Commitments and Contingent Liabilities	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingent Liabilities	Commitments and Contingent Liabilities: Legal proceedings against the Company and its subsidiaries routinely arise in the normal course of business and usually pertain to claim matters related to insurance policies and contracts issued by its insurance subsidiaries. Other, non-routine legal proceedings which may prove to be material to the Company or a subsidiary are discussed below. Purported class action lawsuits are pending against the Company's principal title insurance subsidiary, Old Republic National Title Insurance Company ("ORNTIC"), in federal courts in two states - Pennsylvania (Markocki et al. v. ORNTIC, U.S. District Court, Eastern District, Pennsylvania, filed June 8, 2006), and Texas (Ahmad et al. v. ORNTIC, U.S. District Court, Northern District, Texas, Dallas Division, filed February 8, 2008). The plaintiffs allege that ORNTIC failed to give consumers reissue and/or refinance credits on the premiums charged for title insurance covering mortgage refinancing transactions, as required by rate schedules filed by ORNTIC or by state rating bureaus with the state insurance regulatory authorities. The Pennsylvania suit also alleges violations of the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"). The Court in the Texas suit dismissed similar RESPA allegations. Classes have been certified in both actions, but the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has granted ORNTIC's motion appealing the Texas class certification. On March 6, 2009, a national class action suit was filed against the Company's subsidiary, Old Republic Home Protection ("ORHP"), in the California Superior Court, San Diego, (Campion v. Old Republic Home Protection) on behalf of all persons who had made a claim under an ORHP home warranty contract since March 6, 2003. The suit alleges breach of contract, breach of the implicit covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violations of certain California consumer protection laws, and misrepresentation arising out of ORHP's alleged failure to adopt and implement reasonable standards for the prompt investigation and processing of claims under its home warranty contracts. The suit seeks unspecified damages consisting of the rescission of the class members' contracts, restitution of all sums paid by the class members, punitive damages, and declaratory and injunctive relief. ORHP removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on April 13, 2009. On January 6, 2011, the Court denied plaintiff's motion for class certification, and on June 25, 2012, it denied plaintiff's motion to remand the case back to state court. Plaintiff has not appealed either decision. Barring a successful appeal, this case has become an immaterial, single plaintiff claim dispute. On January 27, 2012, a second purported national class action suit was filed in the Federal District Court, Northern District of California, Oakland Division by the same plaintiff and the same law firm. This second suit named as defendants the Company and five of its subsidiaries (Campion v. Old Republic International Corporation, Old Republic Home Protection Company, Inc., Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, Mississippi Valley Title Insurance Company, American Guaranty Title Insurance Company, Republic Mortgage Insurance Company). The suit alleged unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business practices in violation of California's Business & Professions Code -- substantially similar to the allegations in plaintiff's suit against ORHP -- and the payment of commissions and kickbacks in violation of the California Insurance Code and RESPA. The suit sought declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution and treble damages in unspecified amounts, and costs and fees. On July 10, 2012, the Court dismissed the suit with prejudice as to all claims other than those under the California Business & Professional Code against ORHP, which were dismissed without prejudice. On May 22, 2009, a purported national class action suit was filed in the U.S. District Court in Birmingham, Alabama (Barker v. Old Republic Home Protection Company) alleging that ORHP paid fees to real estate brokers to market its home warranty contracts and that the payment of such fees was in violation of Sections 8(a) and 8(b) of RESPA. The suit seeks unspecified damages, including treble damages under RESPA. No class has been certified, and the action is not expected to result in any material liability to the Company. On December 19, 2008, Old Republic Insurance Company and Old Republic Insured Credit Services, Inc., ("Old Republic") filed suit against Countrywide Bank FSB, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. ("Countrywide") and Bank of New York Mellon, BNY Mellon Trust of Delaware in the Circuit Court, Cook County, Illinois (Old Republic Insurance Company, et al. v. Countrywide Bank FSB, et al.) seeking rescission of various credit indemnity policies issued to insure home equity loans and home equity lines of credit which Countrywide had securitized or held for its own account, and a declaratory judgment and money damages based upon material misrepresentations either by Countrywide as to the credit characteristics of the loans or by the borrowers in their loan applications. Countrywide filed a counterclaim alleging a breach of contract, bad faith, and is seeking a declaratory judgment challenging the factual and procedural bases that Old Republic had relied upon to deny or rescind coverage for individual defaulted loans under those policies, as well as unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. On November 3, 2010, Bank of America, N.A. ("B of A") filed suit against Old Republic Insurance Company ("ORIC") in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (Bank of America, N.A. v. Old Republic Insurance Company) alleging breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and bad faith with respect to ORIC's handling of certain claims under a policy of credit indemnity insurance issued to B of A. The policy is not related to those issued to Countrywide, which are the subject of the above-noted separate litigation. The B of A suit seeks a declaratory judgment with respect to the interpretation of certain policy terms, B of A's compliance with certain terms and conditions of the policy, and the propriety of certain positions and