10-K 1 cb-1231201510k.htm 10-K 10-K

Washington, D.C. 20549

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015
For the Transition Period from             to             
Commission File No. 1-11778

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
Baerengasse 32
Zurich, Switzerland CH-8001
(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)
+41 (0)43 456 76 00
(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Title of each class
Name of each exchange on which registered
Common Shares, par value CHF 24.15 per share
New York Stock Exchange
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.
YES þ NO ¨
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.
YES ¨ NO þ
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. YES þ NO ¨
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). YES þ NO ¨
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference into Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. ¨
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
Large accelerated filer  þ
Accelerated filer ¨
Non-accelerated filer  ¨
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
Smaller reporting company ¨
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). YES ¨ NO þ
The aggregate market value of voting stock held by non-affiliates as of June 30, 2015 (the last business day of the registrant's most recently completed second fiscal quarter), was approximately $33 billion. For the purposes of this computation, shares held by directors and officers of the registrant have been excluded. Such exclusion is not intended, nor shall it be deemed, to be an admission that such persons are affiliates of the registrant.
As of February 12, 2016 there were 461,670,290 Common Shares par value CHF 24.15 of the registrant outstanding.
Documents Incorporated by Reference
Certain portions of the registrant's definitive proxy statement relating to its 2016 Annual General Meeting of Shareholders are incorporated by reference into Part III of this report.


ITEM 10.
ITEM 11.
ITEM 12.
ITEM 13.
ITEM 14.
ITEM 15.

ITEM 1. Business

On January 14, 2016, we completed the acquisition of The Chubb Corporation, creating a global leader in property and casualty insurance. We have changed our name from ACE Limited to Chubb Limited and plan to adopt the Chubb name globally, although some subsidiaries may continue to use ACE as part of their names. All references to Chubb Limited throughout this Form 10-K refer to legacy ACE Limited, unless otherwise indicated. The financial condition and results of operations presented herein are those of legacy ACE Limited and its subsidiaries and do not include the financial conditions and results of operations of legacy Chubb Corporation and its subsidiaries.

Chubb Limited is the Swiss-incorporated holding company of the Chubb Group of Companies. Chubb Limited, which is headquartered in Zurich, Switzerland, and its direct and indirect subsidiaries (collectively, the Chubb Group of Companies, Chubb, we, us, or our) are a global insurance and reinsurance organization, serving the needs of a diverse group of clients worldwide. At December 31, 2015, we had total assets of $102 billion and shareholders’ equity of $29 billion. Chubb was incorporated in 1985 at which time it opened its first business office in Bermuda and continues to maintain operations in Bermuda.

We offer commercial insurance products and service offerings such as risk management programs, loss control and engineering and complex claims management. We provide specialized insurance products ranging from Directors & Officers (D&O) and professional liability to various specialty-casualty and umbrella and excess casualty lines to niche areas such as aviation and energy. We also offer personal lines insurance coverage including homeowners, automobile, valuables, umbrella liability, and recreational marine products. In addition, we supply personal accident, supplemental health, and life insurance to individuals in select countries. We have grown our business through increased premium volume, expansion of product offerings and geographic reach, and the acquisition of other companies. During 2015, we acquired the Fireman's Fund Insurance Company high net worth personal lines business in the U.S., which included the renewal rights for new and existing business and reinsurance of all existing reserves. This business operates under our Insurance – North American P&C segment and the consolidated financial statements include the results of this business from the acquisition date.

With the acquisition of The Chubb Corporation we have become a global P&C leader, with highly complementary business lines, distribution channels, customer segments and underwriting skills. In the U.S., where The Chubb Corporation has a substantial presence, the acquisition makes us a leading insurer of business, from the large corporate segment to the middle market, with a broad variety of coverages. Together we have become one of the largest commercial insurers in the U.S.  Internationally, where legacy ACE is a truly global insurer with extensive presence in 54 countries, The Chubb Corporation’s operations in 25 markets are expected to add to our presence and capabilities and position us to better pursue important market opportunities globally.  We expect the combined company to be a top-tier leader in a number of global specialty and traditional products such as professional lines, risk management, workers compensation, accident and health (A&H) and other property and general casualty lines.

Refer to Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information on our acquisitions.

At December 31, 2015, we employed approximately 22,000 people. We believe that employee relations are satisfactory.

We make available free of charge through our website (investors.chubb.com, under Financials) our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports, if any, filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act as soon as reasonably practicable after they have been electronically filed with or furnished to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Also available through our website (under Investor Information / Corporate Governance) are our Corporate Governance Guidelines, Code of Conduct, and Charters for the Committees of our Board of Directors (the Board). Printed documents are available by contacting our Investor Relations Department (Telephone: +1 (441) 299-9283, E-mail: investorrelations@chubb.com).

We also use our website as a means of disclosing material, non-public information and for complying with our disclosure obligations under SEC Regulation FD (Fair Disclosure). Accordingly, investors should monitor the Investor Information portion of our website, in addition to following our press releases, SEC filings, and public conference calls and webcasts. The information contained on, or that may be accessed through, our website is not incorporated by reference into, and is not a part of, this


report. The public may also read and copy any materials Chubb files with the SEC at the SEC's Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549 or by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. The SEC maintains an Internet site (www.sec.gov) that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC.
For most commercial lines of business we offer, insureds typically use the services of an insurance broker or agent. An insurance broker acts as an agent for the insureds, offering advice on the types and amount of insurance to purchase and also assisting in the negotiation of price and terms and conditions. We obtain business from the local and major international insurance brokers and typically pay a commission to brokers for any business accepted and bound. Loss of all or a substantial portion of the business provided by one or more of these brokers could have a material adverse effect on our business. In our opinion, no material part of our business is dependent upon a single insured or group of insureds. We do not believe that the loss of any one insured would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations, and no one insured or group of affiliated insureds account for as much as 10 percent of our total revenues.
Competition in the insurance and reinsurance marketplace is substantial. Competitors include other stock companies, mutual companies, alternative risk sharing groups (such as group captives and catastrophe pools), and other underwriting organizations. Competitors sell through various distribution channels and business models, across a broad array of product lines, and with a high level of variation regarding geographic, marketing, and customer segmentation. We compete for business not only on the basis of price but also on the basis of availability of coverage desired by customers and quality of service. Our ability to compete is dependent on a number of factors, particularly our ability to maintain the appropriate financial strength ratings as assigned by independent rating agencies. Our broad market capabilities in personal, commercial, specialty, and A&H lines made available by our underwriting expertise, business infrastructure, and global presence, define our competitive advantage. Our strong balance sheet is attractive to businesses, and our strong capital position and global platform affords us opportunities for growth not available to smaller, less diversified insurance companies. Refer to “Segment Information” for competitive environment by segment.
Trademarks and Trade Names
Various trademarks and trade names we use protect names of certain products and services we offer and are important to the extent they provide goodwill and name recognition in the insurance industry. We use commercially reasonable efforts to protect these proprietary rights, including various trade secret and trademark laws. We intend to retain material trademark rights in perpetuity, so long as it satisfies the use and registration requirements of applicable countries. One or more of the trademarks and trade names could be material to our ability to sell our products and services. We have taken appropriate steps to protect our ownership of key names, and we believe it is unlikely that anyone would be able to prevent us from using names in places or circumstances material to our operations.
Segment Information
Through December 31, 2015, we operated through five business segments. The following table presents net premiums earned (NPE) by segment:
Years Ended December 31
(in millions of U.S. dollars, except for percentages)
2015 Net Premiums Earned

% of Total

2014 Net Premiums Earned

% of Total

2013 Net Premiums Earned

% of Total

Insurance – North American P&C



Insurance – North American Agriculture



Insurance – Overseas General



Global Reinsurance










Additional financial information about our segments, including net premiums earned by geographic region, is included in
Note 16 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.


Insurance – North American P&C (38 percent of 2015 Consolidated NPE)

The Insurance – North American P&C segment comprises operations in the U.S., Canada, and Bermuda. This segment includes:
Our retail divisions: ACE USA (including ACE Canada), ACE Commercial Risk Services, and ACE Private Risk Services, which includes the Fireman’s Fund high net worth personal lines business acquired effective April 1, 2015
Our wholesale and specialty divisions: ACE Westchester and ACE Bermuda
Various run-off operations, including Brandywine Holdings Corporation (Brandywine)

Products and Distribution
ACE USA, the segment's largest operation, represented 62 percent of Insurance – North American P&C's net premiums earned in 2015. ACE USA provides a broad array of traditional and specialty P&C, A&H, and risk management products and services to a diverse group of North American commercial and non-commercial enterprises and consumers. ACE USA distributes its insurance products primarily through a limited number of retail brokers. In addition to using brokers, certain products are also distributed through general agents, independent agents, managing general agents (MGA), managing general underwriters, alliances, affinity groups, and direct marketing operations. Products and services offered include property, general liability, umbrella and excess liability, workers' compensation, commercial marine, automobile liability, professional lines D&O and errors and omissions (E&O), surety, medical liability, environmental, inland marine, aerospace, A&H coverages, as well as claims and risk management products and services.

ACE USA's on-going operations are organized into the following distinct business units each offering specialized products and services targeted at specific niche markets:
ACE Risk Management offers a range of customized risk management primary casualty products designed to help mid-size to large insureds, including national accounts, address the significant costs of financing and managing risk for workers’ compensation, general liability and automobile liability coverages. Within ACE Risk Management, ACE Financial Solutions (AFS) underwrites contractual indemnification policies in which AFS provides prospective coverage for loss events within the insured’s policy retention levels, and underwrites assumed loss portfolio transfer (LPT) contracts in which insured loss events have occurred prior to the inception of the contract. LPT contracts can cause significant variances to premiums, losses and loss expenses, and expense ratios in the periods in which they are written.
ACE Foreign Casualty provides products which insure specific global operating risks of U.S.-based multinational companies and include deductible programs, captive programs, and paid or incurred loss retrospective plans for U.S.-based insured's foreign operations.
ACE North America Property & Specialty Lines provide products and services including primary, quota share and excess all-risk insurance, risk management programs and services, commercial and inland marine products, and aerospace products.
ACE Casualty Risk key coverages include umbrella and excess liability, environmental risk, and casualty programs for commercial construction related projects.
ACE Professional Risk provides management liability and professional liability (D&O and E&O) products.
ACE Surety offers a wide variety of surety products and specializes in underwriting both commercial and contract bonds and has the capacity for bond issuance on an international basis.
ACE Canada (ACE USA's Canadian operations) offers a broad range of P&C products as well as life and A&H coverages.
ACE Accident & Health products include employee benefit plans, occupational accident, student accident, and worldwide travel accident and global medical programs. With respect to products that include supplemental medical and hospital indemnity coverages, we typically pay fixed amounts for claims and are therefore insulated from rising health care costs. ACE Accident & Health also provides specialty personal lines products, including credit card enhancement programs (identity theft, rental car collision damage waiver, trip travel, and purchase protection benefits) distributed through affinity groups.
ACE Medical Risk offers a wide range of specialty liability products for the health care industry through licensed excess and surplus lines brokers. Products include primary coverages for professional liability and general liability for selected types of medical facilities, excess/umbrella liability for medical facilities, primary and excess coverages for products liability for biotechnology and specialty pharmaceutical companies, and liability insurance for human clinical trials.
ESIS Inc. (ESIS), ACE USA's in-house third-party claims administrator, performs claims management and risk control services for domestic and international organizations as well as for the Insurance – North American P&C segment. ESIS services include comprehensive medical managed care; integrated disability services; pre-loss control and risk


management; and health, safety and environmental consulting; salvage and subrogation; and health care recovery services. The net results for ESIS are included in Insurance – North American P&C's administrative expenses.

