Commitments and Contingent Liabilities

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2013

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingent Liabilities

Commitments and Contingent Liabilities:

(a) Reinsurance and Retention Limits - In order to maintain premium production within their capacity and to limit maximum losses for which they might become liable under policies they've underwritten, Old Republic's insurance subsidiaries, as is the common practice in the insurance industry, may cede all or a portion of their premiums and related liabilities on certain classes of business to other insurers and reinsurers. Although the ceding of insurance does not ordinarily discharge an insurer from liability to a policyholder, it is industry practice to establish the reinsured part of risks as the liability of the reinsurer. Old Republic also employs retrospective premium and a large variety of risk-sharing procedures and arrangements for parts of its business in order to reduce underwriting losses for which it might become liable under insurance policies it issues. To the extent that any reinsurance companies, assured or producer might be unable to meet their obligations under existing reinsurance, retrospective insurance and production agreements, Old Republic would be liable for the defaulted amounts. As deemed necessary, reinsurance ceded to other companies is secured by letters of credit, cash, and/or securities.

Except as noted in the following paragraph, reinsurance protection on property and liability coverages generally limits the net loss on most individual claims to a maximum of: $5.2 for workers' compensation; $3.5 for commercial auto liability; $3.5 for general liability; $8.0 for executive protection (directors & officers and errors & omissions); $2.0 for aviation; and $4.0 for property coverages. Title insurance risk assumptions are generally limited to a maximum of $500.0 as to any one policy. The vast majority of title policies issued, however, carry exposures of less than $1.0. Roughly 10% of the mortgage guaranty traditional primary insurance in force is subject to lender sponsored captive reinsurance arrangements structured primarily on an excess of loss basis. All bulk and other insurance risk in force is retained. Exclusive of reinsurance, the average direct primary mortgage guaranty exposure is (in whole dollars) $38,697 per insured loan.

Since January 1, 2005, the Company has had maximum reinsurance coverage of up to $200.0 for its workers' compensation exposures. Pursuant to regulatory requirements, however, all workers' compensation primary insurers such as the Company remain liable for unlimited amounts in excess of reinsured limits. Other than the substantial concentration of workers' compensation losses caused by the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on America, to the best of the Company's knowledge there had not been a similar accumulation of claims in a single location from a single occurrence prior to that event. Nevertheless, the possibility continues to exist that non-reinsured losses could, depending on a wide range of severity and frequency assumptions, aggregate several hundred million dollars to an insurer such as the Company. Such aggregation of losses could occur in the event of a catastrophe such as an earthquake that could lead to the death or injury of a large number of persons concentrated in a single facility such as a high rise building.

As a result of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on America, the reinsurance industry eliminated coverage from substantially all contracts for claims arising from acts of terrorism. Primary insurers like the Company thus became fully exposed to such claims. Late in 2002, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (the "TRIA") was signed into law, immediately establishing a temporary federal reinsurance program administered by the Secretary of the Treasury. The program applied to insured commercial property and casualty losses resulting from an act of terrorism, as defined in the TRIA. Congress extended and modified the program in late 2005 through the Terrorism Risk Insurance Revision and Extension Act of 2005 (the "TRIREA"). TRIREA expired on December 31, 2007. Congress enacted a revised program in December 2007 through the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 (the "TRIPRA"), a seven year extension through December 2014. The TRIA automatically voided all policy exclusions which were in effect for terrorism related losses and obligated insurers to offer terrorism coverage with most commercial property and casualty insurance lines. The TRIREA revised the definition of "property and casualty insurance" to exclude commercial automobile, burglary and theft, surety, professional liability and farm owner's multi-peril insurance. TRIPRA did not make any further changes to the definition of property and casualty insurance, however, it does include domestic acts of terrorism within the scope of the program. Although insurers are permitted to charge an additional premium for terrorism coverage, insureds may reject the coverage. Under TRIPRA, the program's protection is not triggered for losses arising from an act of terrorism until the industry first suffers losses of $100 billion in the aggregate during any one year. Once the program trigger is met, the program will pay 85% of an insurer's terrorism losses that exceed an individual insurer's deductible. The insurer's deductible is 20% of direct earned premium on property and casualty insurance. Insurers may reinsure that portion of the risk they retain under the program. Effective January 1, 2008, the Company reinsured limits of $198.0 excess of $2.0 for claims arising from certain acts of terrorism for casualty clash coverage and catastrophe workers' compensation liability insurance coverage.

Reinsurance ceded by the Company's insurance subsidiaries in the ordinary course of business is typically placed on an excess of loss basis. Under excess of loss reinsurance agreements, the companies are generally reimbursed for losses exceeding contractually agreed‑upon levels. Quota share reinsurance is most often effected between the Company's insurance subsidiaries and industry-wide assigned risk plans or captive insurers owned by assureds. Under quota share reinsurance, the Company remits to the assuming entity an agreed-upon percentage of premiums written and is reimbursed for underwriting expenses and proportionately related claims costs.

