Litigation and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2012
Litigation and Contingencies [Abstract]
Litigation and Contingencies	Note 5 – Litigation and Contingencies Consumers are bringing a growing number of lawsuits against home mortgage lenders and settlement service providers. Mortgage insurers, including MGIC, have been involved in litigation alleging violations of the anti-referral fee provisions of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, which is commonly known as RESPA, and the notice provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which is commonly known as FCRA. MGIC's settlement of class action litigation against it under RESPA became final in October 2003. MGIC settled the named plaintiffs' claims in litigation against it under FCRA in December 2004, following denial of class certification in June 2004. Since December 2006, class action litigation has been brought against a number of large lenders alleging that their captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements violated RESPA. On or about December 9, 2011, seven mortgage insurers (including MGIC) and a large mortgage lender (which was the named plaintiffs' lender) were named as defendants in a complaint, alleged to be a class action, filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Since then, nine similar cases have been filed naming various mortgage lenders and mortgage insurers (including MGIC) as defendants. In one case, an amended complaint has been filed after MGIC's motion to dismiss was granted. One case has been voluntarily dismissed and nine cases remain pending. The complaints in all nine of the remaining cases alleged various causes of action related to the captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements of the mortgage lenders, including that the defendants violated RESPA by paying excessive premiums to the lenders' captive reinsurer in relation to the risk assumed by that captive. MGIC denies any wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations in the lawsuits. There can be no assurance that we will not be subject to further litigation under RESPA (or FCRA) or that the outcome of any such litigation, including the lawsuits mentioned above, would not have a material adverse effect on us. In June 2005, in response to a letter from the New York Department of Financial Services, we provided information regarding captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements and other types of arrangements in which lenders receive compensation. In February 2006, the New York Department of Financial Services requested MGIC to review its premium rates in New York and to file adjusted rates based on recent years' experience or to explain why such experience would not alter rates. In March 2006, MGIC advised the New York Department of Financial Services that it believes its premium rates are reasonable and that, given the nature of mortgage insurance risk, premium rates should not be determined only by the experience of recent years. In February 2006, in response to an administrative subpoena from the Minnesota Department of Commerce (the "MN Department"), which regulates insurance, we provided the MN Department with information about captive mortgage reinsurance and certain other matters. We subsequently provided additional information to the MN Department, and beginning in March 2008, the MN Department has sought additional information as well as answers to questions regarding captive mortgage reinsurance on several occasions, including as recently as May 2011. In addition, beginning in June 2008, and as recently as December 2011, we received various subpoenas from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD"), seeking information about captive mortgage reinsurance similar to that requested by the MN Department, but not limited in scope to the state of Minnesota. In January 2012, we received correspondence from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB") indicating that the CFPB had opened an investigation into captive mortgage reinsurance premium ceding practices by private mortgage insurers. In that correspondence, the CFPB also requested, among other things, certain information regarding captive mortgage reinsurance transactions in which we participated. In June 2012, we received a Civil Investigative Demand from the CFPB requiring additional information and documentation regarding captive mortgage reinsurance. We have met with, and expect to continue to meet with, the CFPB to discuss the Civil Investigative Demand and how to resolve its investigation. Other insurance departments or other officials, including attorneys general, may also seek information about or investigate captive mortgage reinsurance. Various regulators, including the CFPB, state insurance commissioners and state attorneys general may bring actions seeking various forms of relief, including civil penalties and injunctions against violations of RESPA. The insurance law provisions of many states prohibit paying for the referral of insurance business and provide various mechanisms to enforce this prohibition. While we believe our captive reinsurance arrangements are in conformity with applicable laws and regulations, it is not possible to predict the eventual scope, duration or outcome of any such reviews or investigations nor is it possible to predict their effect on us or the mortgage insurance industry. We are subject to comprehensive, detailed regulation by state insurance departments. These regulations are principally designed for the protection of our insured policyholders, rather than for the benefit of investors. Although their scope varies, state insurance laws generally grant broad supervisory powers to agencies or officials to examine insurance companies and enforce rules or exercise discretion affecting almost every significant aspect of the