ACE Commercial Risk Services provides comprehensive specialty product solutions and packaged plans to small and micro-sized companies in targeted industries that lend themselves to technology-assisted underwriting. Core products and services for small businesses include casualty insurance (including international casualty), environmental, inland marine, professional risk, disaster protection, vacant land and building, and claims and risk management services. Products are offered through wholesale, retail, program agent and alternative distribution channels. In addition, ACE Commercial Risk Services offers coverage for specialty programs through program agents.

ACE Private Risk Services provides high-value personal lines coverages for high net worth individuals and families in North America including homeowners, automobile, valuables (including fine art), umbrella liability, and recreational marine insurance offered through independent regional agents and brokers. During 2015, ACE Private Risk Services expanded its operations through the acquisition of the Fireman's Fund Insurance Company high net worth personal lines insurance business in the U.S.

ACE Westchester serves the market for business risks that tend to be hard to place due to unique or complex exposures. Products offered include wholesale excess and surplus lines property, casualty, environmental, professional liability, inland marine, and product recall coverages in North America.

ACE Bermuda, our original insurance company, provides commercial insurance products on an excess basis including excess liability, D&O, professional liability, property insurance, and political risk, the latter being written by Sovereign Risk Insurance Ltd., a wholly-owned managing agent. ACE Bermuda focuses on Fortune 1000 companies and targets risks that are generally low in frequency and high in severity. ACE Bermuda offers its products primarily through the Bermuda offices of major, internationally recognized insurance brokers.

The run-off operations do not actively sell insurance products, but are responsible for the management of certain existing policies and settlement of related claims.

Competitive Environment
ACE USA and ACE Westchester compete against a number of large, national carriers as well as regional competitors and other entities offering risk alternatives such as self-insured retentions and captive programs. The markets in which we compete are subject to significant cycles of fluctuating capacity and wide disparities in price adequacy. We strive to offer superior service, which we believe has differentiated us from our competitors. The ACE USA and ACE Westchester operations pursue a specialist strategy and focus on market opportunities where we can compete effectively based on service levels and product design, while still achieving an adequate level of profitability. A competitive advantage is also achieved through ACE USA's innovative product offerings and our ability to provide multiple products to a single client due to our nationwide local presence. An additional competitive strength of all our domestic commercial units is the ability to deliver global products and coverage to customers in concert with our Insurance – Overseas General segment. ACE USA has grown, in part, from the leveraging of cross-marketing opportunities with our other operations to take advantage of our organization's global presence. ACE Bermuda competes against international commercial carriers writing business on an excess of loss basis. ACE Commercial Risk Services competes against numerous insurance companies ranging from large national carriers to small and mid-size insurers who provide specialty coverages and standard P&C products. ACE Private Risk Services competes against insurance companies of varying sizes that sell products through various distribution channels, including through the Internet.

Insurance – North American Agriculture (8 percent of 2015 Consolidated NPE)

The Insurance – North American Agriculture segment comprises our North American based businesses that provide a variety of coverages in the U.S. and Canada including crop insurance, primarily Multiple Peril Crop Insurance (MPCI) and crop-hail through Rain and Hail Insurance Service, Inc. (Rain and Hail) as well as farm and ranch and specialty P&C commercial insurance products and services through our ACE Agribusiness unit.

Products and Distribution
The Rain and Hail business provides comprehensive MPCI and crop-hail insurance, and the ACE Agribusiness offers farm and ranch coverages as well as specialty P&C coverages for companies that manufacture, process and distribute agriculture products. The MPCI program is offered in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The USDA's Risk Management Agency (RMA) sets the policy terms and conditions, rates and forms, and is also responsible for setting


compliance standards. As a participating company, we report all details of policies underwritten to the RMA and are party to a Standard Reinsurance Agreement (SRA). The SRA sets out the relationship between private insurance companies and the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) concerning the terms and conditions regarding the risks each will bear including the pro-rata and state stop-loss provisions which allow companies to limit the exposure of any one state or group of states on their underwriting results. In addition to the pro-rata and excess of loss reinsurance protections inherent in the SRA, we also purchase third-party proportional and stop-loss reinsurance for our MPCI business to reduce our exposure. We may also enter into crop derivative contracts to further manage our risk exposure. For additional information, refer to “Crop Insurance”, under Item 7.

Competitive Environment
Rain and Hail primarily operates in a federally regulated program where all approved providers offer the same product forms and rates through independent and/or captive agents. ACE Agribusiness competes against both national and regional competitors offering specialty P&C insurance coverages to companies that manufacture, process, and distribute agricultural products.

Insurance – Overseas General (38 percent of 2015 Consolidated NPE)

The Insurance – Overseas General segment comprises ACE International, ACE Global Markets (AGM) and the international supplemental A&H business of Combined Insurance. ACE International comprises our retail commercial P&C, A&H, and personal lines businesses serving territories outside the U.S., Bermuda, and Canada. AGM, our London-based international specialty and excess and surplus lines business, includes Lloyd's of London (Lloyd's) Syndicate 2488 (Syndicate 2488), a wholly-owned Chubb syndicate. Chubb provides funds at Lloyd's to support underwriting by Syndicate 2488, which is managed by ACE Underwriting Agencies Limited and has an underwriting capacity of £350 million for 2016. The reinsurance operation of AGM is included in the Global Reinsurance segment.

Products and Distribution
ACE International maintains a presence in every major insurance market in the world and is organized geographically along product lines as follows: ACE Europe, ACE Asia Pacific, ACE Eurasia and Africa, ACE Far East, and ACE Latin America. Products offered include P&C, A&H, specialty coverages, and personal lines insurance products and services. ACE International's P&C business is generally written, on both a direct and assumed basis, through major international, regional, and local brokers and agents. Certain ACE Europe branded products are also offered via an e-commerce platform, ACE Online, that allows brokers to quote, bind, and issue specialty policies online. Property insurance products include traditional commercial fire coverage as well as energy industry-related, marine, construction, and other technical coverages. Principal casualty products are commercial primary and excess casualty, environmental, and general liability. A&H and other consumer lines products are distributed through brokers, agents, direct marketing programs, and sponsor relationships. ACE International specialty coverages include D&O, professional indemnity, energy, aviation, political risk, and specialty personal lines products. The A&H operations primarily offer personal accident and supplemental medical coverages including accidental death, business/holiday travel, specified disease, disability, medical and hospital indemnity, and income protection. We are not in the primary health care business. With respect to our supplemental medical and hospital indemnity products, we typically pay fixed amounts for claims and are therefore largely insulated from the direct impact of rising health care costs. ACE International's personal lines operations provide specialty products and services designed to meet the needs of specific target markets and include property damage, automobile, homeowners, and personal liability.

AGM offers products through its parallel distribution network via ACE European Group Limited (AEGL) and Syndicate 2488. AGM uses Syndicate 2488 to underwrite P&C business on a global basis through Lloyd's worldwide licenses. AGM uses AEGL to underwrite similar classes of business through its network of U.K. and European licenses, and in the U.S. where it is eligible to write excess and surplus lines business. Factors influencing the decision to place business with Syndicate 2488 or AEGL include licensing eligibilities, capitalization requirements, and client/broker preference. All business underwritten by AGM is accessed through registered brokers. The main lines of business include aviation, property, energy, professional lines, marine, financial lines, political risk, and A&H.

Combined Insurance uses an international sales force to distribute a wide range of supplemental A&H products including personal accident, short term disability, critical conditions and cancer aid, and hospital confinement/recovery. Most of the products are supplemental A&H products, primarily fixed-indemnity obligations, and are not subject directly to escalating medical cost inflation.


Competitive Environment
ACE International's primary competitors include U.S.-based companies with global operations, as well as non-U.S. global carriers and indigenous companies in regional and local markets. For the A&H lines of business, including those offered by Combined Insurance, locally based competitors include financial institutions and bank owned insurance subsidiaries. Our international operations have the distinct advantage of being part of one of the few international insurance groups with a global network of licensed companies able to write policies on a locally admitted basis. The principal competitive factors that affect the international operations are underwriting expertise and pricing, relative operating efficiency, product differentiation, producer relations, and the quality of policyholder services. A competitive strength of our international operations is our global network and breadth of insurance programs, which assist individuals and business organizations to meet their risk management objectives, while also giving us the advantage of accessing local technical expertise, accomplishing a spread of risk, and offering a global network to service multinational accounts.

AGM is one of the preeminent international specialty insurers in London and is an established lead underwriter on a significant portion of the risks it underwrites for all lines of business. This leadership position allows AGM to set the policy terms and conditions of many of the policies written. All lines of business face competition, depending on the business class, from Lloyd's syndicates, the London market, and other major international insurers and reinsurers. Competition for international risks is also seen from domestic insurers in the country of origin of the insured. AGM differentiates itself from competitors through long standing experience in its product lines, its multiple insurance entities (Syndicate 2488 and AEGL), and the quality of its underwriting and claims service.

Global Reinsurance (5 percent of 2015 Consolidated NPE)

The Global Reinsurance segment represents Chubb's reinsurance operations comprising ACE Tempest Re Bermuda, ACE Tempest Re USA, ACE Tempest Re International, and ACE Tempest Re Canada. The Global Reinsurance segment also includes AGM's reinsurance operations. Global Reinsurance markets reinsurance products worldwide under the ACE Tempest Re brand name and provides solutions for small to mid-sized clients and multinational ceding companies including licensed reinsurance capabilities, property and workers' compensation catastrophe, loss-warranty, stop-loss cover, marine and aviation programs.

Products and Distribution
Global Reinsurance services clients globally through its major units. Major international brokers submit business to one or more of these units' underwriting teams who have built strong relationships with both key brokers and clients by providing a responsive, client-focused approach to risk assessment and pricing.

