Contingencies and Commitments

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2019

Contingencies and Commitments [Abstract]

11. Contingencies and Commitments

Contingencies

Regulatory and Litigation Matters

Regulatory bodies, such as state insurance departments, the SEC, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and other regulatory bodies regularly make inquiries and conduct examinations or investigations concerning our compliance with, among other things, insurance laws, securities laws, laws governing the activities of broker-dealers, registered investment advisers and unclaimed property laws.

LNC is involved in various pending or threatened legal or regulatory proceedings, including purported class actions, arising from the conduct of business both in the ordinary course and otherwise. In some of the matters, very large and/or indeterminate amounts, including punitive and treble damages, are sought. Modern pleading practice in the U.S. permits considerable variation in the assertion of monetary damages or other relief. Jurisdictions may permit claimants not to specify the monetary damages sought or may permit claimants to state only that the amount sought is sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the trial court. In addition, jurisdictions may permit plaintiffs to allege monetary damages in amounts well exceeding verdicts obtained in the jurisdiction for similar matters. This variability in pleadings, together with the actual experiences of LNC in litigating or resolving through settlement numerous claims over an extended period of time, demonstrates to management that the monetary relief which may be specified in a lawsuit or claim bears little relevance to its merits or disposition value.

Due to the unpredictable nature of litigation, the outcome of a litigation matter and the amount or range of potential loss at particular points in time is normally difficult to ascertain. Uncertainties can include how fact finders will evaluate documentary evidence and the

credibility and effectiveness of witness testimony, and how trial and appellate courts will apply the law in the context of the pleadings or evidence presented, whether by motion practice, or at trial or on appeal. Disposition valuations are also subject to the uncertainty of how opposing parties and their counsel will themselves view the relevant evidence and applicable law.

We establish liabilities for litigation and regulatory loss contingencies when information related to the loss contingencies shows both that it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. It is possible that some matters could require us to pay damages or make other expenditures or establish accruals in amounts that could not be estimated as of June 30, 2019. While the potential future charges could be material in the particular quarterly or annual periods in which they are recorded, based on information currently known by management, management does not believe any such charges are likely to have a material adverse effect on LNC’s financial condition.

For some matters, the Company is able to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss. For such matters in which a loss is probable, an accrual has been made. For such matters where a loss is believed to be reasonably possible, but not probable, no accrual has been made. Accordingly, the estimate contained in this paragraph reflects two types of matters. For some matters included within this estimate, an accrual has been made, but there is a reasonable possibility that an exposure exists in excess of the amount accrued. In these cases, the estimate reflects the reasonably possible range of loss in excess of the accrued amount. For other matters included within this estimation, no accrual has been made because a loss, while potentially estimable, is believed to be reasonably possible but not probable. In these cases, the estimate reflects the reasonably possible loss or range of loss. As of June 30, 2019, we estimate the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses to be up to approximately $50 million.

For other matters, we are not currently able to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss. We are often unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss until developments in such matters have provided sufficient information to support an assessment of the range of possible loss, such as quantification of a damage demand from plaintiffs, discovery from other parties and investigation of factual allegations, rulings by the court on motions or appeals, analysis by experts and the progress of settlement negotiations. On a quarterly and annual basis, we review relevant information with respect to litigation contingencies and update our accruals, disclosures and estimates of reasonably possible losses or ranges of loss based on such reviews.

Certain reinsurers have sought rate increases on certain yearly renewable term treaties. We are disputing the requested rate increases under these treaties. We have initiated and will initiate arbitration proceedings, as necessary, under these treaties in order to protect our contractual rights. Additionally, reinsurers may initiate arbitration proceedings against us. We believe it is unlikely the outcome of these disputes will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition.

Cost of Insurance Litigation

Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, No. 3:16-cv-00827, is a putative class action that was served on LNL on June 8, 2016. Plaintiff is the owner of a universal life insurance policy who alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance than permitted by the policy. Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life and variable universal life policyholders who owned policies containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those of Plaintiff’s policy and seeks damages on behalf of all such policyholders. On January 11, 2019, the court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety. In response, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint, which we have opposed.

Hanks v. The Lincoln Life and Annuity Company of New York (“LLANY”) and Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company (“Voya”), filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 1:16-cv-6399, is a putative class action that was served on LLANY on August 12, 2016. Plaintiff owns a universal life policy originally issued by Aetna (now Voya) and alleges that (i) Voya breached the terms of the policy when it increased non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates on Plaintiff’s policy; and (ii) LLANY, as reinsurer and administrator of Plaintiff’s policy, engaged in wrongful conduct related to the cost of insurance increase and was unjustly enriched as a result. Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of Aetna life insurance policies that were subject to non-guaranteed cost of insurance rate increases in 2016 and seeks damages on their behalf. We are vigorously defending this matter.

EFG Bank AG, Cayman Branch, et al. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 2:17-cv-02592, is a civil action filed on February 1, 2017. Plaintiffs own Legend Series universal life insurance policies originally issued by Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL). Plaintiffs allege that LNL breached the terms of policyholders’ contracts when it increased non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates beginning in 2016. We are vigorously defending this matter.

In re: Lincoln National COI Litigation, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Master File No. 2:16-cv-06605-GJP, is a consolidated litigation matter related to multiple putative class action filings that were consolidated by an order dated March 20, 2017. In addition to consolidating a number of existing matters, the order also covers any future cases filed in the same district related to the same subject matter. Plaintiffs own universal life insurance policies originally issued by Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL). Plaintiffs allege that LNL and LNC breached the terms of policyholders’ contracts by increasing non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates beginning in 2016. Plaintiffs seek to represent classes of policyowners and seek damages on their behalf. We are vigorously defending this matter.