insurance business. Given the recent significant losses incurred by many insurers in the mortgage and financial guaranty industries, our insurance subsidiaries have been subject to heightened scrutiny by insurance regulators. State insurance regulatory authorities could take actions, including changes in capital requirements or termination of waivers of capital requirements, that could have a material adverse effect on us. In addition, we are uncertain whether the CFPB, established by the Dodd-Frank Act to regulate the offering and provision of consumer financial products or services under federal law, will issue any rules or regulations that affect our business apart from any action it may take as a result of its investigation of captive mortgage reinsurance. Such rules and regulations could have a material adverse effect on us. In October 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against MGIC in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania by a loan applicant on whose behalf a now-settled action we previously disclosed had been filed by the U.S. Department of Justice. In this lawsuit, the loan applicant alleged that MGIC discriminated against her and certain proposed class members on the basis of sex and familial status when MGIC underwrote their loans for mortgage insurance. In May 2011, the District Court granted MGIC's motion to dismiss with respect to all claims except certain Fair Housing Act claims. On July 2, 2012, the District Court granted preliminary approval for a class action settlement of the lawsuit. The proposed settlement creates a settlement class of 265 borrowers. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, MGIC is required to deposit $500,000 into an escrow account to fund possible payments to affected borrowers. In addition, MGIC will pay the named plaintiff an "incentive fee" of $7,500 and pay class counsels' fees of $337,500. Any funds remaining in the escrow account after payment of all claims approved under the procedures established by the settlement will be returned to MGIC. The settlement is contingent upon the District Court's final approval. Five previously-filed purported class action complaints filed against us and several of our executive officers were consolidated in March 2009 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin and Fulton County Employees' Retirement System was appointed as the lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Complaint") in June 2009. Due in part to its length and structure, it is difficult to summarize briefly the allegations in the Complaint but it appears the allegations are that we and our officers named in the Complaint violated the federal securities laws by misrepresenting or failing to disclose material information about (i) loss development in our insurance in force, and (ii) C-BASS (a former minority-owned, unconsolidated, joint venture investment), including its liquidity. The Complaint also named two officers of C-BASS with respect to the Complaints' allegations regarding C-BASS. Our motion to dismiss the Complaint was granted in February 2010. In March 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Attached to this motion was a proposed Amended Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint alleged that we and two of our officers named in the Amended Complaint violated the federal securities laws by misrepresenting or failing to disclose material information about C-BASS, including its liquidity, and by failing to properly account for our investment in C-BASS. The Amended Complaint also named two officers of C-BASS with respect to the Amended Complaint's allegations regarding C-BASS. The Complaint was dismissed and the motion to file the Amended Complaint was denied. These decisions were affirmed by the Appeals Court in April 2012. In early July 2012, the plaintiffs re-filed a motion with the District Court for relief from that court's judgment of dismissal on the ground of newly discovered evidence consisting of transcripts the plaintiffs obtained of testimony taken by the Securities and Exchange Commission in its now-terminated investigation regarding C-BASS. On October 3, 2012, the District Court denied the July 2012 motion and the plaintiffs did not appeal. Although this case has been resolved in our favor, other lawsuits alleging violations of the securities laws could be brought against us. We understand several law firms have, among other things, issued press releases to the effect that they are investigating us, including whether the fiduciaries of our 401(k) plan breached their fiduciary duties regarding the plan's investment in or holding of our common stock or whether we breached other legal or fiduciary obligations to our shareholders. We intend to defend vigorously any proceedings that may result from these investigations. With limited exceptions, our bylaws provide that our officers and 401(k) plan fiduciaries are entitled to indemnification from us for claims against them. In December 2009, Countrywide filed a complaint for declaratory relief in the Superior Court of the State of California in San Francisco against MGIC. This complaint alleges that MGIC has denied, and continues to deny, valid mortgage insurance claims submitted by Countrywide and says it seeks declaratory relief regarding the proper interpretation of the insurance policies at issue. In October 2011, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, to which the case had been removed, entered an order staying the litigation in favor of the arbitration proceeding we commenced against Countrywide in February 2010. In the arbitration proceeding, we are seeking a determination that MGIC is entitled to rescind coverage on the loans involved in the proceeding. From January 1, 2008 through September 30, 2012, rescissions of coverage on Countrywide-related loans mitigated our paid losses on