ACE Tempest Re Bermuda principally provides property catastrophe reinsurance on an excess of loss basis globally to insurers of commercial and personal property. Property catastrophe reinsurance is on an occurrence basis and protects a ceding company against an accumulation of losses covered by its issued insurance policies, arising from a common event or occurrence. ACE Tempest Re Bermuda underwrites reinsurance principally on an excess of loss basis, meaning that its exposure only arises after the ceding company's accumulated losses have exceeded the attachment point of the reinsurance policy. ACE Tempest Re Bermuda also writes other types of reinsurance on a limited basis for selected clients. Examples include proportional property where the reinsurer shares a proportional part of the premiums and losses of the ceding company and per risk excess of loss treaty reinsurance where coverage applies on a per risk basis rather than per event or aggregate basis, together with casualty (catastrophe workers' compensation) and specialty lines (crop and terrorism). ACE Tempest Re Bermuda's business is produced through reinsurance intermediaries.

ACE Tempest Re USA writes all lines of traditional and specialty P&C reinsurance, and surety and fidelity reinsurance for the North American market, principally on a treaty basis, with a focus on writing property per risk and casualty reinsurance. ACE Tempest Re USA underwrites reinsurance on both a proportional and excess of loss basis. This unit's diversified portfolio is produced through reinsurance intermediaries.

ACE Tempest Re International provides traditional and specialty P&C reinsurance to insurance companies worldwide, with emphasis on non-U.S. and Canadian risks. ACE Tempest Re International writes all lines of traditional and specialty reinsurance including property risk and property catastrophe, casualty, marine, aviation, and specialty through our London- and Zurich-based divisions. The London-based divisions of ACE Tempest Re International focus on the development of business sourced through London market brokers and, accordingly, write a diverse book of international business using Syndicate 2488 and AEGL. The Zurich-based division focuses on providing reinsurance to continental European insurers via continental European brokers while also serving Asian and Latin American markets. ACE Tempest Re International also includes our Shanghai, China


office which provides reinsurance coverage for Chinese-based risks. ACE Tempest Re International underwrites reinsurance on both a proportional and excess of loss basis.

ACE Tempest Re Canada offers a full array of traditional and specialty P&C, and Surety reinsurance to the Canadian market, including casualty, property risk and property catastrophe. ACE Tempest Re Canada provides coverage through its Canadian company platform and also offers clients access to Syndicate 2488. ACE Tempest Re Canada underwrites reinsurance on both a proportional and excess of loss basis.

Competitive Environment
The Global Reinsurance segment competes worldwide with major U.S. and non-U.S. reinsurers as well as reinsurance departments of numerous multi-line insurance organizations. In addition, over the last several years, capital markets participants have developed financial products intended to compete with traditional reinsurance. Additionally, government sponsored or backed catastrophe funds can affect demand for reinsurance. Global Reinsurance is considered a lead reinsurer and is typically involved in the negotiation and quotation of the terms and conditions of the majority of the contracts in which it participates. Global Reinsurance competes effectively in P&C markets worldwide because of its strong capital position, analytical capabilities and quality customer service, the leading role it plays in setting the terms, pricing, and conditions in negotiating contracts, and its customized approach to risk selection. The key competitors in our markets vary by geographic region and product line. An advantage of our international platform is that we are able to change our mix of business in response to changes in competitive conditions in the territories in which we operate. Our geographic reach is also sought by multinational ceding companies since all of our offices, with the exception of Bermuda, provide local reinsurance license capabilities which benefit our clients in dealing with country regulators.

Life (11 percent of 2015 Consolidated NPE)

The Life segment comprises ACE's international life operations (ACE Life), ACE Tempest Life Re (ACE Life Re), and the North American supplemental A&H and life business of Combined Insurance.

Products and Distribution
ACE Life provides individual life and group benefit insurance primarily in emerging markets, including Egypt, Hong Kong, Indonesia, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam; also throughout Latin America; selectively in Europe; and in China through a non-consolidated joint venture insurance company. ACE Life offers a broad portfolio of protection and savings products including whole life, endowment plans, individual term life, group term life, group medical, personal accident, credit life, universal life, and unit linked contracts. The policies written by ACE Life generally provide funds to beneficiaries of insureds after death and/or protection and/or savings benefits while the contract owner is living. ACE Life sells to consumers through a variety of distribution channels including agency, bancassurance, worksite marketing, retailers, brokers, and direct to consumer marketing. We continue to expand ACE Life with a focus on opportunities in emerging markets that we believe will result in strong and sustainable operating profits as well as a favorable return on capital commitments over time. Our dedicated agency distribution channel, whereby agents sell ACE Life products exclusively, enables us to maintain direct contact with the individual consumer, promote quality sales practices, and exercise greater control over the future of the business. We have developed a substantial sales force of agents principally located in our Asia-Pacific countries. Chubb also maintains approximately 35.9 percent direct and indirect ownership interest in Huatai Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (Huatai Life), which commenced operations in 2005 and has since grown to become one of the largest life insurance foreign joint ventures in China. Huatai Life offers a broad portfolio of insurance products through a variety of distribution channels including approximately 296 licensed sales locations in 15 Chinese provinces.

ACE Life Re's core business is a Bermuda-based operation which provides reinsurance to primary life insurers, focusing on guarantees included in certain fixed and variable annuity products and also on more traditional mortality reinsurance protection. ACE Life Re's U.S.-based traditional life reinsurance operation was discontinued for new business in January 2010. Since 2007, ACE Life Re has not quoted on new opportunities in the variable annuity reinsurance marketplace and our focus has been on managing the current portfolio of risk, both in the aggregate and on a contract basis. This business is managed with a long-term perspective and short-term earnings volatility is expected.

Combined Insurance distributes specialty supplemental A&H and life insurance products targeted to middle income consumers and businesses in the U.S. and Canada. Combined Insurance's substantial North American sales force distributes a wide range of supplemental accident and sickness insurance products, including personal accident, short-term disability, critical illness,


Medicare supplement products, and hospital confinement/recovery. Most of these products are primarily fixed-indemnity benefit obligations and are not directly subject to escalating medical cost inflation.

Competitive Environment
ACE Life's competition differs by location but generally includes multinational insurers, and in some locations, local insurers, joint ventures, or state-owned insurers. Chubb's financial strength and reputation as an entrepreneurial organization with a global presence gives ACE Life a strong base from which to compete. While ACE Life Re is not currently quoting on new opportunities in the variable annuity reinsurance marketplace, we continue to monitor developments in this market. Combined Insurance competes for A&H business in the U.S. against numerous A&H and life insurance companies across various industry segments.
Chubb is an underwriting company and we strive to emphasize quality of underwriting rather than volume of business or market share. Our underwriting strategy is to manage risk by employing consistent, disciplined pricing and risk selection. This, coupled with writing a number of less cyclical product lines, has helped us develop flexibility and stability of our business, and has allowed us to maintain a profitable book of business throughout market cycles. Clearly defined underwriting authorities, standards, and guidelines coupled with a strong underwriting audit function are in place in each of our local operations and global profit centers. Global product boards ensure consistency of approach and the establishment of best practices throughout the world. Our priority is to help ensure adherence to criteria for risk selection by maintaining high levels of experience and expertise in our underwriting staff. In addition, we employ a business review structure that helps ensure control of risk quality and conservative use of policy limits and terms and conditions. Underwriting discipline is at the heart of our operating philosophy.

Qualified actuaries in each region work closely with the underwriting teams to provide additional expertise in the underwriting process. We use internal and external data together with sophisticated analytical, catastrophe loss and risk modeling techniques to ensure an appropriate understanding of risk, including diversification and correlation effects, across different product lines and territories. This helps to ensure that losses are contained within our risk tolerance and appetite for individual product lines, businesses, and Chubb as a whole. Our use of such tools and data also reflects an understanding of their inherent limitations and uncertainties. We also purchase protection from third parties, including, but not limited to, reinsurance as a tool to diversify risk and limit the net loss potential of catastrophes and large or unusually hazardous risks. For additional information refer to "Risk Factors" under Item 1A, “Reinsurance Protection”, below, “Catastrophe Management” and “Natural Catastrophe Property Reinsurance Program”, under Item 7, and Note 5 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, under Item 8.
Reinsurance Protection
As part of our risk management strategy, we purchase reinsurance protection to mitigate our exposure to losses, including certain catastrophes, to a level consistent with our risk appetite. Although reinsurance agreements contractually obligate our reinsurers to reimburse us for an agreed-upon portion of our gross paid losses, reinsurance does not discharge our primary liability to our insureds and, thus, we ultimately remain liable for the gross direct losses. In certain countries, reinsurer selection is limited by local laws or regulations. In most countries there is more freedom of choice, and the counterparty is selected based upon its financial strength, claims settlement record, management, line of business expertise, and its price for assuming the risk transferred. In support of this process, we maintain a Chubb authorized reinsurer list that stratifies these authorized reinsurers by classes of business and acceptable limits. This list is maintained by our Reinsurance Security Committee (RSC), a committee comprising senior management personnel and a dedicated reinsurer security team. Changes to the list are authorized by the RSC and recommended to the Chair of the Risk and Underwriting Committee. The reinsurers on the authorized list and potential new markets are regularly reviewed and the list may be modified following these reviews. In addition to the authorized list, there is a formal exception process that allows authorized reinsurance buyers to use reinsurers already on the authorized list for higher limits or different lines of business, for example, or other reinsurers not on the authorized list if their use is supported by compelling business reasons for a particular reinsurance program.

A separate policy and process exists for captive reinsurance companies. Generally, these reinsurance companies are established by our clients or our clients have an interest in them. It is generally our policy to obtain collateral equal to the expected losses that may be ceded to the captive. Where appropriate, exceptions to the collateral requirement are granted but only after senior management review. Specific collateral guidelines and an exception process are in place for the Insurance – North American P&C and Insurance – Overseas General segments, both of which have credit management units evaluating the captive's credit quality and that of their parent company. The credit management units, working with actuaries, determine reasonable exposure estimates (collateral calculations), ensure receipt of collateral in an acceptable form, and coordinate collateral adjustments as and when needed. Financial reviews and expected loss evaluations are performed annually for active captive accounts and as


needed for run-off exposures. In addition to collateral, parental guarantees are often used to enhance the credit quality of the captive.