Reinsurance recoverable asset balances represent amounts due from or credited by assuming reinsurers for paid and unpaid claims and premium reserves. Such reinsurance balances are recoverable from non-admitted foreign and certain other reinsurers such as captive insurance companies owned by assureds, as well as similar balances or credits arising from policies that are retrospectively rated or subject to assureds' high deductible retentions, are substantially collateralized by letters of credit, securities, and other financial instruments. Old Republic evaluates on a regular basis the financial condition of its assuming reinsurers and assureds who purchase its retrospectively rated or self-insured deductible policies. Estimates of unrecoverable amounts totaling $21.2 at both December 31, 2013 and 2012 are included in the Company's net claim and claim expense reserves since reinsurance, retrospectively rated, and self-insured deductible policies and contracts do not relieve Old Republic from its direct obligations to assureds or their beneficiaries.

At December 31, 2013, the Company's General Insurance Group's ten largest reinsurers represented approximately 59% of the total consolidated reinsurance recoverable on paid and unpaid losses, with Munich Re America, Inc. the largest reinsurer representing 27.7% of the total recoverable balance. Of the balances due from these ten reinsurers, 84.5% was recoverable from A or better rated reinsurance companies, 3.2%from a B+ rated reinsurance company, 6.0% from an industry-wide insurance assigned risk pool, and 6.3% from foreign unrated companies. The RFIG Run-off mortgage guaranty operation's total claims exposure to its largest reinsurer, AAMBG Reinsurance, Inc., was $10.5, which represented .4% of total consolidated reinsured liabilities as of December 31, 2013.

Property and liability insurance companies are required to annualize certain policy premiums in their regulatory financial statements though such premiums may not be contractually due nor ultimately collectible. The annualization process relies on a large number of estimates, and has the effect of increasing direct, ceded, and net premiums written, and of grossing up corresponding balance sheet premium balances and liabilities such as unearned premium reserves. The accrual of these estimates has no effect on net premiums earned or GAAP net income.

The following information relates to reinsurance and related data for the General Insurance and RFIG Run-off Groups for the three years ended December 31, 2013. Reinsurance transactions of the Title Insurance Group and small life and accident insurance operation are not material.

Years Ended December 31:		2013		2012		2011
General Insurance Group (a)
Written premiums:	Direct	$	3,348.1	$	3,043.4	$	2,763.0
	Assumed	28.8		19.9		6.1
	Ceded	$	775.8	$	696.5	$	631.5
Earned premiums:	Direct	$	3,235.7	$	2,949.9	$	2,716.2
	Assumed	24.1		17.9		8.9
	Ceded	$	746.1	$	643.4	$	615.8
Claims ceded		$	469.5	$	410.6	$	427.0
RFIG Run-off Business (a)
Written premiums:	Direct	$	314.3	$	409.2	$	544.4
	Assumed	—		—		—
	Ceded	$	9.9	$	19.3	$	23.2
Earned premiums:	Direct	$	326.4	$	429.8	$	526.4
	Assumed	—		—		.1
	Ceded	$	9.9	$	19.3	$	23.2
Claims ceded		$	3.4	$	24.2	$	42.2
Mortgage Guaranty Insurance in force as of December 31:
	Direct	$	43,994.5	$	56,413.7	$	70,520.9
	Assumed	—		—		446.0
	Ceded	$	460.4	$	886.1	$	1,452.7

__________

(a) As previously noted, consumer credit indemnity coverages are reported within the RFIG Run-off segment and have been excluded from the General Insurance Group for all periods presented to conform with segment classifications adopted in 2012. See Note 6.

(b) Leases - Some of the Company's subsidiaries maintain their offices in leased premises. Some of these leases provide for the payment of real estate taxes, insurance, and other operating expenses. Rental expenses for operating leases amounted to $49.7, $52.6 and $56.0 in 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively. These expenses relate primarily to building leases of the Company. A number of the Company's subsidiaries also lease other equipment for use in their businesses. At December 31, 2013, aggregate minimum rental commitments (net of expected sub-lease receipts) under noncancellable operating leases are summarized as follows: 2014: $52.4; 2015: $41.6; 2016: $33.1; 2017: $27.3; 2018: $20.0; 2019 and after: $38.9.

(c) General - In the normal course of business, the Company and its subsidiaries are subject to various contingent liabilities, including possible income tax assessments resulting from tax law interpretations or issues raised by taxing or regulatory authorities in their regular examinations, catastrophic claim occurrences not indemnified by reinsurers such as noted at 4(a) above, or failure to collect all amounts on its investments or balances due from assureds and reinsurers. The Company does not have a basis for anticipating any significant losses or costs that could result from any known or existing contingencies.