procedures taken by ORIC in response to claims filed by B of A. The suit also seeks money damages in excess of $320, pre-and post-judgment interest, and unspecified punitive damages. On January 23, 2012, ORIC filed a counterclaim seeking damages based on B of A's alleged interference with ORIC's subrogation rights. On December 31, 2009, two of the Company's mortgage insurance subsidiaries, Republic Mortgage Insurance Company and Republic Mortgage Insurance Company of North Carolina (together "RMIC") filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, against Countrywide Financial Corporation, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, and Bank of America N.A. as successor in interest to Countrywide Bank, N.A. (together "Countrywide") (Republic Mortgage Insurance Company, et al. v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al.). The suit relates to five mortgage insurance master policies (the "Policies") issued by RMIC to Countrywide or to the Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company as co-trustee for trusts containing securitized mortgage loans that were originated or purchased by Countrywide. RMIC has rescinded its mortgage insurance coverage on over 1,500 of the loans originally covered under the Policies based upon material misrepresentations of the borrowers in their loan applications or the negligence of Countrywide in its loan underwriting practices or procedures. Each of the coverage rescissions occurred after a borrower had defaulted and RMIC reviewed the claim and loan file submitted by Countrywide. The suit seeks the Court's review and interpretation of the Policies' incontestability provisions and its validation of RMIC's investigation procedures with respect to the claims and underlying loan files. On January 29, 2010, in response to RMIC's suit, Countrywide served RMIC with a demand for arbitration under the arbitration clauses of the same Policies. The demand raises largely the same issues as those raised in RMIC's suit against Countrywide, but from Countrywide's perspective, as well as Countrywide's and RMIC's compliance with the terms, provisions and conditions of the Policies. The demand includes a prayer for punitive, compensatory and consequential damages. RMIC filed a motion to stay the arbitration, and Countrywide filed a motion to dismiss RMIC's lawsuit and to compel the arbitration. On July 26, 2010, the Court granted Countrywide's motion, ordering the matters be submitted to arbitration and dismissing the lawsuit. The arbitration is proceeding. After its First Amended Complaint was dismissed on May 4, 2011, on July 19, 2011, J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. ("Chase") filed a Second Amended Complaint against RMIC in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey arising out of RMIC's rescissions of coverage on approximately 377 mortgage loans. (J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Republic Mortgage Insurance Company). The new lawsuit abandons the earlier claim, which the Court dismissed, that RMIC could not unilaterally rescind coverage. Instead, Chase alleges that RMIC's rescissions were improper either because the coverage had become incontestable; or the rescissions relied upon evidence that was either improperly obtained or insufficient, unreliable or immaterial; or the rescissions were not permitted by applicable law. Based on these allegations, Chase asserts claims for breach of contract, breach of good faith and fiduciary duties, negligence and violations of Colorado and Louisiana insurance laws and seeks declaratory relief and unspecified compensatory, treble and punitive damages. On September 26, 2011, RMIC filed a motion for entry of an order dismissing various claims in the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice and requiring Chase to provide a more definitive statement of any remaining claims. That motion is awaiting the Court's actions. Eight purported class action suits alleging RESPA violations have been filed in the Federal District Courts, one in the Central District of California, one in the Eastern District of California, four in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and two in the Western District of Pennsylvania, respectively, between December 9, 2011 and May 31, 2012. The suits target J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., the PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. as successor to National City Bank, N.A., Citibank, N.A., HSBC Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A., Fifth Third Bank, N.A., Flagstar Bank, FSB, and First Tennessee Bank, N.A., each of their wholly-owned captive insurance subsidiaries and most or all of the mortgage guaranty insurance companies, including RMIC. (Samp, Komarchuk, Whitaker v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al.; White, Hightower v. The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., et al.; Menichino v. Citibank, N.A., et al.; McCarn v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al.; Riddle v. Bank of America, et al.; Manners v. Fifth Third Bank, et al.; Hill, et al. v. Flagstar Bank, FSB. et al.; and Barlee v. First Tennessee Bank, N.A., et al.) The lawsuits, filed by the same law firms, are substantially identical in alleging that the mortgage guaranty insurers had reinsurance arrangements with the defendant banks' captive insurance subsidiaries under which payments were made in violation of the anti-kickback and fee splitting prohibitions of Sections 8(a) and 8(b) of RESPA. Each of the suits seeks unspecified damages, costs, fees and the return of the allegedly improper payments. A class has not been certified in any of the suits. Under GAAP, an estimated loss is accrued only if the loss is probable and reasonably estimable. The Company and its subsidiaries have defended and intend to continue defending vigorously against each of the aforementioned actions. The Company does not believe it probable that any of these actions will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows, though there can be no assurance in those regards. Nor is the Company able to make a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of any potential liability under these lawsuits, the counterclaim, and the arbitration, all of which seek unquantified damages, attorneys' fees, and expenses. It is also unclear what effect, if any, the run-off operations of RMIC and the depletion of its capital will have in the actions against it.

