Commitments and Contingent Liabilities Commitments and Contingent Liabilities	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2016
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. 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 systemic material misrepresentations and fraud 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, with leave to re-plead the counterclaim. BNYM's subsequent attempt to re-plead was granted by the Court and BNYM has re-pleaded its counterclaim. A multi-phase trial is set to begin March 13, 2017. 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 these lawsuits 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. A class has not been certified in either remaining suit. Those two suits seeking unspecified damages, costs, fees and the return of the allegedly improper payments were settled with an agreement to make nominal payments. On October 9, 2014, Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC (collectively, "IV") served a complaint naming as defendants Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, Old Republic Title Insurance Group, Inc., Old Republic Insurance Company and Old Republic General Insurance Group, Inc. (collectively, "Old Republic")(Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al. v. Old Republic General Insurance Group, Inc. et al.). The lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. IV alleges that Old Republic has infringed three patents and seeks damages, costs, expenses, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest for the alleged infringement, in addition to injunctive relief. On October 14, 2014, Old Republic filed a motion to dismiss each count of the complaint on the grounds that the patents fail to meet the patentability test established by the United States Supreme Court in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014). The Court granted Old Republic’s motion to dismiss on all three patents on September 25, 2015. Concurrently, Old Republic filed inter partes review petitions challenging validity of the patents before the United States Patent & Trademark Office ("USPTO") in late September and early October, 2015. In late October, 2015, IV filed notice of its appeal of the District Court’s dismissal of its claims. The appeal has been argued before the United States Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit and a decision is pending. The Patent and Trademark Appeal Board of the USPTO has accepted the petitions challenging the validity of all three patents and has until early April, 2017, to rule. On January 20, 2015, Intellectual Ventures II LLC filed two complaints in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas naming as defendants Great West Casualty Company and BITCO General Insurance Corporation and BITCO National Insurance Company. (Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Great West Casualty Company) and (Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. BITCO General Insurance Corporation et al.) The plaintiff alleges a single patent infringement and seeks damages, costs, expenses, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest in addition to injunctive relief. On April 9, 2015, plaintiff amended each complaint to allege a second patent infringement claim. The District Court set a trial date in September, 2016. In August and September, 2015, Great West and BITCO filed inter partes review petitions challenging validity of the patents before the United States Patent & Trademark Office. Both petitions have been accepted for review. The Patent and Trademark Appeal Board of the USPTO has until February 9, 2017, to rule on the validity challenge of one of the patents and until March 22, 2017, to rule on the other patent. On May 11, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal on one of the patent infringement claims in the District Court. On June 29, 2016, IV disclaimed all claims it asserted against Great West and BITCO on that patent and, accordingly, the inter partes review will be terminated by the Patent and Trademark Appeal Board in due course. With respect to the remaining single patent infringement claim, on May 12, 2016, the District Court issued a stay on the suit until such time as the Patent and Trade Mark Appeal Board issues its ruling on the inter partes review. On July 5, 2016, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC and Homeward Residential, Inc. (collectively, "Ocwen") filed an amendment to an initial complaint against Republic Mortgage Insurance Company and Republic Mortgage Insurance Company of North Carolina (collectively, "RMIC"). The suit, which is captioned Ocwen et al. v. RMIC et al., is pending in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division for Forsyth County, North Carolina. The amendment for the first time identifies specific mortgage insurance certificates as to which Ocwen alleges breaches of contract, bad faith and violations of certain fair claims settlement practices laws and seeks declaratory relief in regard to certain claims handling practices on future claims. RMIC believes the suit is without merit and intends to defend vigorously. 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 has made an estimate of its potential liability under certain of these matters, all of which seek unquantified damages, attorneys' fees, and expenses. Because of the uncertainty of the ultimate outcomes of the aforementioned disputes, additional costs may arise in future periods beyond the Company's current reserves. It is also unclear what effect, if any, the run-off operations of RMIC and its limited 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.

