Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	Note 12 - Contingencies In the ordinary course of its businesses, the Company is involved in legal proceedings, including lawsuits, regulatory examinations and inquiries. Except with regard to the matters discussed below, based on currently available information, the Company does not believe that it is reasonably possible that any of its pending legal proceedings will have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements. Over the last several years, certain state insurance regulators, legislators, treasurers/controllers, and their respective agents have been involved in an array of initiatives that seek, in various ways, to impose new duties on life insurance companies to proactively search for deaths of their insureds and contact the insureds’ beneficiaries even though such beneficiaries may not have submitted claims, including due proof of death, as required under the terms of state-approved life insurance policy forms. Legislation has been enacted in Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Montana, Nevada, New York, North Dakota and Vermont, with varying effective dates (the “DMF Statutes”), that requires life insurance companies to compare on a regular basis their records for all in-force policies (including those policies issued prior to the effective dates of the legislation) against the database of reported deaths maintained by the Social Security Administration or a comparable database (a “Death Master File”). Iowa also recently passed such a statute which is awaiting signature by the Iowa governor. In contrast, New Mexico has enacted legislation that also requires such comparisons, but exempts life insurance companies, like Kemper’s life insurance subsidiaries (the “Life Companies”), that have not previously utilized a Death Master File, and instead only requires that such companies conduct Death Master File comparisons for life insurance policies issued and delivered in New Mexico after the legislation’s effective date. Likewise, Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi have enacted statutes that require such comparisons, but only with respect to policies issued on or after their respective effective dates, without regard to prior Death Master File use. The legislature in Tennessee has passed a statute, which is awaiting signature by the Tennessee governor, substantially similar to that in New Mexico. In November 2012, certain of the Life Companies filed a declaratory judgment action in Kentucky state Note 12 - Contingencies (Continued) court, asking the court to construe the Kentucky DMF Statute to apply only prospectively - i.e., only with respect to those life insurance policies issued in Kentucky on or after the effective date of the Kentucky DMFStatute - consistent with what the Life Companies believe are the requirements of applicable Kentucky statutory law and state and federal constitutional provisions. In April 2013, the trial court denied the subject Life Companies’ motion for summary judgment and held that the requirements of the Kentucky DMF Statute apply to life insurance policies issued before the statute’s January 1, 2013 effective date. The subject Life Companies believe that the court did not correctly apply governing law and have appealed the trial court’s decision. The Kentucky Court of Appeals has issued a stay of enforcement of the Kentucky DMF Statute against the subject Life Companies’ policies issued prior to the statute’s effective date pending the appeal. A decision by the Kentucky Court of Appeals is unlikely before the first quarter of 2015. In July 2013, certain of the Life Companies filed a declaratory judgment action in state court in Maryland, asking the court to construe the Maryland DMF Statute to apply only to policies issued in Maryland after the effective date of the statute, consistent with what the Life Companies believe are the requirements of the Maryland Constitution and the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution. The Maryland Insurance Administration filed a motion to dismiss the action, contending that the subject Life Companies were required to exhaust their administrative remedies before filing their action in the trial court. In March 2014, the trial court granted the State’s motion. The Life Companies have appealed the trial court’s ruling. A decision by the Maryland Court of Special Appeals is unlikely before the second quarter of 2015. The Maryland appellate courts have declined to stay enforcement of the Maryland DMF Statute pending the appeal, and the Life Companies have begun the process of complying with the Maryland DMF Statute while they continue to pursue their appeal. The Life Companies are the subject of an unclaimed property compliance audit (the “Treasurers’ Audit”) being conducted by a private audit firm retained by the treasurers/controllers of thirty-eight states (the “Audit Firm”). In July 2013, the California State Controller (the “CA Controller”) filed a complaint for injunctive relief against the Life Companies in state court in California, seeking an order requiring the Life Companies to produce all of their in-force policy records to the Audit Firm to enable the firm to perform a comparison of such records against a Death Master File and to ascertain whether any of the insureds under such policies may be deceased. In December 2013, the CA Controller filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking the same relief. A hearing on that motion has been continued by the court until November 2014. As described below, the Life Companies have filed a counterclaim in this case against the CA Controller. The Life Companies are the subject of a multi-state market conduct examination by six state insurance regulators that is focused on the Life Companies’ claim settlement and policy administration practices, and specifically their compliance with state unclaimed property statutes (the “Multi-State Exam”). The Multi-State Exam was originated in June 2012 as a single-state examination by the Illinois Director of Insurance. Insurance regulators from five additional states -- California, Florida, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and North Dakota -- joined the examination in May 2013. In July 2013, the Life Companies received requests from the Illinois Department of Insurance, as the managing lead state for the Multi-State Exam, for a significant volume of additional information, including their records of in-force policies and other information of the type previously requested by the Audit Firm as part of the Treasurers’ Audit and which is the subject of the CA Controller’s complaint. In September 2013, certain of the Life Companies filed declaratory judgment actions against the insurance regulators in the states of California, Florida, Illinois and Pennsylvania, asking the courts in those states to declare that applicable law does not require life insurers to search a Death Master File to ascertain whether insureds are deceased. The subject Life Companies are also asking the courts to declare that regulators in those states do not have the legal authority to (i) obtain life insurers’ policy records for the purpose of comparing those records against a Death Master File, and/or (ii) impose payment obligations on life insurers before a claim and due proof of death have been submitted. The declaratory judgment action in California was filed as a counterclaim to the CA Controller’s complaint, joining the California Insurance Commissioner and the Audit Firm as parties to the counterclaim. The CA Controller has filed a motion to dismiss the Life Companies’ counterclaim, contending that the Life Companies’ request for a declaratory judgment is premature and not ripe for adjudication. A hearing on that motion has been continued until November 2014. The Illinois Department of Insurance has filed a motion to dismiss the Illinois action, on the grounds that the Life Companies’ request for a declaratory judgment is premature and, alternatively, that the Life Companies must exhaust administrative remedies before pursuing such relief in the courts. A hearing on that motion is currently scheduled for May 29, 2014. The actions against the insurance regulators in the states of California, Florida, and Pennsylvania are stayed by agreement of the parties pending the outcome of the Illinois action. The results of the Treasurers’ Audit, Multi-State Exam and the various litigation described above cannot currently be predicted. The Life Companies continue to maintain that states lack the legal authority to establish new requirements that have the effect Note 12 - Contingencies (Continued) of changing the terms of existing life insurance contracts with regard to basic claims handling obligations and processes. If these state officials are able to apply such new requirements retroactively to the Life Companies’ existing life insurance policies, it will fundamentally alter the nature and timing of their responsibilities under such policies by effectively eliminating contractual terms that condition claim settlement and payment on the receipt of a claim, including “due proof of death” of an insured. The outcome of the various state initiatives and related litigation could have a significant effect on, including acceleration of, the Life Companies’ payment and/or escheatment of policy benefits, and significantly increase their claims handling costs. Kemper cannot reasonably estimate the amount of loss that it would recognize if the Life Companies were subjected to such requirements on a retroactive basis.