In general, we seek to place our reinsurance with highly rated companies with which we have a strong trading relationship. For additional information refer to “Catastrophe Management” and “Natural Catastrophe Property Reinsurance Program” under Item 7, and Note 5 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
Unpaid Losses and Loss Expenses
We establish reserves for unpaid losses and loss expenses, which are estimates of future payments on reported and unreported claims for losses and related expenses, with respect to insured events that have occurred. These reserves are recorded in Unpaid losses and loss expenses in the consolidated balance sheets. The process of establishing loss and loss expense reserves for P&C claims can be complex and is subject to considerable uncertainty as it requires the use of informed estimates and judgments based on circumstances known at the date of accrual. These estimates and judgments are based on numerous factors, and may be revised as additional experience and other data become available and are reviewed, as new or improved methodologies are developed, or as laws change. Internal actuaries regularly analyze the levels of loss and loss expense reserves, taking into consideration factors that may impact the ultimate settlement value of the unpaid losses and loss expenses. These analyses could result in future changes in the estimates of loss and loss expense reserves or reinsurance recoverables and any such changes would be reflected in our results of operations in the period in which the estimates are changed. Losses and loss expenses are charged to income as incurred. The reserve for unpaid losses and loss expenses represents the estimated ultimate losses and loss expenses less paid losses and loss expenses, and comprises case reserves and incurred but not reported (IBNR) loss reserves. With the exception of certain structured settlements, for which the timing and amount of future claim payments are reliably determinable, and certain reserves for unsettled claims that are discounted in statutory filings, our loss reserves are not discounted for the time value of money. In connection with such structured settlements and certain reserves for unsettled claims, we carried net discounted reserves of $92 million at December 31, 2015.
During the loss settlement period, which can be many years in duration, additional facts regarding individual claims and trends often will become known. As these become apparent, case reserves may be adjusted by allocation from IBNR with or without any change in the overall reserve. In addition, the circumstances of individual claims or the application of statistical and actuarial methods to loss experience data may lead to the adjustment of the overall reserves upward or downward from time to time. Accordingly, the ultimate settlement of losses may be significantly greater than or less than reported loss and loss expense reserves.
We have considered asbestos and environmental (A&E) claims and claims expenses in establishing the liability for unpaid losses and loss expenses and have developed reserving methods which consider historical experience as well as incorporate new sources of data to estimate the ultimate losses arising from A&E exposures. The reserves for A&E claims and claims expenses represent management's best estimate of future loss and loss expense payments and recoveries that are expected to develop over the next several decades. We continuously monitor evolving case law and its effect on environmental and latent injury claims, we monitor A&E claims activity quarterly, and we perform a full reserve review annually.
For each product line, management, in conjunction with internal actuaries, develops a “best estimate” of the ultimate settlement value of the unpaid losses and loss expenses that it believes provides a reasonable estimate of the required reserve. We evaluate our estimates of reserves quarterly in light of developing information. While we are unable at this time to determine whether additional reserves may be necessary in the future, we believe that our reserves for unpaid losses and loss expenses are adequate at December 31, 2015. Future additions to reserves, if needed, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows. For additional information refer to “Critical Accounting Estimates – Unpaid losses and loss expenses”, under Item 7, and Note 7 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, under Item 8.
The “Analysis of Losses and Loss Expenses Development” table shown below presents, for each balance sheet date over the period 2005-2015, the gross and net loss and loss expense reserves recorded at the balance sheet date and subsequent net payments on the associated liabilities. The reserves represent the amount required for the estimated future settlement value of liabilities incurred at or prior to the balance sheet date and those estimates may change subsequent to the balance sheet date as new information emerges regarding the ultimate settlement value of the liability. Accordingly, the table also presents through December 31, 2015, for each balance sheet date, the cumulative impact of subsequent valuations of the liabilities incurred at the original balance sheet date. The table is presented in accordance with SEC reporting requirements. This table should be interpreted with care by those not familiar with its format or those who are familiar with other triangulations arranged by origin year of loss such as accident or underwriting year rather than balance sheet date, as shown below. To clarify the interpretation of the table, we use the reserves established at December 31, 2005, in the following example.


The top two lines of the table show, for successive balance sheet dates, the gross and net unpaid losses and loss expenses recorded as provision for liabilities incurred at or prior to each balance sheet date. It can be seen that at December 31, 2005, a reserve of $20.5 billion, net of reinsurance, had been established.
The upper (paid) triangulation shows the net amounts paid as of periods subsequent to the balance sheet date. Hence in the 2006 financial year, $3.7 billion of payments were made on liabilities contemplated in the December 31, 2005 reserve balance. At the end of the 2015 financial year, there were cumulative net payments of $13.7 billion on this block of liabilities.
The lower triangulation within the table shows the revised estimate of the net liability originally recorded at each balance sheet date as of the end of subsequent financial years. With the benefit of actual loss emergence and hindsight over the intervening period, the net liabilities incurred as of December 31, 2005, are now estimated to be $19.5 billion, rather than the original estimate of $20.5 billion. This change includes the impact of adverse development on latent claims that we categorize as A&E covered under the National Indemnity Company (NICO) reinsurance treaties. Of the cumulative redundancy of $1.0 billion recognized in the ten years since December 31, 2005 redundancy of $2.2 billion relates to non-latent claims and deficiency of $1.2 billion relates to latent claims. The redundancy of $957 million was identified and recorded as follows: $12 million redundant in 2006, $80 million redundant in 2007, $440 million redundant in 2008, $337 million redundant in 2009, $331 million redundant in 2010, $122 million redundant in 2011, $44 million deficient in 2012, $149 million deficient in 2013, $27 million deficient in 2014, and $145 million deficient in 2015. This development subsequent to the balance sheet date of valuation is referred to as prior period development.
Importantly, the cumulative deficiency or redundancy for different balance sheet dates are not independent and, therefore, should not be added together. In the last financial year, we revised our estimate of the December 31, 2005 liabilities from $19,356 million to $19,501 million. This adverse development of $145 million is also included in each column to the right of the December 31, 2005 column to recognize that this additional amount was also required in the reserves established for each annual balance sheet date from December 31, 2006 to December 31, 2015.
The loss development table shows that our original estimate of the net unpaid loss and loss expense requirement at December 31, 2014, of $27.0 billion has, with the benefit of actual loss emergence and hindsight, been revised to $26.5 billion at December 31, 2015. This favorable movement of $546 million reflects prior period development and is the net result of a number of underlying movements both favorable and adverse. The key underlying movements are discussed in more detail in Note 7 to the Consolidated Financial Statements under Item 8.
The bottom lines of the table show the re-estimated amount of previously recorded gross liabilities at December 31, 2015, together with the change in reinsurance recoverable. Similar to the net liabilities, the cumulative redundancy or deficiency on the gross liability is the difference between the gross liability originally recorded and the re-estimated gross liability at December 31, 2015. For example, with respect to the gross unpaid loss and loss expenses of $35.1 billion for December 31, 2005, this gross liability was re-estimated to be $33.9 billion at December 31, 2015, resulting in the cumulative redundancy on the gross liability originally recorded for the 2005 balance sheet year of $1.2 billion.
We do not consider it appropriate to extrapolate future deficiencies or redundancies based upon the table, as conditions and trends that have affected development of the liability in the past may not necessarily recur in the future. We believe that our current estimates of net liabilities appropriately reflect our current knowledge of the business profile and the prevailing market, social, legal, and economic conditions while giving due consideration to historical trends and volatility evidenced in our markets over the longer term. The key issues and considerations involved in establishing our estimate of the net liabilities are discussed in more detail within the “Critical Accounting Estimates – Unpaid losses and loss expenses” section of Item 7.
The Unpaid losses and loss expense information for acquired businesses has been included in the table from the acquisition date forward:
Combined Insurance (April 1, 2008);
Jerneh Insurance Berhad (December 1, 2010);
Rain and Hail (we acquired all of the outstanding common stock not previously owned by us on December 28, 2010);
Penn Millers Holding Corporation (November 30, 2011);
Rio Guayas Compania de Seguros y Reaseguros (December 28, 2011);
PT Asuransi Jaya Proteksi (we acquired 80 percent on September 18, 2012 and our local partner acquired the remaining 20 percent on January 3, 2013);
Fianzas Monterrey (April 1, 2013);
ABA Seguros (May 2, 2013);
The Siam Commercial Samaggi Insurance PCL (we and our local partner acquired 93.03 percent during the second quarter of 2014);
The large corporate account P&C insurance business of Itaú Seguros, S.A. (October 31, 2014); and
Fireman's Fund Insurance Company high net worth personal lines insurance business in the U.S. (April 1, 2015).


Analysis of Losses and Loss Expenses Development
Years Ended December 31
(in millions of U.S. dollars)











Gross unpaid losses











Net unpaid losses











Net paid losses (cumulative) as of:
1 year later










2 years later









3 years later








4 years later







5 years later






6 years later





7 years later




8 years later



9 years later


10 years later

Net liability re-estimated as of:
End of year











1 year later










2 years later









3 years later








4 years later







5 years later






6 years later





7 years later




8 years later



9 years later


10 years later

Cumulative redundancy/ (deficiency) on net unpaid losses










Cumulative deficiency related to A&E
Cumulative redundancy/ (deficiency) excluding A&E










Gross unpaid losses











Reinsurance recoverable on unpaid losses











Net unpaid losses











Gross liability re-estimated










Reinsurance recoverable on unpaid losses










Net liability re-estimated










Cumulative redundancy/ (deficiency) on gross unpaid losses










The reference to “losses” in the table above refers to losses and loss expenses.


Reconciliation of Unpaid Losses and Loss Expenses
Net losses and loss expenses incurred for 2015 were $9.5 billion, compared with $9.6 billion in 2014, and $9.3 billion in 2013 which includes $546 million, $527 million, and $530 million of net favorable prior period development (PPD), respectively. Refer to Note 7 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for a reconciliation of Unpaid losses and loss expenses and for additional information on PPD.
Our objective is to maximize investment income and total return while ensuring an appropriate level of liquidity and investment quality and diversification. As such, Chubb's investment portfolio is invested primarily in investment-grade fixed-income securities as measured by the major rating agencies. We do not allow leverage or complex credit structures in our investment portfolio.

The critical aspects of the investment process are controlled by ACE Asset Management, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Chubb. These aspects include asset allocation, portfolio and guideline design, risk management and oversight of external asset managers. In this regard, ACE Asset Management:

conducts formal asset allocation modeling for each of the Chubb subsidiaries, providing formal recommendations for the portfolio's structure;
establishes recommended investment guidelines that are appropriate to the prescribed asset allocation targets;
provides the analysis, evaluation, and selection of our external investment advisors;
establishes and develops investment-related analytics to enhance portfolio engineering and risk control;
monitors and aggregates the correlated risk of the overall investment portfolio; and
provides governance over the investment process for each of our operating companies to ensure consistency of approach and adherence to investment guidelines.

Under our guidance and direction, external asset managers conduct security and sector selection and transaction execution. Use of multiple managers benefits Chubb in several ways – it provides us with operational and cost efficiencies, diversity of styles and approaches, innovations in investment research and credit and risk management, all of which enhance the risk adjusted returns of our portfolios.

ACE Asset Management determines the investment portfolio's allowable, targeted asset allocation and ranges for each of the segments. These asset allocation targets are derived from sophisticated asset and liability modeling that measures correlated histories of returns and volatility of returns. Allowable investment classes are further refined through analysis of our operating environment, including expected volatility of cash flows, potential impact on our capital position, as well as regulatory and rating agency considerations.