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 systemic material misrepresentations and fraud 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, with leave to re-plead the counterclaim. BNYM's subsequent attempt to re-plead was granted by the Court and BNYM has re-pleaded its counterclaim. A multi-phase trial is set to begin March 13, 2017.

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 these lawsuits 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. A class has not been certified in either remaining suit. Those two suits seeking unspecified damages, costs, fees and the return of the allegedly improper payments were settled with an agreement to make nominal payments.

On October 9, 2014, Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC (collectively, "IV") served a complaint naming as defendants Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, Old Republic Title Insurance Group, Inc., Old Republic Insurance Company and Old Republic General Insurance Group, Inc. (collectively, "Old Republic")(Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al. v. Old Republic General Insurance Group, Inc. et al.). The lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. IV alleges that Old Republic has infringed three patents and seeks damages, costs, expenses, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest for the alleged infringement, in addition to injunctive relief. On October 14, 2014, Old Republic filed a motion to dismiss each count of the complaint on the grounds that the patents fail to meet the patentability test established by the United States Supreme Court in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014). The Court granted Old Republic’s motion to dismiss on all three patents on September 25, 2015. Concurrently, Old Republic filed inter partes review petitions challenging validity of the patents before the United States Patent & Trademark Office ("USPTO") in late September and early October, 2015. In late October, 2015, IV filed notice of its appeal of the District Court’s dismissal of its claims. The appeal has been argued before the United States Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit and a decision is pending. The Patent and Trademark Appeal Board of the USPTO has accepted the petitions challenging the validity of all three patents and has until early April, 2017, to rule.

On January 20, 2015, Intellectual Ventures II LLC filed two complaints in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas naming as defendants Great West Casualty Company and BITCO General Insurance Corporation and BITCO National Insurance Company. (Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Great West Casualty Company) and (Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. BITCO General Insurance Corporation et al.) The plaintiff alleges a single patent infringement and seeks damages, costs, expenses, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest in addition to injunctive relief. On April 9, 2015, plaintiff amended each complaint to allege a second patent infringement claim. The District Court set a trial date in September, 2016. In August and September, 2015, Great West and BITCO filed inter partes review petitions challenging validity of the patents before the United States Patent & Trademark Office. Both petitions have been accepted for review. The Patent and Trademark Appeal Board of the USPTO has until February 9, 2017, to rule on the validity challenge of one of the patents and until March 22, 2017, to rule on the other patent. On May 11, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal on one of the patent infringement claims in the District Court. On June 29, 2016, IV disclaimed all claims it asserted against Great West and BITCO on that patent and, accordingly, the inter partes review will be terminated by the Patent and Trademark Appeal Board in due course. With respect to the remaining single patent infringement claim, on May 12, 2016, the District Court issued a stay on the suit until such time as the Patent and Trade Mark Appeal Board issues its ruling on the inter partes review.

On July 5, 2016, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC and Homeward Residential, Inc. (collectively, "Ocwen") filed an amendment to an initial complaint against Republic Mortgage Insurance Company and Republic Mortgage Insurance Company of North Carolina (collectively, "RMIC"). The suit, which is captioned Ocwen et al. v. RMIC et al., is pending in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division for Forsyth County, North Carolina. The amendment for the first time identifies specific mortgage insurance certificates as to which Ocwen alleges breaches of contract, bad faith and violations of certain fair claims settlement practices laws and seeks declaratory relief in regard to certain claims handling practices on future claims. RMIC believes the suit is without merit and intends to defend vigorously.

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 has made an estimate of its potential liability under certain of these matters, all of which seek unquantified damages, attorneys' fees, and expenses. Because of the uncertainty of the ultimate outcomes of the aforementioned disputes, additional costs may arise in future periods beyond the Company's current reserves. It is also unclear what effect, if any, the run-off operations of RMIC and its limited capital will have in the actions against it.