Commitments and Contingent Liabilities:

Legal proceedings against the Company and its subsidiaries routinely arise in the normal course of business and usually pertain to claim matters related to insurance policies and contracts issued by its insurance subsidiaries. Other, non-routine legal proceedings which may prove to be material to the Company or a subsidiary are discussed below.

Purported class action lawsuits are pending against the Company's principal title insurance subsidiary, Old Republic National Title Insurance Company ("ORNTIC"), in federal courts in two states - Pennsylvania (Markocki et al. v. ORNTIC, U.S. District Court, Eastern District, Pennsylvania, filed June 8, 2006), and Texas (Ahmad et al. v. ORNTIC, U.S. District Court, Northern District, Texas, Dallas Division, filed February 8, 2008). The plaintiffs allege that ORNTIC failed to give consumers reissue and/or refinance credits on the premiums charged for title insurance covering mortgage refinancing transactions, as required by rate schedules filed by ORNTIC or by state rating bureaus with the state insurance regulatory authorities. The Pennsylvania suit also alleges violations of the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"). The Court in the Texas suit dismissed similar RESPA allegations. Classes have been certified in both actions, but the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has granted ORNTIC's motion appealing the Texas class certification.

On March 6, 2009, a national class action suit was filed against the Company's subsidiary, Old Republic Home Protection ("ORHP"), in the California Superior Court, San Diego, (Campion v. Old Republic Home Protection) on behalf of all persons who had made a claim under an ORHP home warranty contract since March 6, 2003. The suit alleges breach of contract, breach of the implicit covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violations of certain California consumer protection laws, and misrepresentation arising out of ORHP's alleged failure to adopt and implement reasonable standards for the prompt investigation and processing of claims under its home warranty contracts. The suit seeks unspecified damages consisting of the rescission of the class members' contracts, restitution of all sums paid by the class members, punitive damages, and declaratory and injunctive relief. ORHP removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on April 13, 2009. On January 6, 2011, the Court denied plaintiff's motion for class certification, and on June 25, 2012, it denied plaintiff's motion to remand the case back to state court. Plaintiff has not appealed either decision. Barring a successful appeal, this case has become an immaterial, single plaintiff claim dispute.