The Board has established a Risk & Finance Committee which helps execute the Board's supervisory responsibilities pertaining to enterprise risk management including investment risk. Under the overall supervision of the Risk & Finance Committee, Chubb's governance over investment management is rigorous and ongoing. Among its responsibilities, the Risk & Finance Committee of the Board:

reviews and approves asset allocation targets and investment policy to ensure that it is consistent with our overall goals, strategies, and objectives;
reviews and approves investment guidelines to ensure that appropriate levels of portfolio liquidity, credit quality, diversification, and volatility are maintained; and
systematically reviews the portfolio's exposures including any potential violations of investment guidelines.

We have long-standing global credit limits for our entire portfolio across the organization and for individual obligors. Exposures are aggregated, monitored, and actively managed by our Global Credit Committee, comprising senior executives, including our Chief Financial Officer, our Chief Risk Officer, our Chief Investment Officer, and our Treasurer.

Within the guidelines and asset allocation parameters established by the Risk & Finance Committee, individual investment committees of the segments determine tactical asset allocation. Additionally, these committees review all investment-related activity that affects their operating company, including the selection of outside investment advisors, proposed asset allocation changes, and the systematic review of investment guidelines.

For additional information regarding the investment portfolio, including breakdowns of the sector and maturity distributions, refer to Note 3 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, under Item 8.


Our insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries conduct business globally, including in all 50 states of the United States and the District of Columbia. Our businesses in each of these jurisdictions are subject to varying degrees of regulation and supervision. The laws and regulations of the jurisdictions in which our insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries are domiciled require among other things that these subsidiaries maintain minimum levels of statutory capital, surplus, and liquidity, meet solvency standards, and submit to periodic examinations of their financial condition. The complex regulatory environments in which Chubb operates are subject to change and are regularly monitored.

Group Supervision
In September 2012, pursuant to legislation passed in the state of Pennsylvania, U.S., based on the Model Insurance Holding Company System Regulatory Act (model law) adopted by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), the Pennsylvania Insurance Department (Department), in consultation with other insurance regulatory bodies that oversee Chubb's insurance activities, convened the first Chubb Group Supervisory College (College). Regulators from approximately 15 jurisdictions worldwide were invited to participate in the College, the purpose of which was to initiate establishment of, and to clarify the membership, participation, functionality, and ongoing activities in, the College with respect to group-wide supervision of Chubb. Representatives from approximately ten jurisdictions attended the College in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, during which the supervisors reviewed, without adverse comment, information on our group governance, risk assessment and management, capital adequacy, and material intercompany transactions. On October 19, 2012, the Department, in cooperation with the other supervisory college regulators, published a notice of its determination that it is the appropriate group-wide supervisor for Chubb.

In September 2014, the Department, in consultation with other insurance regulatory bodies that oversee Chubb's insurance activities, convened the second College. Representatives from approximately ten jurisdictions attended the College in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, during which the supervisors reviewed, without adverse comment, information on our group governance, compliance, risk assessment and management, and capital adequacy.

The Department has circulated an invitation to various regulators to participate in the third College to be held in Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania in September 2016.
The following is an overview of regulations for our operations in Switzerland, the U.S., Bermuda, and other international locations.

Swiss Operations
The Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) has the discretion to supervise Chubb on a group-wide basis. However, FINMA acknowledges the Department's assumption of group supervision over us.

In 2008, we formed ACE Insurance (Switzerland) Limited which offers property and casualty insurance to Swiss companies, A&H insurance for individuals of Swiss Corporations as well as reinsurance predominantly in Continental Europe. We have also formed a reinsurance subsidiary named ACE Reinsurance (Switzerland) Limited, which we operate as primarily a provider of reinsurance to Chubb entities. Both companies are licensed and governed by FINMA.

U.S. Operations
Our U.S. insurance subsidiaries are subject to extensive regulation and supervision by the states in which they do business. The laws of the various states establish departments of insurance with broad authority to regulate, among other things: the standards of solvency that must be met and maintained, the licensing of insurers and their producers, approval of policy forms and rates, the nature of and limitations on investments, restrictions on the size of the risks which may be insured under a single policy, deposits of securities for the benefit of policyholders, requirements for the acceptability of reinsurers, periodic examinations of the affairs of insurance companies, the form and content of reports of financial condition required to be filed, and the adequacy of reserves for unearned premiums, losses, and other purposes.

Our U.S. insurance subsidiaries are required to file detailed annual and quarterly reports with state insurance regulators. In addition, our U.S. insurance subsidiaries' operations and financial records are subject to examination at regular intervals by state regulators.
All states have enacted legislation that regulates insurance holding companies. This legislation provides that each insurance company in the insurance holding company system (system) is required to register with the insurance department of its state of domicile and furnish information concerning the operations of companies within the system that may materially affect the


operations, management, or financial condition of the insurers within the system. We are required to file an annual enterprise risk report with the Department, identifying the material risks within our system that could pose enterprise risk to the insurance subsidiaries in the system. All transactions within a system must be fair and equitable. Notice to the insurance departments is required prior to the consummation of transactions affecting the ownership or control of an insurer and of certain material transactions between an insurer and an entity in its system. In addition, certain transactions may not be consummated without the department's prior approval.

We are also required to file an annual summary report with the Department, reflecting our internal assessment of material risks associated with our current business plan and the sufficiency of our capital resources to support those risks.
Statutory surplus is an important measure used by the regulators and rating agencies to assess our U.S. insurance subsidiaries' ability to support business operations and provide dividend capacity. Our U.S. insurance subsidiaries are subject to various state statutory and regulatory restrictions that limit the amount of dividends that may be paid without prior approval from regulatory authorities. These restrictions differ by state, but are generally based on calculations incorporating statutory surplus, statutory net income, and/or investment income.

The NAIC has a risk-based capital requirement for P&C insurance companies. This risk-based capital formula is used by many state regulatory authorities to identify insurance companies that may be undercapitalized and which merit further regulatory attention. These requirements are designed to monitor capital adequacy using a formula that prescribes a series of risk measurements to determine a minimum capital amount for an insurance company, based on the profile of the individual company. The ratio of a company's actual policyholder surplus to its minimum capital requirement will determine whether any state regulatory action is required. There are progressive risk-based capital failure levels that trigger more stringent regulatory action. If an insurer's policyholders' surplus falls below the Mandatory Control Level (70 percent of the Authorized Control Level, as defined by the NAIC), the relevant insurance commissioner is required to place the insurer under regulatory control.

However, an insurance commissioner may allow a P&C company operating below the Mandatory Control Level that is writing no business and is running off its existing business to continue its run-off. Brandywine is running off its liabilities consistent with the terms of an order issued by the Insurance Commissioner of Pennsylvania. This includes periodic reporting obligations to the Department.

Government intervention has also occurred in the insurance and reinsurance markets in relation to terrorism coverage in the U.S. (and through industry initiatives in other countries). The U.S. Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA), which was enacted in 2002 to ensure the availability of insurance coverage for certain types of terrorist acts in the U.S., was extended in 2015 for six years, through December 31, 2020, and applies to certain of our operations.

From time to time, Chubb and its subsidiaries and affiliates receive inquiries from state agencies and attorneys general, with which we generally comply, seeking information concerning business practices, such as underwriting and non-traditional or loss mitigation insurance products. Moreover, many recent factors, such as consequences of and reactions to industry and economic conditions and focus on domestic issues, have contributed to the potential for change in the legal and regulatory framework applicable to Chubb's U.S. operations and businesses. We cannot assure that changes in laws or investigative or enforcement activities in the various states in the U.S. will not have a material adverse impact on our financial condition, results of operations, or business practices.

Bermuda Operations
The Insurance Act 1978 of Bermuda and related regulations, as amended (the Insurance Act), regulates the insurance business of our Bermuda insurance subsidiaries and provides that no person may carry on any insurance business in or from within Bermuda unless registered as an insurer by the Bermuda Monetary Authority (BMA). The Insurance Act imposes solvency and liquidity standards and auditing and reporting requirements on Bermuda insurance companies and grants the BMA powers to supervise, investigate, and intervene in the affairs of insurance companies. Our Bermuda domiciled insurance subsidiaries must prepare annual statutory financial statements and file them with the BMA, and certain subsidiaries must file audited annual financial statements prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the U.S. (GAAP), International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), or any such other generally accepted accounting principles as the BMA may recognize. These audited financials are made public by the BMA. The Insurance Act prescribes rules for the preparation and content of the statutory financial statements that require Chubb subsidiaries to give detailed information and analyses regarding premiums, claims, reinsurance, and investments.


The BMA established risk-based regulatory capital adequacy and solvency margin requirements for Bermuda insurers that mandate that a Class E (long-term business), Class 3A (general business), and Class 4 insurer's Enhanced Capital Requirement (ECR) be calculated by either (a) the BMA model, or (b) an internal capital model which the BMA has approved for use for this purpose. ACE's Bermuda insurance subsidiaries use the BMA model in calculating their solvency requirements.

The risk-based regulatory capital adequacy and solvency margin regime provides a risk-based capital model, termed the Bermuda Solvency Capital Requirement (BSCR), as a tool to assist the BMA both in measuring risk and in determining appropriate levels of capitalization. The BSCR employs a standard mathematical model that correlates the risk underwritten by Bermuda insurers to their capital. The BSCR framework applies a standard measurement format to the risk associated with an insurer's assets, liabilities, and premiums, including a formula to take account of catastrophe risk exposure. In order to minimize the risk of a shortfall in capital arising from an unexpected adverse deviation and in moving towards the implementation of a risk based capital approach, the BMA has established a threshold capital level, (termed the Target Capital Level (TCL)), set at 120 percent of ECR, that serves as an early warning tool for the BMA and failure to maintain statutory capital at least equal to the TCL will likely result in increased BMA regulatory oversight.

Under the Insurance Act, Class 4 insurers are prohibited from declaring or paying any dividends of more than 25 percent of total statutory capital and surplus, as shown in its previous financial year statutory balance sheet, unless at least seven days before payment of the dividends, it files with the BMA an affidavit that it will continue to meet its required solvency margins. In addition, Class 4, 3A, and E insurers must obtain the BMA's prior approval before reducing total statutory capital, as shown in its previous financial year statutory balance sheet, by 15 percent or more. Furthermore, Bermuda insurance subsidiaries may only declare and pay a dividend from retained earnings and a dividend or distribution from contributed surplus if it has no reasonable grounds for believing that it is, or would after the payment be, unable to pay its liabilities as they become due, or if the realizable value of its assets would not be less than the aggregate of its liabilities and its issued share capital and share premium accounts.