the order of $440 million. This amount is the amount we estimate we would have paid had the coverage not been rescinded. On a per loan basis, the average amount that we would have paid had the loans not been rescinded was approximately $72,100. Various materials exchanged by MGIC and Countrywide in 2011 bring into the dispute loans we did not consider before then to be Countrywide-related and loans on which MGIC rescinded coverage subsequent to those specified at the time MGIC began the proceeding (including loans insured through the bulk channel), and set forth Countrywide's contention that, in addition to the claim amounts under coverage it alleges MGIC has improperly rescinded, Countrywide is entitled to other damages of almost $700 million as well as exemplary damages. Countrywide and MGIC have each selected 12 loans for which a three-member arbitration panel will determine coverage. While the panel's determination will not be binding on the other loans at issue, the panel will identify the issues for these 24 "bellwether" loans and strive to set forth findings of fact and conclusions of law in such a way as to aid the parties to apply them to the other loans at issue. The hearing before the panel on the bellwether loans has been scheduled to begin in March 2013. We are in mediation in an effort to resolve our dispute with Countrywide, although we cannot predict whether the mediation will result in a resolution. If it does, a resolution with Countrywide will be subject to various conditions before it becomes effective. In connection with our mediation with Countrywide, we have voluntarily suspended rescissions related to loans that we believe could be covered by a potential resolution. As of September 30, 2012, coverage on approximately 1,700 loans, representing total potential claim payments of approximately $125 million, that we had determined was rescindable was affected by our decision to suspend such rescissions. Substantially all of these potential rescissions relate to claims received beginning in the first quarter of 2011 or later. If we are able to reach a resolution with Countrywide, under ASC 450-20, we would record the effects of the resolution in our accounts when we determine that it is probable the resolution will become effective and the financial effect on us can be reasonably estimated. If these conditions to recording are met, the financial statement effect on us would involve the recognition of additional loss, which would negatively impact our capital. If we are not able to reach a resolution with Countrywide, we intend to defend MGIC against any further proceedings arising from Countrywide's complaint and to advocate MGIC's position in the arbitration, vigorously. Although it is reasonably possible that, when the proceedings are completed, there will be a determination that we were not entitled to rescind in all cases, we are unable to make a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of the potential liability. Under ASC 450-20, an estimated loss is accrued for only if we determine that the loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated. Therefore, we have not accrued any reserves that would reflect an adverse outcome in this proceeding. An accrual for an adverse outcome in this (or any other) proceeding would be a reduction to our capital. In this regard, see Note 1 – "Basis of Presentation – Capital." At September 30, 2012, 32,560 loans in our primary delinquency inventory were Countrywide-related loans (approximately 22% of our primary delinquency inventory). As noted above, we have suspended Countrywide rescissions of coverage on loans that we believe could be included in a potential resolution with Countrywide. Although these loans are included in our delinquency inventory, for purposes of determining our reserve amounts, it is assumed that coverage on these loans will be rescinded. We expect a significant portion of the Countrywide loans in our delinquency inventory will cure their delinquency or their coverage will be rescinded and will not involve paid claims. From January 1, 2008 through September 30, 2012, of the claims on Countrywide-related loans that were resolved (a claim is resolved when it is paid or the coverage is rescinded; claims that are submitted but which are under review are not resolved until one of these two outcomes occurs), approximately 83% were paid and coverage on the remaining 17% were rescinded. Had we processed the rescissions we have suspended, these percentages would be approximately 79% and 21%, respectively. The flow policies at issue with Countrywide are in the same form as the flow policies that we use with all of our customers, and the bulk policies at issue vary from one another, but are generally similar to those used in the majority of our Wall Street bulk transactions. Because our rescission practices with Countrywide do not differ from our practices with other servicers with which we have not entered into settlement agreements, an adverse result in the Countrywide proceeding may adversely affect the ultimate result of rescissions involving other servicers and lenders. From January 1, 2008 through September 30, 2012, we estimate that total rescissions mitigated our incurred losses by approximately $3.1 billion, which included approximately $2.8 billion of mitigation on paid losses, excluding $0.6 billion that would have been applied to a deductible. At September 30, 2012, we estimate that our total loss reserves were benefited from anticipated rescissions by approximately $0.5 billion. In addition to the rescissions at issue with Countrywide, we have a substantial pipeline of claims investigations and pre-rescission rebuttals (including those involving loans related to Countrywide) that we expect will eventually result in future rescissions. For additional information about rescissions as well as rescission