On January 27, 2012, a second purported national class action suit was filed in the Federal District Court, Northern District of California, Oakland Division by the same plaintiff and the same law firm. This second suit named as defendants the Company and five of its subsidiaries (Campion v. Old Republic International Corporation, Old Republic Home Protection Company, Inc., Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, Mississippi Valley Title Insurance Company, American Guaranty Title Insurance Company, Republic Mortgage Insurance Company). The suit alleged unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business practices in violation of California's Business & Professions Code -- substantially similar to the allegations in plaintiff's suit against ORHP -- and the payment of commissions and kickbacks in violation of the California Insurance Code and RESPA. The suit sought declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution and treble damages in unspecified amounts, and costs and fees. On July 10, 2012, the Court dismissed the suit with prejudice as to all claims other than those under the California Business & Professional Code against ORHP, which were dismissed without prejudice.

On May 22, 2009, a purported national class action suit was filed in the U.S. District Court in Birmingham, Alabama (Barker v. Old Republic Home Protection Company) alleging that ORHP paid fees to real estate brokers to market its home warranty contracts and that the payment of such fees was in violation of Sections 8(a) and 8(b) of RESPA. The suit seeks unspecified damages, including treble damages under RESPA. No class has been certified, and the action is not expected to result in any material liability to the Company.

On December 19, 2008, Old Republic Insurance Company and Old Republic Insured Credit Services, Inc., ("Old Republic") filed suit against Countrywide Bank FSB, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. ("Countrywide") and Bank of New York Mellon, BNY Mellon Trust of Delaware in the Circuit Court, Cook County, Illinois (Old Republic Insurance Company, et al. v. Countrywide Bank FSB, et al.) seeking rescission of various credit indemnity policies issued to insure home equity loans and home equity lines of credit which Countrywide had securitized or held for its own account, and a declaratory judgment and money damages based upon material misrepresentations either by Countrywide as to the credit characteristics of the loans or by the borrowers in their loan applications. Countrywide filed a counterclaim alleging a breach of contract, bad faith, and is seeking a declaratory judgment challenging the factual and procedural bases that Old Republic had relied upon to deny or rescind coverage for individual defaulted loans under those policies, as well as unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

On November 3, 2010, Bank of America, N.A. ("B of A") filed suit against Old Republic Insurance Company ("ORIC") in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (Bank of America, N.A. v. Old Republic Insurance Company) alleging breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and bad faith with respect to ORIC's handling of certain claims under a policy of credit indemnity insurance issued to B of A. The policy is not related to those issued to Countrywide, which are the subject of the above-noted separate litigation. The B of A suit seeks a declaratory judgment with respect to the interpretation of certain policy terms, B of A's compliance with certain terms and conditions of the policy, and the propriety of certain positions and procedures taken by ORIC in response to claims filed by B of A. The suit also seeks money damages in excess of $320, pre-and post-judgment interest, and unspecified punitive damages. On January 23, 2012, ORIC filed a counterclaim seeking damages based on B of A's alleged interference with ORIC's subrogation rights.

On December 31, 2009, two of the Company's mortgage insurance subsidiaries, Republic Mortgage Insurance Company and Republic Mortgage Insurance Company of North Carolina (together "RMIC") filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, against Countrywide Financial Corporation, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, and Bank of America N.A. as successor in interest to Countrywide Bank, N.A. (together "Countrywide") (Republic Mortgage Insurance Company, et al. v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al.). The suit relates to five mortgage insurance master policies (the "Policies") issued by RMIC to Countrywide or to the Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company as co-trustee for trusts containing securitized mortgage loans that were originated or purchased by Countrywide. RMIC has rescinded its mortgage insurance coverage on over 1,500 of the loans originally covered under the Policies based upon material misrepresentations of the borrowers in their loan applications or the negligence of Countrywide in its loan underwriting practices or procedures. Each of the coverage rescissions occurred after a borrower had defaulted and RMIC reviewed the claim and loan file submitted by Countrywide. The suit seeks the Court's review and interpretation of the Policies' incontestability provisions and its validation of RMIC's investigation procedures with respect to the claims and underlying loan files.