During 2015, the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) completed its review of the BMA’s proposed supervisory regime with respect to Bermuda’s commercial insurers (i.e., those registered as Class 3A, 3B or 4, C, D or E).  EIOPA concluded that the BMA’s proposed supervisory regime was broadly equivalent to the European Union (EU) directive which provides new rules with respect to capital requirements, governance, risk management and disclosure for (re)insurers.  The EU directive is more commonly known as “Solvency II”.  EIOPA’s views on Bermuda’s Solvency II equivalence were formally adopted by the European Commission via a delegated act on November 26, 2015 (subject to a three-month review period by the European Parliament and European Council).  Once the delegated act comes into effect, the BMA’s revised supervisory regime will be effective retroactively to January 1, 2016.  Our Bermuda commercial (re)insurance subsidiaries would submit their first annual filings under the new requirements in 2017.  We do not believe the new regulations will have a material effect on our capital management strategies, results of operations or financial condition.

Other International Operations
The extent of insurance regulation varies significantly among the countries in which non-U.S. Chubb operations conduct business. While each country imposes licensing, solvency, auditing, and financial reporting requirements, the type and extent of the requirements differ substantially. For example:
in some countries, insurers are required to prepare and file monthly and/or quarterly financial reports, and in others, only annual reports;
some regulators require intermediaries to be involved in the sale of insurance products, whereas other regulators permit direct sales contact between the insurer and the customer;
the extent of restrictions imposed upon an insurer's use of local and offshore reinsurance vary;
policy form filing and rate regulation vary by country;
the frequency of contact and periodic on-site examinations by insurance authorities differ by country; and
regulatory requirements relating to insurer dividend policies vary by country.

Significant variations can also be found in the size, structure, and resources of the local regulatory departments that oversee insurance activities. Certain regulators prefer close relationships with all subject insurers and others operate a risk-based approach.


Chubb operates in some countries through subsidiaries and in some countries through branches of subsidiaries. Local capital requirements applicable to a subsidiary generally include its branches. Certain Chubb companies are jointly owned with local companies to comply with legal requirements for local ownership. Other legal requirements include discretionary licensing procedures, compulsory cessions of reinsurance, local retention of funds and records, data privacy and protection program requirements, and foreign exchange controls. Chubb's international companies are also subject to multinational application of certain U.S. laws.

There are various regulatory bodies and initiatives that impact Chubb in multiple international jurisdictions and the potential for significant impact on Chubb could be heightened as a result of recent industry and economic developments. In particular, the European Union's (EU) executive body, the European Commission, implemented a new capital adequacy and risk management regulations for the European insurance industry, known as Solvency II, which aims to establish a revised set of EU-wide capital requirements and risk management standards that replaced the Solvency I requirements. The Solvency II requirements were effective January 1, 2016 for our European operations.

Under Solvency II, it is possible that a U.S. domiciled parent company of a subsidiary domiciled in the EU could be subject to certain requirements if determined by the regulator that its subsidiary's capital position is dependent on the U.S. parent company that is not subject to requirements deemed to be ''equivalent'' to Solvency II. We do not currently expect that our capital management strategies, results of operations, and financial condition will be materially affected by the Solvency II requirements.
Enterprise Risk Management
As an insurer, Chubb is in the business of profitably managing risk for its customers. Since risk management must permeate an organization conducting a global insurance business, we have an established Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) framework that is integrated into management of our businesses and is led by Chubb's senior management. As a result, ERM is a part of the day-to-day management of Chubb and its operations.
Our global ERM framework is broadly multi-disciplinary and its objectives include:

External Risks: identify, analyze, quantify, and where possible, mitigate significant external risks that could materially hamper the financial condition of Chubb and/or the achievement of corporate business objectives over the next 36 months;
Exposure Accumulations: identify and quantify the accumulation of exposure to individual counterparties, products or industry sectors, particularly those that materially extend across or correlate between business units or divisions and/or the balance sheet;
Risk Modeling: develop and use various data-sets, analytical tools, metrics and processes (including economic capital models and advanced analytics) that help division and corporate leaders make informed underwriting, portfolio management and risk management decisions within a consistent risk/reward framework;
Governance: establish and coordinate risk guidelines that reflect the corporate appetite for risk, monitor exposure accumulations relative to established guidelines, and ensure effective internal risk management communication up to management and the Board, down to the various business units and legal entities, and across the firm; and
Disclosure: develop protocols and processes for risk-related disclosure internally as well as externally to rating agencies, regulators, shareholders and analysts.

Chubb Group's Risk and Underwriting Committee (RUC) reports to and assists the Chief Executive Officer in the oversight and review of the ERM framework which covers the processes and guidelines used to manage insurance risk, financial risk, strategic risk, and operational risk. The RUC is chaired by Chubb Group’s 's Chief Risk Officer and Chief Actuary. The RUC meets at least monthly, and is comprised of Chubb Group 's most senior executives, in addition to the Chair, including the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Investment Officer, Chief Claims Officer, General Counsel, President – North America Commercial and Personal Insurance, President – North America Major Accounts and Specialty Insurance, and Chief Underwriting Officer.

The RUC is assisted in its activities by Chubb's Enterprise Risk Unit (ERU) and Product Boards. The ERU is responsible for the collation and analysis of risk insight in two key areas. First, external information that provides insight to the RUC on existing or emerging risks that might significantly impact Chubb's key objectives and second, internal risk aggregations arising from Chubb's business writings and other activities such as investments and operations. The ERU is independent of the operating units and reports to our Chief Risk Officer and Chief Actuary. The Product Boards exist to provide oversight for products that we offer globally. A Product Board currently exists for each of Chubb's major product areas. Each Product Board is responsible for


ensuring consistency in underwriting and pricing standards, identification of emerging issues, and guidelines for relevant accumulations.

Chubb's Chief Risk Officer and Chief Actuary also reports to the Board's Risk & Finance Committee, which helps execute the Board's supervisory responsibilities pertaining to ERM. The role of the Risk & Finance Committee includes evaluation of the integrity and effectiveness of our ERM procedures, systems, and information; governance on major policy decisions pertaining to risk aggregation and minimization; and assessment of our major decisions and preparedness levels pertaining to perceived material risks. The Audit Committee meets annually and on an as needed basis with the Risk & Finance Committee in order to exercise its duties under New York Stock Exchange Rules.
Others within the ERM structure contribute toward accomplishing Chubb's ERM objectives, including regional management, Corporate Underwriting, Internal Audit, Compliance, external consultants, and managers of our internal control processes and procedures.
Tax Matters
Refer to “Risk Factors”, under Item 1A and Note 1 n) and Note 8 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.


Evan G. Greenberg
Chairman, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director
John W. Keogh
Executive Vice Chairman and Chief Operating Officer; Chairman, Overseas General Insurance
Philip V. Bancroft
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
John J. Lupica
Vice Chairman; President, North America Major Accounts & Specialty Insurance
Joseph F. Wayland
Executive Vice President and General Counsel
Sean Ringsted
Chief Risk Officer and Chief Actuary
Timothy A. Boroughs
Chief Investment Officer
Paul J. Krump
Executive Vice President; President, North America Commercial and Personal Insurance
Juan C. Andrade
Executive Vice President; President, Overseas General Insurance

Evan G. Greenberg has been a director of Chubb Limited since August 2002. Mr. Greenberg was elected Chairman of the Board of Directors in May 2007. Mr. Greenberg became a director of The Coca-Cola Company in February 2011. Mr. Greenberg was appointed to the position of President and Chief Executive Officer of Chubb Limited in May 2004, and in June 2003, was appointed President and Chief Operating Officer of Chubb Limited. Mr. Greenberg was appointed to the position of Chief Executive Officer of ACE Overseas General in April 2002. He joined Chubb as Vice Chairman, Chubb Limited, and Chief Executive Officer of ACE Tempest Re in November 2001. Prior to joining Chubb, Mr. Greenberg was most recently President and Chief Operating Officer of American International Group (AIG), a position he held from 1997 until 2000.

John W. Keogh was appointed Executive Vice Chairman of Chubb Limited in November 2015. Mr. Keogh has served as Chief Operating Officer of Chubb Limited since July 2011 and Vice Chairman of Chubb Limited and ACE Group Holdings since August 2010. Mr. Keogh joined Chubb as Chief Executive Officer of Overseas General Insurance in April 2006 and became Chairman of Overseas General Insurance in August 2010. Prior to joining Chubb, Mr. Keogh served as Senior Vice President, Domestic General Insurance of AIG, and President and Chief Executive Officer of National Union Fire Insurance Company, AIG's member company that specializes in D&O and fiduciary liability coverages. Mr. Keogh joined AIG in 1986. He served in a number of other senior positions there including as Executive Vice President of AIG's Domestic Brokerage Group and as President and Chief Operating Officer of AIG's Lexington Insurance Company unit.  

Philip V. Bancroft was appointed Chief Financial Officer of Chubb Limited in January 2002. For nearly 20 years, Mr. Bancroft worked for PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. Prior to joining Chubb, he served as partner-in-charge of the New York Regional Insurance Practice. Mr. Bancroft had been a partner with PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP for ten years.


John J. Lupica was appointed President, North America Major Accounts & Specialty Insurance in January 2016, Vice Chairman of Chubb Limited and ACE Group Holdings in November 2013 and Chairman, Insurance - North America, in July 2011. Mr. Lupica had been Chief Operating Officer, Insurance - North America, since 2010 and President of ACE USA since 2006. He also previously served as Division President of ACE Professional Risk and ACE USA Regional Operations. Mr. Lupica joined ACE USA as Executive Vice President of Professional Risk in 2000. Prior to joining Chubb, he served as Senior Vice President for Munich-American Risk Partners, Inc. He also held various management positions at AIG.

Joseph F. Wayland was appointed Executive Vice President of Chubb Limited in January 2016, General Counsel and Secretary of Chubb Limited in July 2013.  Mr. Wayland joined Chubb from the law firm of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, where he was a partner since 1994. From 2010 to 2012, he served in the United States Department of Justice, first as Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Antitrust Division, and was later appointed as the Acting Assistant Attorney General in charge of that division.

Sean Ringsted was appointed Chief Risk Officer and Chief Actuary of Chubb Limited in November 2008. Mr. Ringsted’s previous roles at Chubb include Chief Actuary for Chubb Group from 2004 to 2008, Executive Vice President and Chief Risk Officer for ACE Tempest Re from 2002 to 2004, and Senior Vice President and Chief Actuary for ACE Tempest Re from 1998 to 2002. Prior to joining Chubb, Mr. Ringsted was a consultant at Tillinghast-Towers Perrin.

Timothy A. Boroughs was appointed Chief Investment Officer of Chubb Group in June 2000. Prior to joining Chubb, Mr. Boroughs was Director of Fixed Income at Tudor Investment Corporation from 1997 to 2000, and Managing Partner and Director of Global Leveraged Investment Activity at Fischer Francis Trees & Watts from 1976 to 1997.