In re: Lincoln National 2017 COI Rate Litigation, Master File No. 2:17-cv-04150 is a consolidated litigation matter related to multiple putative class action filings that were consolidated by an order of the court in March 2018. Plaintiffs own universal life insurance policies originally issued by former Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL). Plaintiffs allege that LNL and LNC breached the terms of policyholders’

contracts by increasing non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates beginning in 2017. Plaintiffs seek to represent classes of policyholders and seek damages on their behalf. We are vigorously defending this matter.

Iwanski v. First Penn-Pacific Life Insurance Company (“FPP”), No. 2:18-cv-01573 filed in the U.S. District Court for the District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania is a putative class action that was filed on April 13, 2018. Plaintiff alleges that defendant FPP breached the terms of his life insurance policy by deducting non-guaranteed cost of insurance charges in excess of what is permitted by the policies. Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of universal life insurance policies issued by FPP containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those of Plaintiff’s policy and seeks damages on their behalf. Breach of contract is the only cause of action asserted. We are vigorously defending this matter.

TVPX ARS INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 2:18-cv-02989, is a putative class action that was filed on July 17, 2018. Plaintiff alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance than permitted by the policy. Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life and variable universal life policyholders who own policies issued by LNL or its predecessors containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those of Plaintiff’s policy and seeks damages on behalf of all such policyholders. We are vigorously defending this matter.

LSH Co. and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as securities intermediary for LSH Co. v. Lincoln National Corporation and The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 2:18-cv-05529, is a civil action filed on December 21, 2018. Plaintiffs own universal life insurance policies originally issued by Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL). Plaintiffs allege that LNL breached the terms of policyholders’ contracts when it increased non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates in 2016 and 2017. We are vigorously defending this matter.

Vida Longevity Fund, LP v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 1:19-cv-06004, is a putative class action that was filed on June 27, 2019. Plaintiff alleges that LLANY charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance than was permitted by the policies. Plaintiff seeks to represent all current and former owners of universal life (including variable universal life) policies who own or owned policies issued by LLANY and its predecessors in interest that were in force at any time on or after June 27, 2013, and which contain non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those of Plaintiff’s policies. Plaintiff also seeks to represent a sub-class of such policyholders who own or owned “life insurance policies issued in the State of New York.” Plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of the policyholder class and sub-class. We are vigorously defending this matter.

Commitments

Leases

Effective January 1, 2019, we adopted ASU 2016-02, which resulted in a new measurement and recognition of our long-term operating leases on our Consolidated Balance Sheets. See Note 2 for additional information.

We lease office space and certain equipment under various long-term lease agreements, and we also enter into sale-leaseback transactions. We determine if an arrangement is a lease at inception. Operating lease ROU assets and operating lease liabilities are recognized based on the present value of the future minimum lease payments over the lease term at the commencement date. Our leases do not provide an implicit rate; therefore, we use our incremental borrowing rate at the commencement date in determining the present value of future payments. The ROU asset is calculated using the initial lease liability amount, plus any lease payments made at or before the commencement date, minus any lease incentives received, plus any initial direct costs incurred. Our lease terms may include options to extend or terminate the lease when it is reasonably certain that we will exercise such options. Our lease agreements may contain both lease and non-lease components, which are accounted for separately. Lease expense for minimum lease payments is recognized on a straight-line basis over the lease term.

We recognized operating lease ROU assets of $189 million and associated lease liabilities of $198 million as of June 30, 2019. We classified the operating lease ROU assets within other assets and the lease liabilities within other liabilities on our Consolidated Balance Sheets. The weighted-average discount rate and remaining lease term on our operating leases was 3.3% and 6 years, respectively, as of June 30, 2019. Operating lease expense for the three and six months ended June 30, 2019, was $13 million and $27 million, respectively, and reported in commissions and other expenses on our Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss).

As of June 30, 2019, the net book value of assets recorded as finance leases under sale-leaseback transactions was $159 million, and the associated accumulated amortization was $318 million. These transactions have been classified as other assets on our Consolidated Balance Sheets. These assets will continue to be amortized on a straight-line basis over the assets’ remaining lives. The weighted-average discount rate and remaining lease term on our sale-leaseback transactions was 2.7% and 3 years, respectively, as of June 30, 2019.

Finance lease expense (in millions) was as follows:



	For the Three			For the Six
	Months			Months
	Ended				Ended
	June 30, 2019			June 30, 2019
Amortization of ROU assets ⁽¹⁾		$	19		$	37
Interest on lease liabilities ⁽²⁾			4			7
Total		$	23		$	44

⁽¹⁾Amortization of ROU assets is reported in commissions and other expenses on our Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss).

⁽²⁾Interest on lease liabilities is reported in interest and debt expense on our Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss).

The table below presents cash flow information (in millions) related to leases:



	For the Six
	Months
		Ended
	June 30, 2019
Supplemental Cash Flow Information
Cash paid for amounts included in the measurement of lease liabilities:
Operating cash flows from operating leases		$	30
Financing cash flows from finance leases			7

Supplemental Non-cash Information
ROU assets obtained in exchange for new lease obligations:
Operating leases		$	13

Our future minimum lease payments (in millions) under non-cancellable leases as of June 30, 2019, were as follows:



	Operating		Finance
	Leases		Leases
Remainder of 2019	$	21	$	90
2020		39		58
2021		38		67
2022		33		67
2023		30		91
Thereafter		67		28
Total future minimum lease payments		228		401
Less: Amount representing interest		30		37
Present value of minimum lease payments	$	198	$	364

As of June 30, 2019, we had additional office space leases that had not yet commenced totaling $40 million. These leases will commence in the third and fourth quarters of 2019 and have lease terms of 7 to 11 years.