintiff to state only that the amount sought is sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of that court. Further, some jurisdictions permit plaintiffs to allege damages well in excess of reasonably possible verdicts. Based on our extensive experience and that of others in the industry with respect to litigating or resolving claims through settlement over an extended period of time, we believe that the monetary damages asserted in a lawsuit or claim bear little relation to the merits of the case, or the likely disposition value. Therefore, the specific monetary relief sought is not stated.

Unless indicated otherwise in the descriptions below, reserves have not been established for litigation and contingencies. An estimated loss is accrued when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated.

Claims Handling Matters

We and our insurance subsidiaries, in the ordinary course of our business, are engaged in claim litigation where disputes arise as a result of a denial or termination of benefits. Most typically these lawsuits are filed on behalf of a single claimant or policyholder, and in some of these individual actions punitive damages are sought, such as claims alleging bad faith in the handling of insurance claims. For our general claim litigation, we maintain reserves based on experience to satisfy judgments and settlements in the normal course. We expect that the ultimate liability, if any, with respect to general claim litigation, after consideration of the reserves maintained, will not be material to our consolidated financial condition. Nevertheless, given the inherent unpredictability of litigation, it is possible that an adverse outcome in certain claim litigation involving punitive damages could, from time to time, have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations in a period, depending on the results of operations for the particular period.

From time to time class action allegations are pursued where the claimant or policyholder purports to represent a larger number of individuals who are similarly situated. Since each insurance claim is evaluated based on its own merits, there is rarely a single act or series of actions which can properly be addressed by a class action. Nevertheless, we monitor these cases closely and defend ourselves appropriately where these allegations are made.

Miscellaneous Matters

In October 2010, Denise Merrimon, Bobby S. Mowery, and all others similarly situated vs. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maine. This class action alleges that we breached fiduciary duties owed to certain beneficiaries under certain group life insurance policies when we paid life insurance proceeds by establishing interest-bearing retained asset accounts rather than by mailing checks. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of beneficiaries under group life insurance contracts that were part of the ERISA employee welfare benefit plans and under which we paid death benefits via retained asset accounts. The plaintiffs' principal theories in the case are: (1) funds held in retained asset accounts were plan assets, and the proceeds earned by us from investing those funds belonged to the beneficiaries, and (2) payment of claims using retained asset accounts did not constitute payment under Maine's late payment statute, requiring us to pay interest on the undrawn retained asset account funds at an annual rate of 18 percent. In February 2012, the District Court issued an opinion rejecting both of plaintiffs' principal theories and ordering judgment for us. At the same time, however, the District Court held that we breached a fiduciary duty to the beneficiaries by failing to pay rates comparable to the best rates available in the market for demand deposits. The District Court also certified a class of people who, during a certain period of time, were beneficiaries under certain group life insurance contracts that were part of ERISA employee welfare benefit plans and were paid death benefits using retained asset accounts. A bench trial was held on the issue of damages in June and July of 2013. In September 2013, the District Court awarded damages based on a benchmark it created by averaging the interest rates paid on money market mutual funds and money market checking accounts. Based on these averages, the District Court found that for certain periods of the class we should have paid additional interest and awarded damages of $12.1 million and prejudgment interest of $1.3 million. Subsequent to this judgment, in September 2013 we filed an appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, and plaintiffs filed a cross appeal. The First Circuit Court of Appeals held oral argument in May 2014 and on July 2, 2014, issued its decision overturning the District Court’s judgment against us, finding our payment of benefits by retained asset account was in full compliance with the policy terms and therefore ERISA. In September 2014, the plaintiffs requested and received an extension of the deadline to file an appeal with the United States Supreme Court. The deadline for their appeal is November 21, 2014.