Paul J. Krump was appointed Executive Vice President, Chubb Group and President North America Commercial and Personal Insurance in January 2016. Prior to ACE Limited’s January 2016 acquisition of The Chubb Corporation, Mr. Krump was Chief Operating Officer of The Chubb Corporation, responsible for the company’s Commercial, Specialty, Personal and Accident & Health insurance lines; Claims; Global Field Operations; Information Technology; Human Resources; Communications; and External Affairs. Mr. Krump joined The Chubb Corporation in 1982 as a commercial underwriting trainee in the Minneapolis office. He held numerous headquarters and field positions in the United States and Europe, including President of Personal Lines and Claims and President of Commercial and Specialty Lines.
Juan C. Andrade was appointed Executive Vice President, Chubb Group and President, Overseas General Insurance in January 2016. Mr. Andrade joined Chubb in December 2010 to lead the global personal lines and small commercial property & casualty insurance businesses. In January 2013, he became the Chief Operating Officer for Overseas General Insurance. Prior to joining Chubb, Mr. Andrade was President and Chief Operating Officer of property & casualty operations for The Hartford Financial Services Group. He joined The Hartford in 2006 as head of the property & casualty claims organization.
ITEM 1A. Risk Factors
Factors that could have a material impact on our results of operations or financial condition are outlined below. Additional risks not presently known to us or that we currently deem insignificant may also impair our business or results of operations as they become known or as facts and circumstances change. Any of the risks described below could result in a significant or adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition.


Our results of operations or financial condition could be adversely affected by the occurrence of natural and man-made disasters.
We have substantial exposure to losses resulting from natural disasters, man-made catastrophes such as terrorism or cyber-attack, and other catastrophic events, including pandemics. This could impact a variety of our businesses, including our commercial and personal lines, and life and A&H products. Catastrophes can be caused by various events, including hurricanes, typhoons, earthquakes, hailstorms, drought, explosions, severe winter weather, fires, war, acts of terrorism, nuclear accidents, political instability, and other natural or man-made disasters, including a global or other wide-impact pandemic or a significant cyber-attack. The incidence and severity of catastrophes are inherently unpredictable and our losses from catastrophes could be substantial. In addition, climate conditions may be changing, primarily through changes in global temperatures, which may increase the frequency and severity of natural catastrophes and the resulting losses in the future. We cannot predict the impact that changing climate conditions, if any, may have on our results of operations or our financial condition. Additionally, we


cannot predict how legal, regulatory and/or social responses to concerns around global climate change may impact our business. The occurrence of claims from catastrophic events could result in substantial volatility in our results of operations or financial condition for any fiscal quarter or year. The historical incidence for events such as earthquakes, pandemics and cyber-attacks is infrequent and may not be representative of contemporary exposures and risks. As an example, increases in the values and concentrations of insured property may increase the severity of these occurrences in the future. Although we attempt to manage our exposure to such events through the use of underwriting controls, risk models, and the purchase of third-party reinsurance, catastrophic events are inherently unpredictable and the actual nature of such events when they occur could be more frequent or severe than contemplated in our pricing and risk management expectations. As a result, the occurrence of one or more catastrophic events could have an adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

If actual claims exceed our loss reserves, our financial results could be adversely affected.
Our results of operations and financial condition depend upon our ability to accurately assess the potential losses associated with the risks that we insure and reinsure. We establish reserves for unpaid losses and loss expenses, which are estimates of future payments of reported and unreported claims for losses and related expenses, with respect to insured events that have occurred at or prior to the balance sheet date. The process of establishing reserves can be highly complex and is subject to considerable variability as it requires the use of informed estimates and judgments.

Actuarial staff in each of our segments analyze insurance reserves and regularly evaluate the levels of loss reserves. Any such evaluations could result in future changes in estimates of losses or reinsurance recoverables and would be reflected in our results of operations in the period in which the estimates are changed. Losses and loss expenses are charged to income as incurred. During the loss settlement period, which can be many years in duration for some of our lines of business, additional facts regarding individual claims and trends often will become known which may result in a change in overall reserves. In addition, application of statistical and actuarial methods may require the adjustment of overall reserves upward or downward from time to time.

Included in our loss reserves are liabilities for latent claims such as A&E, which are principally related to claims arising from remediation costs associated with hazardous waste sites and bodily-injury claims related to exposure to asbestos products and environmental hazards. At December 31, 2015, gross A&E liabilities represented approximately 4.2 percent of our loss reserves. The estimation of these liabilities is subject to many complex variables including: the current legal environment; specific settlements that may be used as precedents to settle future claims; assumptions regarding trends with respect to claim severity and the frequency of higher severity claims; assumptions regarding the ability to allocate liability among defendants (including bankruptcy trusts) and other insurers; the ability of a claimant to bring a claim in a state in which they have no residency or exposure; the ability of a policyholder to claim the right to non-products coverage; whether high-level excess policies have the potential to be accessed given the policyholder's claim trends and liability situation; payments to unimpaired claimants; and the potential liability of peripheral defendants. Accordingly, the ultimate settlement of losses, arising from either latent or non-latent causes, may be significantly greater or less than the loss and loss expense reserves held at the balance sheet date. In particular the amount and timing of the settlement of our P&C liabilities are not determinate and our actual payments could be higher than contemplated in our loss reserves owing to the impact of insurance, judicial decisions, and/or social inflation. If our loss reserves are inadequate, we may be required to increase loss reserves at the time of the determination and our net income and capital may be reduced.

The effects of emerging claim and coverage issues on our business are uncertain.
As industry practices and legislative, regulatory, judicial, social, financial, technology and other environmental conditions change, unexpected and unintended issues related to claims and coverage may emerge. These issues may adversely affect our business by either extending coverage beyond our underwriting intent or by increasing the frequency and severity of claims. In some instances, these changes may not become apparent until after we have issued insurance or reinsurance contracts that are affected by the changes. As a result, the full extent of liability under our insurance or reinsurance contracts may not be known for many years after issuance.

The failure of any of the loss limitation methods we use could have an adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.
We seek to manage our loss exposure by maintaining a disciplined underwriting process throughout our insurance operations. We also look to limit our loss exposure by writing a number of our insurance and reinsurance contracts on an excess of loss basis. Excess of loss insurance and reinsurance indemnifies the insured against losses in excess of a specified amount. In addition, we limit program size for each client and purchase third-party reinsurance for our own account. In the case of our assumed proportional reinsurance treaties, we seek per occurrence limitations or loss and loss expense ratio caps to limit the impact of losses ceded by the client. In proportional reinsurance, the reinsurer shares a proportional part of the premiums and


losses of the reinsured. We also seek to limit our loss exposure by geographic diversification. Geographic zone limitations involve significant underwriting judgments, including the determination of the area of the zones and the inclusion of a particular policy within a particular zone's limits.

However, there are inherent limitations in all of these tactics and no assurance can be given that an event or series of events will not result in loss levels that could have an adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations. It is also possible that losses could manifest themselves in ways that we do not anticipate and that our risk mitigation strategies are not designed to address. Additionally, various provisions of our policies, such as limitations or exclusions from coverage or choice of forum negotiated to limit our risks, may not be enforceable in the manner we intend. As a result, one or more catastrophic or other events could result in claims that substantially exceed our expectations, which could have an adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

We may be unable to purchase reinsurance, and if we successfully purchase reinsurance, we are subject to the possibility of non-payment.
We purchase protection from third parties including, but not limited to, reinsurance to protect against catastrophes and other sources of volatility, to increase the amount of protection we can provide our clients, and as part of our overall risk management strategy. Our reinsurance business also purchases retrocessional protection which allows a reinsurer to cede to another company all or part of the reinsurance originally assumed by the reinsurer. A reinsurer's or retrocessionaire's insolvency or inability or unwillingness to make timely payments under the terms of its reinsurance agreement with us could have an adverse effect on us because we remain liable to the insured. From time to time, market conditions have limited, and in some cases have prevented, insurers and reinsurers from obtaining the types and amounts of reinsurance or retrocessional reinsurance that they consider adequate for their business needs.

There is no guarantee our desired amounts of reinsurance or retrocessional reinsurance will be available in the marketplace in the future. In addition to capacity risk, the remaining capacity may not be on terms we deem appropriate or acceptable or with companies with whom we want to do business. Finally, we face some degree of counterparty risk whenever we purchase reinsurance or retrocessional reinsurance. Consequently, the insolvency, inability, or unwillingness of any of our present or future reinsurers to make timely payments to us under the terms of our reinsurance or retrocessional agreements could have an adverse effect on us. At December 31, 2015, we had $11.4 billion of reinsurance recoverables, net of reserves for uncollectible recoverables.

Certain active Chubb companies are primarily liable for A&E and other exposures they have reinsured to our inactive run-off company Century Indemnity Company (Century). At December 31, 2015, the aggregate reinsurance balances ceded by our active subsidiaries to Century were approximately $1.2 billion. Should Century's loss reserves experience adverse development in the future and should Century be placed into rehabilitation or liquidation, the reinsurance recoverables due from Century to its affiliates would be payable only after the payment in full of third party expenses and liabilities, including administrative expenses and direct policy liabilities. Thus, the intercompany reinsurance recoverables would be at risk to the extent of the shortage of assets remaining to pay these recoverables. While we believe the intercompany reinsurance recoverables from Century are not impaired at this time, we cannot assure that adverse development with respect to Century's loss reserves, if manifested, will not result in Century's insolvency, which could result in our recognizing a loss to the extent of any uncollectible reinsurance from Century. This could have an adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

Our net income may be volatile because certain products sold by our Life business expose us to reserve and fair value liability changes that are directly affected by market and other factors and assumptions.
Our pricing, establishment of reserves for future policy benefits and valuation of life insurance and annuity products, including reinsurance programs, are based upon various assumptions, including but not limited to market changes, interest rates, mortality rates, morbidity rates, and policyholder behavior. The process of establishing reserves for future policy benefits relies on our ability to accurately estimate insured events that have not yet occurred but that are expected to occur in future periods.  Significant deviations in actual experience from assumptions used for pricing and for reserves for future policy benefits could have an adverse effect on the profitability of our products and our business.

Under reinsurance programs covering variable annuity guarantees, we assumed the risk of guaranteed minimum death benefits (GMDB) and guaranteed living benefits (GLB) associated with variable annuity contracts. Our GLB liability includes guaranteed minimum income benefits (GMIB) and guaranteed minimum accumulation benefits (GMAB). We ceased writing this business in 2007. Our net income is directly impacted by changes in the reserves calculated in connection with the reinsurance of GMDB and GLB liabilities. In addition, our net income is directly impacted by the change in the fair value of the GLB liability. Reported liabilities for both GMDB and GLB reinsurance are determined using internal valuation models which require considerable


judgment and are subject to significant uncertainty. Refer to the “Critical Accounting Estimates – Guaranteed living benefits (GLB) derivatives” under Item 7 and “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk – Reinsurance of GMDB and GLB guarantees” under Item 7A for additional information on the assumptions used in this program. We view our variable annuity reinsurance business as having a similar risk profile to that of catastrophe reinsurance, with the probability of long-term economic loss relatively small at the time of pricing. Adverse changes in market factors and policyholder behavior will have an impact on both life underwriting income and net income.