Note 12 - Contingencies

In the ordinary course of its businesses, the Company is involved in legal proceedings, including lawsuits, regulatory examinations and inquiries. Except with regard to the matters discussed below, based on currently available information, the Company does not believe that it is reasonably possible that any of its pending legal proceedings will have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

Over the last several years, certain state insurance regulators, legislators, treasurers/controllers, and their respective agents have been involved in an array of initiatives that seek, in various ways, to impose new duties on life insurance companies to proactively search for deaths of their insureds and contact the insureds’ beneficiaries even though such beneficiaries may not have submitted claims, including due proof of death, as required under the terms of state-approved life insurance policy forms.

Legislation has been enacted in Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Montana, Nevada, New York, North Dakota and Vermont, with varying effective dates (the “DMF Statutes”), that requires life insurance companies to compare on a regular basis their records for all in-force policies (including those policies issued prior to the effective dates of the legislation) against the database of reported deaths maintained by the Social Security Administration or a comparable database (a “Death Master File”). Iowa also recently passed such a statute which is awaiting signature by the Iowa governor. In contrast, New Mexico has enacted legislation that also requires such comparisons, but exempts life insurance companies, like Kemper’s life insurance subsidiaries (the “Life Companies”), that have not previously utilized a Death Master File, and instead only requires that such companies conduct Death Master File comparisons for life insurance policies issued and delivered in New Mexico after the legislation’s effective date. Likewise, Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi have enacted statutes that require such comparisons, but only with respect to policies issued on or after their respective effective dates, without regard to prior Death Master File use. The legislature in Tennessee has passed a statute, which is awaiting signature by the Tennessee governor, substantially similar to that in New Mexico. In November 2012, certain of the Life Companies filed a declaratory judgment action in Kentucky state

Note 12 - Contingencies (Continued)

court, asking the court to construe the Kentucky DMF Statute to apply only prospectively - i.e., only with respect to those life insurance policies issued in Kentucky on or after the effective date of the Kentucky DMFStatute - consistent with what the Life Companies believe are the requirements of applicable Kentucky statutory law and state and federal constitutional provisions. In April 2013, the trial court denied the subject Life Companies’ motion for summary judgment and held that the requirements of the Kentucky DMF Statute apply to life insurance policies issued before the statute’s January 1, 2013 effective date. The subject Life Companies believe that the court did not correctly apply governing law and have appealed the trial court’s decision. The Kentucky Court of Appeals has issued a stay of enforcement of the Kentucky DMF Statute against the subject Life Companies’ policies issued prior to the statute’s effective date pending the appeal. A decision by the Kentucky Court of Appeals is unlikely before the first quarter of 2015.