settlement agreements, see Note 12 – "Loss Reserves." MGIC and Freddie Mac disagree on the amount of the aggregate loss limit under eleven pool insurance policies that insure loans for a fixed period, usually ten years, after which the "sunset" date is reached and coverage terminates. These eleven policies, which each cover numerous individual loan pools, share a single, consolidated aggregate loss limit calculated based upon the initial principal balance of all loans insured under the policies. We believe that under the policies this aggregate loss limit decreases when an individual pool reaches its sunset date and thus the loans in that pool are no longer insured. Freddie Mac's position is that under the policies the expiration of coverage on individual loan pools has no effect on the aggregate loss limit, which remains at the same level until the last of the policies that provide coverage for any of the pools terminates. The aggregate loss limit is approximately $535 million higher under Freddie Mac's interpretation of the policies than under our interpretation. On May 16, 2012, MGIC filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (the "Wisconsin Court") against Freddie Mac and FHFA seeking declaratory relief regarding the proper interpretation of the pool insurance policies ("MGIC's Lawsuit"). On June 8, 2012, Freddie Mac filed a motion to dismiss, stay, or transfer MGIC's Lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (the "Virginia Court"). On July 20, 2012, FHFA made a motion to dismiss MGIC's Lawsuit on the ground that the Wisconsin Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. These motions are currently pending. On May 17, 2012, Freddie Mac filed a lawsuit in the Virginia Court against MGIC effectively seeking declaratory judgment regarding the proper interpretation of the pool insurance policies and on June 14, 2012, FHFA was added as a plaintiff ("Freddie Mac's Lawsuit"). On July 5, 2012, the Virginia Court granted our motion to transfer Freddie Mac's Lawsuit to the Wisconsin Court, but it stayed the transfer pending the Wisconsin Court's determining that it had subject matter jurisdiction. Freddie Mac has asked the Virginia Court to reconsider its transfer decision. In August 2012, the court denied that request. For subsequent developments regarding settlement of the pool insurance dispute, see Note 1 – "Basis of Presentation – Capital." We account for losses under our interpretation of the pool insurance policies. If we are unable to finalize a settlement with Freddie Mac, we intend to defend MGIC against the litigation described above and to advocate MGIC's position in the litigation, vigorously. Although it is reasonably possible that our interpretation will not prevail in the litigation described above, under ASC 450-20, an estimated loss is accrued for only if we determine that the loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated. Therefore, we have not accrued any reserves that would reflect an adverse outcome in this litigation. Changed circumstances that lead us to conclude a loss is probable in litigation would negatively impact our statutory capital and, depending on the amount, could exacerbate materially the current non-compliance with Capital Requirements. In the third quarter of 2012 the aggregate loss limit under our interpretation of the policy was exhausted, the policy was cancelled and approximately 15,600 pool notices were removed from the pool notice inventory and thus, we are no longer estimating loss reserves on this policy. A non-insurance subsidiary of our holding company is a shareholder of the corporation that operates the Mortgage Electronic Registration System ("MERS"). Our subsidiary, as a shareholder of MERS, has been named as a defendant (along with MERS and its other shareholders) in seven lawsuits asserting various causes of action arising from allegedly improper recording and foreclosure activities by MERS. Two of those lawsuits remain pending and the other five lawsuits have been dismissed without an appeal. The damages sought in the remaining case are substantial. Our mortgage insurance business utilizes its underwriting skills to provide an outsourced underwriting service to our customers known as contract underwriting. As part of our contract underwriting activities, we are responsible for the quality of our underwriting decisions in accordance with the terms of the contract underwriting agreements with customers. We may be required to provide certain remedies to our customers if certain standards relating to the quality of our underwriting work are not met, and we have an established reserve for such obligations. A generally positive economic environment for residential real estate that continued until approximately 2007 may have mitigated the effect of some of these costs in previous years. Historically, a material portion of our new insurance written through the flow channel has involved loans for which we provided contract underwriting services, including new insurance written between 2006 and 2008. Claims for remedies may be made a number of years after the underwriting work was performed. We believe the rescission of mortgage insurance coverage on loans for which we provided contract underwriting services may make a claim for a contract underwriting remedy more likely to occur. Beginning in the second half of 2009, we experienced an increase in claims for contract underwriting remedies, which has continued into the first nine months of 2012. In addition to the matters described above, we are involved in other legal proceedings in the ordinary course of business. In our opinion, based on the facts known at this time, the ultimate resolution of these ordinary course legal proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations. See Note 11 – "Income Taxes" for a description of federal income tax contingencies.

