Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2011

Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

9. Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation

The Hartford is involved in claims litigation arising in the ordinary course of business, both as a liability insurer defending or providing indemnity for third-party claims brought against insureds and as an insurer defending coverage claims brought against it. The Hartford accounts for such activity through the establishment of unpaid loss and loss adjustment expense reserves. Subject to the uncertainties discussed below under the caption “Asbestos and Environmental Claims,” management expects that the ultimate liability, if any, with respect to such ordinary-course claims litigation, after consideration of provisions made for potential losses and costs of defense, will not be material to the consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows of The Hartford.

The Hartford is also involved in other kinds of legal actions, some of which assert claims for substantial amounts. These actions include, among others, putative state and federal class actions seeking certification of a state or national class. Such putative class actions have alleged, for example, underpayment of claims or improper underwriting practices in connection with various kinds of insurance policies, such as personal and commercial automobile, property, life and inland marine; improper sales practices in connection with the sale of life insurance and other investment products; and improper fee arrangements in connection with investment products. The Hartford also is involved in individual actions in which punitive damages are sought, such as claims alleging bad faith in the handling of insurance claims. Like many other insurers, The Hartford also has been joined in actions by asbestos plaintiffs asserting, among other things, that insurers had a duty to protect the public from the dangers of asbestos and that insurers committed unfair trade practices by asserting defenses on behalf of their policyholders in the underlying asbestos cases. Management expects that the ultimate liability, if any, with respect to such lawsuits, after consideration of provisions made for estimated losses, will not be material to the consolidated financial condition of The Hartford. Nonetheless, given the large or indeterminate amounts sought in certain of these actions, and the inherent unpredictability of litigation, an adverse outcome in certain matters could, from time to time, have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated results of operations or cash flows in particular quarterly or annual periods.

Apart from the inherent difficulty of predicting litigation outcomes, particularly those that will be decided by a jury, many of the matters specifically identified below purport to seek substantial damages for unsubstantiated conduct spanning a multi-year period based on novel and complex legal theories and damages models. The alleged damages typically are not quantified or factually supported in the complaint, and, in any event, the Company’s experience shows that demands for damages often bear little relation to a reasonable estimate of potential loss. Most are in the earliest stages of litigation, with few or no substantive legal decisions by the court defining the scope of the claims, the class (if any), or the potentially available damages. In many, the Company has not yet answered the complaint or asserted its defenses, and fact discovery is still in progress or has not yet begun. Accordingly, unless otherwise specified below, management cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, or predict the timing of the eventual resolution of these matters.

Broker Compensation Litigation — Following the New York Attorney General’s filing of a civil complaint against Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., and Marsh, Inc. (collectively, “Marsh”) in October 2004 alleging that certain insurance companies, including The Hartford, participated with Marsh in arrangements to submit inflated bids for business insurance and paid contingent commissions to ensure that Marsh would direct business to them, private plaintiffs brought several lawsuits against the Company predicated on the allegations in the Marsh complaint, to which the Company was not party. Among these is a multidistrict litigation in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Two consolidated amended complaints were filed in the multidistrict litigation, one related to conduct in connection with the sale of property-casualty insurance and the other related to alleged conduct in connection with the sale of group benefits products. The Company and various of its subsidiaries are named in both complaints. The complaints assert, on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased insurance through broker defendants, claims under the Sherman Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), state law, and in the case of the group benefits complaint, claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). The claims are predicated upon allegedly undisclosed or otherwise improper payments of contingent commissions to the broker defendants to steer business to the insurance company defendants. The district court dismissed the Sherman Act and RICO claims in both complaints for failure to state a claim and has granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment on the ERISA claims in the group-benefits products complaint. The district court further declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and dismissed those claims without prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the claims in both consolidated amended complaints, except the ERISA claims. In August 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the Sherman Act and RICO claims against the Company. The Third Circuit vacated the dismissal of the Sherman Act and RICO claims against some defendants in the property casualty insurance case and vacated the dismissal of the state-law claims as to all defendants in light of the reinstatement of the federal claims. In September 2010, the district court entered final judgment for the defendants in the group benefits case. In March 2011, the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle on a class basis the property casualty insurance case for an immaterial amount. The settlement was preliminarily approved in June 2011 and is contingent upon final court approval.

Investment and Savings Plan ERISA and Shareholder Securities Class Action Litigation — In November and December 2008, following a decline in the share price of the Company’s common stock, seven putative class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on behalf of certain participants in the Company’s Investment and Savings Plan (the “Plan”), which offers the Company’s common stock as one of many investment options. These lawsuits have been consolidated, and a consolidated amended class-action complaint was filed on March 23, 2009, alleging that the Company and certain of its officers and employees violated ERISA by allowing the Plan’s participants to invest in the Company’s common stock and by failing to disclose to the Plan’s participants information about the Company’s financial condition. The lawsuit seeks restitution or damages for losses arising from the investment of the Plan’s assets in the Company’s common stock during the period from December 10, 2007 to the present. In January 2010, the district court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. In February 2011, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle on a class basis for an immaterial amount. The settlement is contingent upon the execution of a final settlement agreement and preliminary and final court approval.