In July 2013, certain of the Life Companies filed a declaratory judgment action in state court in Maryland, asking the court to construe the Maryland DMF Statute to apply only to policies issued in Maryland after the effective date of the statute, consistent with what the Life Companies believe are the requirements of the Maryland Constitution and the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution. The Maryland Insurance Administration filed a motion to dismiss the action, contending that the subject Life Companies were required to exhaust their administrative remedies before filing their action in the trial court. In March 2014, the trial court granted the State’s motion. The Life Companies have appealed the trial court’s ruling. A decision by the Maryland Court of Special Appeals is unlikely before the second quarter of 2015. The Maryland appellate courts have declined to stay enforcement of the Maryland DMF Statute pending the appeal, and the Life Companies have begun the process of complying with the Maryland DMF Statute while they continue to pursue their appeal.

The Life Companies are the subject of an unclaimed property compliance audit (the “Treasurers’ Audit”) being conducted by a private audit firm retained by the treasurers/controllers of thirty-eight states (the “Audit Firm”). In July 2013, the California State Controller (the “CA Controller”) filed a complaint for injunctive relief against the Life Companies in state court in California, seeking an order requiring the Life Companies to produce all of their in-force policy records to the Audit Firm to enable the firm to perform a comparison of such records against a Death Master File and to ascertain whether any of the insureds under such policies may be deceased. In December 2013, the CA Controller filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking the same relief. A hearing on that motion has been continued by the court until November 2014. As described below, the Life Companies have filed a counterclaim in this case against the CA Controller.

The Life Companies are the subject of a multi-state market conduct examination by six state insurance regulators that is focused on the Life Companies’ claim settlement and policy administration practices, and specifically their compliance with state unclaimed property statutes (the “Multi-State Exam”). The Multi-State Exam was originated in June 2012 as a single-state examination by the Illinois Director of Insurance. Insurance regulators from five additional states -- California, Florida, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and North Dakota -- joined the examination in May 2013. In July 2013, the Life Companies received requests from the Illinois Department of Insurance, as the managing lead state for the Multi-State Exam, for a significant volume of additional information, including their records of in-force policies and other information of the type previously requested by the Audit Firm as part of the Treasurers’ Audit and which is the subject of the CA Controller’s complaint.

In September 2013, certain of the Life Companies filed declaratory judgment actions against the insurance regulators in the states of California, Florida, Illinois and Pennsylvania, asking the courts in those states to declare that applicable law does not require life insurers to search a Death Master File to ascertain whether insureds are deceased. The subject Life Companies are also asking the courts to declare that regulators in those states do not have the legal authority to (i) obtain life insurers’ policy records for the purpose of comparing those records against a Death Master File, and/or (ii) impose payment obligations on life insurers before a claim and due proof of death have been submitted. The declaratory judgment action in California was filed as a counterclaim to the CA Controller’s complaint, joining the California Insurance Commissioner and the Audit Firm as parties to the counterclaim. The CA Controller has filed a motion to dismiss the Life Companies’ counterclaim, contending that the Life Companies’ request for a declaratory judgment is premature and not ripe for adjudication. A hearing on that motion has been continued until November 2014. The Illinois Department of Insurance has filed a motion to dismiss the Illinois action, on the grounds that the Life Companies’ request for a declaratory judgment is premature and, alternatively, that the Life Companies must exhaust administrative remedies before pursuing such relief in the courts. A hearing on that motion is currently scheduled for May 29, 2014. The actions against the insurance regulators in the states of California, Florida, and Pennsylvania are stayed by agreement of the parties pending the outcome of the Illinois action.

The results of the Treasurers’ Audit, Multi-State Exam and the various litigation described above cannot currently be predicted. The Life Companies continue to maintain that states lack the legal authority to establish new requirements that have the effect

Note 12 - Contingencies (Continued)

of changing the terms of existing life insurance contracts with regard to basic claims handling obligations and processes. If these state officials are able to apply such new requirements retroactively to the Life Companies’ existing life insurance policies, it will fundamentally alter the nature and timing of their responsibilities under such policies by effectively eliminating contractual terms that condition claim settlement and payment on the receipt of a claim, including “due proof of death” of an insured. The outcome of the various state initiatives and related litigation could have a significant effect on, including acceleration of, the Life Companies’ payment and/or escheatment of policy benefits, and significantly increase their claims handling costs. Kemper cannot reasonably estimate the amount of loss that it would recognize if the Life Companies were subjected to such requirements on a retroactive basis.