Note 5 – Litigation and Contingencies

Consumers are bringing a growing number of lawsuits against home mortgage lenders and settlement service providers. Mortgage insurers, including MGIC, have been involved in litigation alleging violations of the anti-referral fee provisions of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, which is commonly known as RESPA, and the notice provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which is commonly known as FCRA. MGIC's settlement of class action litigation against it under RESPA became final in October 2003. MGIC settled the named plaintiffs' claims in litigation against it under FCRA in December 2004, following denial of class certification in June 2004. Since December 2006, class action litigation has been brought against a number of large lenders alleging that their captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements violated RESPA. On or about December 9, 2011, seven mortgage insurers (including MGIC) and a large mortgage lender (which was the named plaintiffs' lender) were named as defendants in a complaint, alleged to be a class action, filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Since then, nine similar cases have been filed naming various mortgage lenders and mortgage insurers (including MGIC) as defendants. In one case, an amended complaint has been filed after MGIC's motion to dismiss was granted. One case has been voluntarily dismissed and nine cases remain pending. The complaints in all nine of the remaining cases alleged various causes of action related to the captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements of the mortgage lenders, including that the defendants violated RESPA by paying excessive premiums to the lenders' captive reinsurer in relation to the risk assumed by that captive. MGIC denies any wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations in the lawsuits. There can be no assurance that we will not be subject to further litigation under RESPA (or FCRA) or that the outcome of any such litigation, including the lawsuits mentioned above, would not have a material adverse effect on us.

In June 2005, in response to a letter from the New York Department of Financial Services, we provided information regarding captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements and other types of arrangements in which lenders receive compensation. In February 2006, the New York Department of Financial Services requested MGIC to review its premium rates in New York and to file adjusted rates based on recent years' experience or to explain why such experience would not alter rates. In March 2006, MGIC advised the New York Department of Financial Services that it believes its premium rates are reasonable and that, given the nature of mortgage insurance risk, premium rates should not be determined only by the experience of recent years. In February 2006, in response to an administrative subpoena from the Minnesota Department of Commerce (the "MN Department"), which regulates insurance, we provided the MN Department with information about captive mortgage reinsurance and certain other matters. We subsequently provided additional information to the MN Department, and beginning in March 2008, the MN Department has sought additional information as well as answers to questions regarding captive mortgage reinsurance on several occasions, including as recently as May 2011.

In addition, beginning in June 2008, and as recently as December 2011, we received various subpoenas from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD"), seeking information about captive mortgage reinsurance similar to that requested by the MN Department, but not limited in scope to the state of Minnesota. In January 2012, we received correspondence from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB") indicating that the CFPB had opened an investigation into captive mortgage reinsurance premium ceding practices by private mortgage insurers. In that correspondence, the CFPB also requested, among other things, certain information regarding captive mortgage reinsurance transactions in which we participated. In June 2012, we received a Civil Investigative Demand from the CFPB requiring additional information and documentation regarding captive mortgage reinsurance. We have met with, and expect to continue to meet with, the CFPB to discuss the Civil Investigative Demand and how to resolve its investigation. Other insurance departments or other officials, including attorneys general, may also seek information about or investigate captive mortgage reinsurance.

Various regulators, including the CFPB, state insurance commissioners and state attorneys general may bring actions seeking various forms of relief, including civil penalties and injunctions against violations of RESPA. The insurance law provisions of many states prohibit paying for the referral of insurance business and provide various mechanisms to enforce this prohibition. While we believe our captive reinsurance arrangements are in conformity with applicable laws and regulations, it is not possible to predict the eventual scope, duration or outcome of any such reviews or investigations nor is it possible to predict their effect on us or the mortgage insurance industry.

We are subject to comprehensive, detailed regulation by state insurance departments. These regulations are principally designed for the protection of our insured policyholders, rather than for the benefit of investors. Although their scope varies, state insurance laws generally grant broad supervisory powers to agencies or officials to examine insurance companies and enforce rules or exercise discretion affecting almost every significant aspect of the insurance business. Given the recent significant losses incurred by many insurers in the mortgage and financial guaranty industries, our insurance subsidiaries have been subject to heightened scrutiny by insurance regulators. State insurance regulatory authorities could take actions, including changes in capital requirements or termination of waivers of capital requirements, that could have a material adverse effect on us. In addition, we are uncertain whether the CFPB, established by the Dodd-Frank Act to regulate the offering and provision of consumer financial products or services under federal law, will issue any rules or regulations that affect our business apart from any action it may take as a result of its investigation of captive mortgage reinsurance. Such rules and regulations could have a material adverse effect on us.