On January 29, 2010, in response to RMIC's suit, Countrywide served RMIC with a demand for arbitration under the arbitration clauses of the same Policies. The demand raises largely the same issues as those raised in RMIC's suit against Countrywide, but from Countrywide's perspective, as well as Countrywide's and RMIC's compliance with the terms, provisions and conditions of the Policies. The demand includes a prayer for punitive, compensatory and consequential damages. RMIC filed a motion to stay the arbitration, and Countrywide filed a motion to dismiss RMIC's lawsuit and to compel the arbitration. On July 26, 2010, the Court granted Countrywide's motion, ordering the matters be submitted to arbitration and dismissing the lawsuit. The arbitration is proceeding.

After its First Amended Complaint was dismissed on May 4, 2011, on July 19, 2011, J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. ("Chase") filed a Second Amended Complaint against RMIC in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey arising out of RMIC's rescissions of coverage on approximately 377 mortgage loans. (J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Republic Mortgage Insurance Company). The new lawsuit abandons the earlier claim, which the Court dismissed, that RMIC could not unilaterally rescind coverage. Instead, Chase alleges that RMIC's rescissions were improper either because the coverage had become incontestable; or the rescissions relied upon evidence that was either improperly obtained or insufficient, unreliable or immaterial; or the rescissions were not permitted by applicable law. Based on these allegations, Chase asserts claims for breach of contract, breach of good faith and fiduciary duties, negligence and violations of Colorado and Louisiana insurance laws and seeks declaratory relief and unspecified compensatory, treble and punitive damages. On September 26, 2011, RMIC filed a motion for entry of an order dismissing various claims in the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice and requiring Chase to provide a more definitive statement of any remaining claims. That motion is awaiting the Court's actions.

Eight purported class action suits alleging RESPA violations have been filed in the Federal District Courts, one in the Central District of California, one in the Eastern District of California, four in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and two in the Western District of Pennsylvania, respectively, between December 9, 2011 and May 31, 2012. The suits target J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., the PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. as successor to National City Bank, N.A., Citibank, N.A., HSBC Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A., Fifth Third Bank, N.A., Flagstar Bank, FSB, and First Tennessee Bank, N.A., each of their wholly-owned captive insurance subsidiaries and most or all of the mortgage guaranty insurance companies, including RMIC. (Samp, Komarchuk, Whitaker v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al.; White, Hightower v. The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., et al.; Menichino v. Citibank, N.A., et al.; McCarn v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al.; Riddle v. Bank of America, et al.; Manners v. Fifth Third Bank, et al.; Hill, et al. v. Flagstar Bank, FSB. et al.; and Barlee v. First Tennessee Bank, N.A., et al.) The lawsuits, filed by the same law firms, are substantially identical in alleging that the mortgage guaranty insurers had reinsurance arrangements with the defendant banks' captive insurance subsidiaries under which payments were made in violation of the anti-kickback and fee splitting prohibitions of Sections 8(a) and 8(b) of RESPA. Each of the suits seeks unspecified damages, costs, fees and the return of the allegedly improper payments. A class has not been certified in any of the suits.

Under GAAP, an estimated loss is accrued only if the loss is probable and reasonably estimable. The Company and its subsidiaries have defended and intend to continue defending vigorously against each of the aforementioned actions. The Company does not believe it probable that any of these actions will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows, though there can be no assurance in those regards. Nor is the Company able to make a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of any potential liability under these lawsuits, the counterclaim, and the arbitration, all of which seek unquantified damages, attorneys' fees, and expenses. It is also unclear what effect, if any, the run-off operations of RMIC and the depletion of its capital will have in the actions against it.