The Company and certain of its present or former officers are defendants in a putative securities class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in March 2010. The operative complaint, filed in October 2010, is brought on behalf of persons who acquired Hartford common stock during the period of July 28, 2008 through February 5, 2009, and alleges that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, by making false or misleading statements during the alleged class period about the Company’s valuation of certain asset-backed securities and its effect on the Company’s capital position. The Company disputes the allegations and has moved to dismiss the complaint.

Fair Credit Reporting Act Class Action — In February 2007, the United States District Court for the District of Oregon gave final approval of the Company’s settlement of a lawsuit brought on behalf of a class of homeowners and automobile policy holders alleging that the Company willfully violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to send appropriate notices to new customers whose initial rates were higher than they would have been had the customer had a more favorable credit report. The Company paid approximately $84.3 to eligible claimants and their counsel in connection with the settlement, sought reimbursement from the Company’s Excess Professional Liability Insurance Program for the portion of the settlement in excess of the Company’s $10 self-insured retention, and booked an insurance recoverable for the amount paid under the settlement plus the cost of settlement administration, less the self-insured retention. Certain insurance carriers participating in that program disputed coverage for the settlement, and one of the excess insurers commenced an arbitration that resulted in an award in the Company’s favor and payments to the Company of approximately $30.1, thereby exhausting the primary and first-layer excess policies. As a result, the Company’s insurance recoverable was reduced to $45.5. In June 2009, the second-layer excess carriers commenced an arbitration to resolve the dispute over coverage for the remainder of the amounts paid by the Company. The Company counterclaimed for coverage, seeking approximately $50 plus interest. That arbitration concluded in May 2011. A decision is expected in the third or fourth quarter of 2011. Management believes it is probable that the Company’s coverage position ultimately will be sustained.

Mutual Funds Litigation — In October 2010, a derivative action was brought on behalf of six Hartford retail mutual funds in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that Hartford Investment Financial Services, LLC received excessive advisory and distribution fees in violation of its statutory fiduciary duty under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940. In February 2011, a nearly identical derivative action was brought against Hartford Investment Financial Services, LLC in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of six additional Hartford retail mutual funds. Both actions are assigned to the Honorable Renee Marie Bumb, a judge in the District of New Jersey who is sitting by designation with respect to the Delaware action. Plaintiffs in each action seek to rescind the investment management agreements and distribution plans between the Company and the mutual funds and to recover the total fees charged thereunder or, in the alternative, to recover any improper compensation the Company received. In addition, plaintiff in the New Jersey action seeks recovery of lost earnings. The Company disputes the allegations and has moved to dismiss both actions.

Asbestos and Environmental Claims — As discussed in Note 12, Commitments and Contingencies, of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements under the caption “Asbestos and Environmental Claims”, included in the Company’s 2010 Form 10-K Annual Report, The Hartford continues to receive asbestos and environmental claims that involve significant uncertainty regarding policy coverage issues. Regarding these claims, The Hartford continually reviews its overall reserve levels and reinsurance coverages, as well as the methodologies it uses to estimate its exposures. Because of the significant uncertainties that limit the ability of insurers and reinsurers to estimate the ultimate reserves necessary for unpaid losses and related expenses, particularly those related to asbestos, the ultimate liabilities may exceed the currently recorded reserves. Any such additional liability cannot be reasonably estimated now but could be material to The Hartford’s consolidated operating results, financial condition and liquidity.

Derivative Commitments

Certain of the Company’s derivative agreements contain provisions that are tied to the financial strength ratings of the individual legal entity that entered into the derivative agreement as set by nationally recognized statistical rating agencies. If the legal entity’s financial strength were to fall below certain ratings, the counterparties to the derivative agreements could demand immediate and ongoing full collateralization and in certain instances demand immediate settlement of all outstanding derivative positions traded under each impacted bilateral agreement. The settlement amount is determined by netting the derivative positions transacted under each agreement. If the termination rights were to be exercised by the counterparties, it could impact the legal entity’s ability to conduct hedging activities by increasing the associated costs and decreasing the willingness of counterparties to transact with the legal entity. The aggregate fair value of all derivative instruments with credit-risk-related contingent features that are in a net liability position as of June 30, 2011, is $552. Of this $552 the legal entities have posted collateral of $487 in the normal course of business. Based on derivative market values as of June 30, 2011, a downgrade of one level below the current financial strength ratings by either Moody’s or S&P could require approximately an additional $63 to be posted as collateral. Based on derivative market values as of June 30, 2011, a downgrade by either Moody’s or S&P of two levels below the legal entities’ current financial strength ratings could require approximately an additional $91 of assets to be posted as collateral. These collateral amounts could change as derivative market values change, as a result of changes in our hedging activities or to the extent changes in contractual terms are negotiated. The nature of the collateral that we would post, if required, would be primarily in the form of U.S. Treasury bills and U.S. Treasury notes.