In October 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against MGIC in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania by a loan applicant on whose behalf a now-settled action we previously disclosed had been filed by the U.S. Department of Justice. In this lawsuit, the loan applicant alleged that MGIC discriminated against her and certain proposed class members on the basis of sex and familial status when MGIC underwrote their loans for mortgage insurance. In May 2011, the District Court granted MGIC's motion to dismiss with respect to all claims except certain Fair Housing Act claims. On July 2, 2012, the District Court granted preliminary approval for a class action settlement of the lawsuit. The proposed settlement creates a settlement class of 265 borrowers. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, MGIC is required to deposit $500,000 into an escrow account to fund possible payments to affected borrowers. In addition, MGIC will pay the named plaintiff an "incentive fee" of $7,500 and pay class counsels' fees of $337,500. Any funds remaining in the escrow account after payment of all claims approved under the procedures established by the settlement will be returned to MGIC. The settlement is contingent upon the District Court's final approval.

Five previously-filed purported class action complaints filed against us and several of our executive officers were consolidated in March 2009 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin and Fulton County Employees' Retirement System was appointed as the lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Complaint") in June 2009. Due in part to its length and structure, it is difficult to summarize briefly the allegations in the Complaint but it appears the allegations are that we and our officers named in the Complaint violated the federal securities laws by misrepresenting or failing to disclose material information about (i) loss development in our insurance in force, and (ii) C-BASS (a former minority-owned, unconsolidated, joint venture investment), including its liquidity. The Complaint also named two officers of C-BASS with respect to the Complaints' allegations regarding C-BASS. Our motion to dismiss the Complaint was granted in February 2010. In March 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Attached to this motion was a proposed Amended Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint alleged that we and two of our officers named in the Amended Complaint violated the federal securities laws by misrepresenting or failing to disclose material information about C-BASS, including its liquidity, and by failing to properly account for our investment in C-BASS. The Amended Complaint also named two officers of C-BASS with respect to the Amended Complaint's allegations regarding C-BASS. The Complaint was dismissed and the motion to file the Amended Complaint was denied. These decisions were affirmed by the Appeals Court in April 2012. In early July 2012, the plaintiffs re-filed a motion with the District Court for relief from that court's judgment of dismissal on the ground of newly discovered evidence consisting of transcripts the plaintiffs obtained of testimony taken by the Securities and Exchange Commission in its now-terminated investigation regarding C-BASS. On October 3, 2012, the District Court denied the July 2012 motion and the plaintiffs did not appeal. Although this case has been resolved in our favor, other lawsuits alleging violations of the securities laws could be brought against us.

We understand several law firms have, among other things, issued press releases to the effect that they are investigating us, including whether the fiduciaries of our 401(k) plan breached their fiduciary duties regarding the plan's investment in or holding of our common stock or whether we breached other legal or fiduciary obligations to our shareholders. We intend to defend vigorously any proceedings that may result from these investigations.

With limited exceptions, our bylaws provide that our officers and 401(k) plan fiduciaries are entitled to indemnification from us for claims against them.

In December 2009, Countrywide filed a complaint for declaratory relief in the Superior Court of the State of California in San Francisco against MGIC. This complaint alleges that MGIC has denied, and continues to deny, valid mortgage insurance claims submitted by Countrywide and says it seeks declaratory relief regarding the proper interpretation of the insurance policies at issue. In October 2011, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, to which the case had been removed, entered an order staying the litigation in favor of the arbitration proceeding we commenced against Countrywide in February 2010.