Beginning in 2011, a number of state regulators began requiring insurers to cross-check specified insurance policies with the Social Security Administration’s Death Master File to identify potential matches. If a potential match was identified, insurers were requested to determine if benefits were due, locate beneficiaries, and make payments where appropriate. We initiated this process where requested, and in 2012 we began implementing this process in all states on a forward-looking basis. In addition to implementing this on a forward-looking basis, in 2013 we began an initiative to search for potential claims from previous years. During 2013, we completed our assessment of benefits which we estimate will be paid under this initiative, and as such, established additional reserves for payment of these benefits. Similar to other insurers, we are undergoing an examination by a third party acting on behalf of a number of state treasurers concerning our compliance with the unclaimed property laws of the participating states. We are cooperating fully with this examination, as well as with a Delaware Market Conduct examination and a Voluntary Disclosure Agreement process with the state of Minnesota. The legal and regulatory environment around unclaimed death benefits continues to evolve. It is possible that the current examination and/or similar investigations by other state jurisdictions may result in additional payments to beneficiaries, the payment of abandoned funds under state law, and/or administrative penalties, the total of which may be in excess of the reserves established.

In December 2012, State of West Virginia ex rel. John D. Perdue v. Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company and State of West Virginia ex rel. John D. Perdue v. Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Company were filed in the Circuit Court of Putnam County, West Virginia. These two separate complaints alleged violations of the West Virginia Uniform Unclaimed Property Act by failing to identify and report all unclaimed insurance policy proceeds due to be escheated to West Virginia. The complaints sought to examine company records and assess penalties and costs in an undetermined amount. In December 2013, the court dismissed both complaints, holding that the West Virginia Uniform Unclaimed Property Act does not require insurance companies to periodically search the Social Security Administrations' Death Master File or escheat unclaimed life insurance benefits until a claim has been submitted. In January 2014, the plaintiff appealed the dismissal of both complaints. The appeal is now fully briefed, with oral argument occurring on a date to be determined.

In May 2013, a purported class action complaint entitled Ruben Don v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, Wedner Insurance Group, Inc. dba The Morton Wedner Insurance Agency, and Does 1-30, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of California insureds who were issued long-term care policies containing an inflation protection feature. The plaintiff alleges we incorrectly administer the inflation protection feature, resulting in an underpayment of benefits. The complaint makes allegations against us for breach of contract, bad faith, fraud, violation of Business and Professions Code 17200, and injunctive relief. In June 2013, we removed the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In March 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the case. Rather than oppose the motion, plaintiff filed an amended purported class action complaint in April 2014 entitled Ruben Don v. Unum Group and Unum Life Insurance Company of America in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class and a California class of insureds who were issued long-term care policies containing an inflation protection feature. Similar to the original complaint, the plaintiff alleges we incorrectly administer the inflation protection feature, resulting in an underpayment of benefits. The complaint makes allegations of breach of contract, bad faith, fraud, violation of Business and Professions Code 17200, and declaratory and injunctive relief. In May 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In August 2014, the District Court dismissed the fraud claim as well as plaintiff’s requests for injunctive and declaratory relief, but granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. In August 2014, the plaintiff filed a second amended purported class action complaint entitled Michael Don, Executor of The Estate of Ruben Don v. Unum Group, and Unum Life Insurance Company of America in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges breach of contract, bad faith, fraud, and violation of Business and Professions Code 17200 on behalf of a nationwide class of insureds who were issued long-term care policies containing an inflation protection feature. In October 2014, we answered the second amended complaint.

Summary

Various lawsuits against us, in addition to those discussed above, have arisen in the normal course of business. Further, state insurance regulatory authorities and other federal and state authorities regularly make inquiries and conduct investigations concerning our compliance with applicable insurance and other laws and regulations.

Given the complexity and scope of our litigation and regulatory matters, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of all pending investigations or legal proceedings or provide reasonable estimates of potential losses, except if noted in connection with specific matters. It is possible that our results of operations or cash flows in a particular period could be materially affected by an ultimate unfavorable outcome of pending litigation or regulatory matters depending, in part, on our results of operations or cash flows for the particular period. We believe, however, that the ultimate outcome of all pending litigation and regulatory matters, after consideration of applicable reserves and rights to indemnification, should not have a material adverse effect on our financial position.