From time to time, in order to assure possible liquidity needs, the Company may guaranty the timely payment of principal and/or interest on certain intercompany balances, debt, or other securities held by some of its insurance, non-insurance, and ESSOP affiliates. At December 31, 2013, the aggregate principal amount of such guaranties was $154.0.

(d) Legal Proceedings - 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.

A purported class action lawsuit is pending against the Company's principal title insurance subsidiary, Old Republic National Title Insurance Company ("ORNTIC"), in a federal district court in Pennsylvania (Markocki et al. v. ORNTIC, U.S. District Court, Eastern District, Pennsylvania, filed June 8, 2006). 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 filed rate schedules. The suit also alleges violations of the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"). A class has been certified in the suit. ORNTIC is challenging the certification based on more recent case precedents.

On December 19, 2008, Old Republic Insurance Company and 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 ("BNYM") 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, 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 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. The Court ruled that Countrywide does not have standing to counterclaim with respect to the policies insuring the securitized loans because those policies were issued to BNYM. In response, Countrywide and BNYM jointly filed a motion asking the Court to allow an amended counterclaim in which BNYM would raise substantially similar allegations as those raised by Countrywide and make substantially similar requests but with respect to the policies issued to BNYM. The Court dismissed their motion.

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 unspecified money damages, pre and post judgment interest and 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.

On December 30, 2011 and on January 4, 2013, purported class action suits alleging RESPA violations were filed in the Federal District Court, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania targeting RMIC, other mortgage guaranty insurance companies, PNC Financial Services Group (as successor to National City Bank) and HSBC Bank USA, N.A., and their wholly-owned captive insurance subsidiaries. (White, Hightower, et al. v. PNC Financial Services Group (as successor to National City Bank) et al.), (Ba, Chip, et al. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al.). The lawsuits are two of twelve against various lenders, their captive reinsurers and the mortgage insurers, filed by the same law firms, all of which were 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. Ten of the twelve suits have been dismissed. The remaining suits seek unspecified damages, costs, fees and the return of the allegedly improper payments. A class has not been certified in either suit and RMIC has filed motions to dismiss the cases.

On September 26, 2012 a purported national class action suit was filed against Old Republic Home Protection Company in the Superior Court of California for Riverside County. (Friedmanv.Old Republic Home Protection Company, Inc.). The suit alleged that the Company operates in breach of its home warranty contracts, in breach of implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, in violation of various provisions of the California Civil Code and Business and Professions Code and is guilty of false advertising. The stated class period was from November 24, 2004 through the present. The suit sought declaratory relief, injunctive relief, restitution, damages, costs and attorneys' fees in unspecified amounts. The firm representing the plaintiff had previously filed similar suits against the Company, which were unsuccessful. The Company succeeded in having the case removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on October 24, 2012, and on December 2, 2013 the Court granted the Company's motions to dismiss the Complaint. The Plaintiff was allowed to prepare a third amended complaint on one remaining claim.

PNC Bank, N.A., in its own right and as successor-in-interest to National City Corporation, filed suit against RMIC on October 10, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania disputing RMIC's denials and rescissions of its mortgage guaranty insurance coverage on an unspecified number of mortgage loans. It filed an amended complaint on January 30, 2013 identifying 248 disputed coverage denials or rescissions (PNC Bank, N.A. v. Republic Mortgage Insurance Company). The suit sought certain declaratory relief, actual money damages and unspecified compensatory, consequential and punitive damages. In late December, 2013 the suit was settled with RMIC's reinstatement of coverage on certain loans and PNC Bank's payment of the corresponding premiums due.

On May 16, 2013, Bank of America, N.A. ("B of A") filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association against both Republic Mortgage Insurance Company and Republic Mortgage Insurance Company of North Carolina (together, "RMIC") under the arbitration provisions of the RMIC Master Policy of mortgage guaranty insurance issued to B of A. The demand relates to RMIC's denials of certain claims and rescissions of coverage as to other claims. B of A alleges RMIC's actions were in breach of contract, in breach of RMIC's duty of good faith and fair dealing and in bad faith. The allegations are substantially similar to those raised by B of A's affiliates, Countrywide Financial Corporation and Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. in their arbitration demand against RMIC. B of A is a plaintiff in that proceeding as well, in its capacity as successor in interest to Countrywide Bank, N.A. B of A's demand requests a declaratory judgment with respect to the interpretation of certain policy provisions, B of A's compliance with certain terms and conditions of the policy, and the propriety of certain coverage positions and claims administration procedures of RMIC. The demand also seeks unspecified money damages, punitive, compensatory and consequential damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

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. The Company is unable 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 depletion of its capital will have in the actions against it.