In the arbitration proceeding, we are seeking a determination that MGIC is entitled to rescind coverage on the loans involved in the proceeding. From January 1, 2008 through September 30, 2012, rescissions of coverage on Countrywide-related loans mitigated our paid losses on the order of $440 million. This amount is the amount we estimate we would have paid had the coverage not been rescinded. On a per loan basis, the average amount that we would have paid had the loans not been rescinded was approximately $72,100. Various materials exchanged by MGIC and Countrywide in 2011 bring into the dispute loans we did not consider before then to be Countrywide-related and loans on which MGIC rescinded coverage subsequent to those specified at the time MGIC began the proceeding (including loans insured through the bulk channel), and set forth Countrywide's contention that, in addition to the claim amounts under coverage it alleges MGIC has improperly rescinded, Countrywide is entitled to other damages of almost $700 million as well as exemplary damages. Countrywide and MGIC have each selected 12 loans for which a three-member arbitration panel will determine coverage. While the panel's determination will not be binding on the other loans at issue, the panel will identify the issues for these 24 "bellwether" loans and strive to set forth findings of fact and conclusions of law in such a way as to aid the parties to apply them to the other loans at issue. The hearing before the panel on the bellwether loans has been scheduled to begin in March 2013.

We are in mediation in an effort to resolve our dispute with Countrywide, although we cannot predict whether the mediation will result in a resolution. If it does, a resolution with Countrywide will be subject to various conditions before it becomes effective. In connection with our mediation with Countrywide, we have voluntarily suspended rescissions related to loans that we believe could be covered by a potential resolution. As of September 30, 2012, coverage on approximately 1,700 loans, representing total potential claim payments of approximately $125 million, that we had determined was rescindable was affected by our decision to suspend such rescissions. Substantially all of these potential rescissions relate to claims received beginning in the first quarter of 2011 or later. If we are able to reach a resolution with Countrywide, under ASC 450-20, we would record the effects of the resolution in our accounts when we determine that it is probable the resolution will become effective and the financial effect on us can be reasonably estimated. If these conditions to recording are met, the financial statement effect on us would involve the recognition of additional loss, which would negatively impact our capital.

If we are not able to reach a resolution with Countrywide, we intend to defend MGIC against any further proceedings arising from Countrywide's complaint and to advocate MGIC's position in the arbitration, vigorously. Although it is reasonably possible that, when the proceedings are completed, there will be a determination that we were not entitled to rescind in all cases, we are unable to make a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of the potential liability. Under ASC 450-20, an estimated loss is accrued for only if we determine that the loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated. Therefore, we have not accrued any reserves that would reflect an adverse outcome in this proceeding. An accrual for an adverse outcome in this (or any other) proceeding would be a reduction to our capital. In this regard, see Note 1 – "Basis of Presentation – Capital."

At September 30, 2012, 32,560 loans in our primary delinquency inventory were Countrywide-related loans (approximately 22% of our primary delinquency inventory). As noted above, we have suspended Countrywide rescissions of coverage on loans that we believe could be included in a potential resolution with Countrywide. Although these loans are included in our delinquency inventory, for purposes of determining our reserve amounts, it is assumed that coverage on these loans will be rescinded. We expect a significant portion of the Countrywide loans in our delinquency inventory will cure their delinquency or their coverage will be rescinded and will not involve paid claims. From January 1, 2008 through September 30, 2012, of the claims on Countrywide-related loans that were resolved (a claim is resolved when it is paid or the coverage is rescinded; claims that are submitted but which are under review are not resolved until one of these two outcomes occurs), approximately 83% were paid and coverage on the remaining 17% were rescinded. Had we processed the rescissions we have suspended, these percentages would be approximately 79% and 21%, respectively.

The flow policies at issue with Countrywide are in the same form as the flow policies that we use with all of our customers, and the bulk policies at issue vary from one another, but are generally similar to those used in the majority of our Wall Street bulk transactions. Because our rescission practices with Countrywide do not differ from our practices with other servicers with which we have not entered into settlement agreements, an adverse result in the Countrywide proceeding may adversely affect the ultimate result of rescissions involving other servicers and lenders. From January 1, 2008 through September 30, 2012, we estimate that total rescissions mitigated our incurred losses by approximately $3.1 billion, which included approximately $2.8 billion of mitigation on paid losses, excluding $0.6 billion that would have been applied to a deductible. At September 30, 2012, we estimate that our total loss reserves were benefited from anticipated rescissions by approximately $0.5 billion.

In addition to the rescissions at issue with Countrywide, we have a substantial pipeline of claims investigations and pre-rescission rebuttals (including those involving loans related to Countrywide) that we expect will eventually result in future rescissions. For additional information about rescissions as well as rescission settlement agreements, see Note 12 – "Loss Reserves."

MGIC and Freddie Mac disagree on the amount of the aggregate loss limit under eleven pool insurance policies that insure loans for a fixed period, usually ten years, after which the "sunset" date is reached and coverage terminates. These eleven policies, which each cover numerous individual loan pools, share a single, consolidated aggregate loss limit calculated based upon the initial principal balance of all loans insured under the policies. We believe that under the policies this aggregate loss limit decreases when an individual pool reaches its sunset date and thus the loans in that pool are no longer insured. Freddie Mac's position is that under the policies the expiration of coverage on individual loan pools has no effect on the aggregate loss limit, which remains at the same level until the last of the policies that provide coverage for any of the pools terminates. The aggregate loss limit is approximately $535 million higher under Freddie Mac's interpretation of the policies than under our interpretation.

On May 16, 2012, MGIC filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (the "Wisconsin Court") against Freddie Mac and FHFA seeking declaratory relief regarding the proper interpretation of the pool insurance policies ("MGIC's Lawsuit"). On June 8, 2012, Freddie Mac filed a motion to dismiss, stay, or transfer MGIC's Lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (the "Virginia Court"). On July 20, 2012, FHFA made a motion to dismiss MGIC's Lawsuit on the ground that the Wisconsin Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. These motions are currently pending.

On May 17, 2012, Freddie Mac filed a lawsuit in the Virginia Court against MGIC effectively seeking declaratory judgment regarding the proper interpretation of the pool insurance policies and on June 14, 2012, FHFA was added as a plaintiff ("Freddie Mac's Lawsuit"). On July 5, 2012, the Virginia Court granted our motion to transfer Freddie Mac's Lawsuit to the Wisconsin Court, but it stayed the transfer pending the Wisconsin Court's determining that it had subject matter jurisdiction. Freddie Mac has asked the Virginia Court to reconsider its transfer decision. In August 2012, the court denied that request.

For subsequent developments regarding settlement of the pool insurance dispute, see Note 1 – "Basis of Presentation – Capital."

We account for losses under our interpretation of the pool insurance policies. If we are unable to finalize a settlement with Freddie Mac, we intend to defend MGIC against the litigation described above and to advocate MGIC's position in the litigation, vigorously. Although it is reasonably possible that our interpretation will not prevail in the litigation described above, under ASC 450-20, an estimated loss is accrued for only if we determine that the loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated. Therefore, we have not accrued any reserves that would reflect an adverse outcome in this litigation. Changed circumstances that lead us to conclude a loss is probable in litigation would negatively impact our statutory capital and, depending on the amount, could exacerbate materially the current non-compliance with Capital Requirements. In the third quarter of 2012 the aggregate loss limit under our interpretation of the policy was exhausted, the policy was cancelled and approximately 15,600 pool notices were removed from the pool notice inventory and thus, we are no longer estimating loss reserves on this policy.

A non-insurance subsidiary of our holding company is a shareholder of the corporation that operates the Mortgage Electronic Registration System ("MERS"). Our subsidiary, as a shareholder of MERS, has been named as a defendant (along with MERS and its other shareholders) in seven lawsuits asserting various causes of action arising from allegedly improper recording and foreclosure activities by MERS. Two of those lawsuits remain pending and the other five lawsuits have been dismissed without an appeal. The damages sought in the remaining case are substantial.

Our mortgage insurance business utilizes its underwriting skills to provide an outsourced underwriting service to our customers known as contract underwriting. As part of our contract underwriting activities, we are responsible for the quality of our underwriting decisions in accordance with the terms of the contract underwriting agreements with customers. We may be required to provide certain remedies to our customers if certain standards relating to the quality of our underwriting work are not met, and we have an established reserve for such obligations. A generally positive economic environment for residential real estate that continued until approximately 2007 may have mitigated the effect of some of these costs in previous years. Historically, a material portion of our new insurance written through the flow channel has involved loans for which we provided contract underwriting services, including new insurance written between 2006 and 2008. Claims for remedies may be made a number of years after the underwriting work was performed. We believe the rescission of mortgage insurance coverage on loans for which we provided contract underwriting services may make a claim for a contract underwriting remedy more likely to occur. Beginning in the second half of 2009, we experienced an increase in claims for contract underwriting remedies, which has continued into the first nine months of 2012.

In addition to the matters described above, we are involved in other legal proceedings in the ordinary course of business. In our opinion, based on the facts known at this time, the ultimate resolution of these ordinary course legal proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.

See Note 11 – "Income Taxes" for a description of federal income tax contingencies.