Payment of obligations under surety bonds could have an adverse effect on our results of operations.
The surety business tends to be characterized by infrequent but potentially high severity losses. The majority of our surety obligations are intended to be performance-based guarantees. When losses occur, they may be mitigated, at times, by recovery rights to the customer’s assets, contract payments, collateral and bankruptcy recoveries. We have substantial commercial and construction surety exposure for current and prior customers. In that regard, we have exposures related to surety bonds issued on behalf of companies that have experienced or may experience deterioration in creditworthiness. If the financial condition of these companies were adversely affected by the economy or otherwise, we may experience an increase in filed claims and may incur high severity losses, which could have an adverse effect on our results of operations.

Our exposure to counterparties in various industries, our reliance on brokers, and certain of our policies may subject us to credit risk.
We have exposure to counterparties through reinsurance and in various industries, including banks, hedge funds and other investment vehicles, and derivative transactions that expose us to credit risk in the event our counterparty fails to perform its obligations. We also have exposure to financial institutions in the form of secured and unsecured debt instruments and equity securities.

In accordance with industry practice, we generally pay amounts owed on claims to brokers who, in turn, remit these amounts to the insured or ceding insurer. Although the law is unsettled and depends upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case, in some jurisdictions, if a broker fails to make such a payment, we might remain liable to the insured or ceding insurer for the deficiency. Conversely, in certain jurisdictions, if the brokers do not remit premiums paid for these policies over to us, these premiums might be considered to have been paid and the insured or ceding insurer will no longer be liable to us for those amounts, whether or not we have actually received the premiums from the broker. Consequently, we assume a degree of credit risk associated with brokers with whom we transact business. However, due to the unsettled and fact-specific nature of the law, we are unable to quantify our exposure to this risk. To date, we have not experienced any material losses related to these credit risks.

Under the terms of certain high-deductible policies which we offer, such as workers’ compensation and general liability, our customers are responsible to reimburse us for an agreed-upon dollar amount per claim. In nearly all cases we are required under such policies to pay covered claims first, and then seek reimbursement for amounts within the applicable deductible from our customers. This obligation subjects us to credit risk from these customers. While we generally seek to mitigate this risk through collateral agreements and maintain a provision for uncollectible accounts associated with this credit exposure, an increased inability of customers to reimburse us in this context could have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. In addition, a lack of credit available to our customers could impact our ability to collateralize this risk to our satisfaction, which in turn, could reduce the amount of high-deductible policies we could offer.

Since we depend on a few brokers for a large portion of our revenues, loss of business provided by any one of them could adversely affect us.
We market our insurance and reinsurance worldwide primarily through independent insurance agents and insurance and reinsurance brokers. Accordingly, our business is dependent on the willingness of these agents and brokers to recommend our products to their customers, who may also promote and distribute the products of our competitors. Deterioration in relationships with our agent and broker distribution network or their increased promotion and distribution of our competitors' products could adversely affect our ability to sell our products. Loss of all or a substantial portion of the business provided by one or more of these brokers could have an adverse effect on our business.


Our investment performance may affect our financial results and ability to conduct business.
Our investment assets are invested by professional investment management firms under the direction of our management team in accordance with investment guidelines approved by the Risk & Finance Committee of the Board of Directors. Although our investment guidelines stress diversification of risks and conservation of principal and liquidity, our investments are subject to market risks and risks inherent in individual securities. Interest rates are highly sensitive to many factors, including inflation,


monetary and fiscal policies, and domestic and international political conditions. The volatility of our losses may force us to liquidate securities, which may cause us to incur capital losses. Realized and unrealized losses in our investment portfolio would reduce our book value, and if significant, can affect our ability to conduct business.

Volatility in interest rates could impact the performance of our investment portfolio which could have an adverse effect on our investment income and operating results. Although we take measures to manage the risks of investing in a changing interest rate environment, we may not be able to effectively mitigate interest rate sensitivity. Our mitigation efforts include maintaining a high quality portfolio of primarily fixed income investments with a relatively short duration to reduce the effect of interest rate changes on book value. A significant increase in interest rates would generally have an adverse effect on our book value. Our life insurance investments typically focus on longer duration bonds to better match the obligations of this business. For the life business, policyholder behavior may be influenced by changing interest rate conditions and require a rebalancing of duration to effectively manage our asset/liability position.

Our fixed income portfolio is primarily invested in high quality, investment-grade securities. A smaller portion of the portfolio, approximately 11 percent at December 31, 2015, is invested in below investment-grade securities. These securities, which pay a higher rate of interest, also have a higher degree of credit or default risk and may also be less liquid in times of economic weakness or market disruptions. While we have put in place procedures to monitor the credit risk and liquidity of our invested assets, it is possible that, in periods of economic weakness (such as recession), we may experience credit or default losses in our portfolio, which could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

As a part of our ongoing analysis of our investment portfolio, we are required to assess whether the debt and equity securities we hold for which we have recorded an unrealized loss have been “other-than-temporarily impaired” under GAAP, which implies an inability to recover the full economic benefits of these securities. Refer to Note 3 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information. This analysis requires a high degree of judgment and requires us to make certain assessments about the potential for recovery of the assets we hold. Declines in relevant stock and other financial markets, and other factors impacting the value of our investments, could result in impairments and could adversely affect our net income and other financial results.

We may require additional capital or financing sources in the future, which may not be available or may be available only on unfavorable terms.
Our future capital and financing requirements depend on many factors, including our ability to write new business successfully and to establish premium rates and reserves at levels sufficient to cover losses, as well as our investment performance and capital expenditure obligations, including with respect to acquisitions. We may need to raise additional funds through financings or access funds through existing or new credit facilities or through short-term repurchase agreements. We also from time to time seek to refinance debt or credit as amounts become due or commitments expire. Any equity or debt financing or refinancing, if available at all, may be on terms that are not favorable to us. In the case of equity financings, dilution to our shareholders could result, and in any case, such securities may have rights, preferences, and privileges that are senior to those of our Common Shares. Our access to funds under existing credit facilities is dependent on the ability of the banks that are parties to the facilities to meet their funding commitments. If we cannot obtain adequate capital or sources of credit on favorable terms, or at all, we could be forced to use assets otherwise available for our business operations, and our business, results of operations, and financial condition could be adversely affected.

We may be required to post additional collateral because of changes in our reinsurance liabilities to regulated insurance companies, or because of regulatory changes that affect our companies.
If our reinsurance liabilities increase, including in our property & casualty and variable annuity reinsurance businesses, we may be required to post additional collateral for insurance company clients. In addition, regulatory changes sometimes affect our obligations to post collateral. The need to post this additional collateral, if significant enough, may require us to sell investments at a loss in order to provide securities of suitable credit quality or otherwise secure adequate capital at an unattractive cost. This could adversely impact our net income and liquidity and capital resources.

U.S. and global economic and financial industry events and their consequences could harm our business, our liquidity and financial condition, and our stock price.
The consequences of adverse global or regional market and economic conditions may affect (among other aspects of our business) the demand for and claims made under our products, the ability of customers, counterparties, and others to establish or maintain their relationships with us, our ability to access and efficiently use internal and external capital resources, the availability of reinsurance protection, the risks we assume under reinsurance programs covering variable annuity guarantees, and our investment performance. Volatility in the U.S. and other securities markets may adversely affect our stock price.


A decline in our financial strength ratings could affect our standing among brokers and customers and cause our premiums and earnings to decrease. A decline in our debt ratings could increase our borrowing costs and impact our ability to access capital markets.
Ratings are an important factor in establishing the competitive position of insurance and reinsurance companies. The objective of these rating systems is to provide an opinion of an insurer's financial strength and ability to meet ongoing obligations to its policyholders. A ratings downgrade could result in a substantial loss of business as insureds, ceding companies, and brokers move to other insurers and reinsurers with higher ratings. If one or more of our debt ratings were downgraded, we could also incur higher borrowing costs, and our ability to access the capital markets could be impacted. Additionally, we could be required to post collateral or be faced with the cancellation of policies and resulting premium in certain circumstances. We cannot give any assurance regarding whether or to what extent any of the rating agencies may downgrade our ratings in the future.

Our ability to pay dividends and to make payments on indebtedness may be constrained by our holding company structure.
Chubb Limited is a holding company and does not have any significant operations or assets other than its ownership of the shares of its operating insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries. Dividends and other permitted distributions from our insurance subsidiaries are our primary source of funds to meet ongoing cash requirements, including any future debt service payments and other expenses, and to pay dividends to our shareholders. Some of our insurance subsidiaries are subject to significant regulatory restrictions limiting their ability to declare and pay dividends. The inability of our insurance subsidiaries to pay dividends in an amount sufficient to enable us to meet our cash requirements at the holding company level could have an adverse effect on our operations and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders and/or meet our debt service obligations.

Our operating results and shareholders' equity may be adversely affected by currency fluctuations.
Our reporting currency is the U.S. dollar. In general, we match assets and liabilities in local currencies. Where possible, capital levels in local currencies are limited to satisfy minimum regulatory requirements and to support local insurance operations. The principal currencies creating foreign exchange risk are the British pound sterling, the euro, the Mexican peso, the Brazilian real, the Korean won, the Canadian dollar, the yen, the Thailand baht, and the Australian dollar. At December 31, 2015, approximately 23.6 percent of our net assets were denominated in foreign currencies. We may experience losses resulting from fluctuations in the values of non-U.S. currencies, which could adversely impact our results of operations and financial condition.


The regulatory and political regimes under which we operate, and their volatility, could have an adverse effect on our business.
Our insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries conduct business globally. Our businesses in each jurisdiction are subject to varying degrees of regulation and supervision. The laws and regulations of the jurisdictions in which our insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries are domiciled require, among other things, maintenance of minimum levels of statutory capital, surplus, and liquidity; various solvency standards; and periodic examinations of subsidiaries' financial condition. In some jurisdictions, laws and regulations also restrict payments of dividends and reductions of capital. Applicable statutes, regulations, and policies may also restrict the ability of these subsidiaries to write insurance and reinsurance policies, to make certain investments, and to distribute funds. The purpose of insurance laws and regulations generally is to protect policyholders and ceding insurance companies, not our shareholders. For example, some jurisdictions have enacted various consumer protection laws that make it more burdensome for insurance companies to sell policies and interact with customers in personal lines businesses. Failure to comply with such regulations can lead to significant penalties and reputational injury. Fines and penalties in the U.S. in particular have been trending upwards.
The foreign and U.S. federal and state laws and regulations that are applicable to our operations are complex and may increase the costs of regulatory compliance or subject our business to the possibility of regulatory actions or proceedings. Laws and regulations not specifically related to the insurance industry include trade sanctions that relate to certain countries, anti-money laundering laws, and anti-corruption laws such as the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the U.K. Bribery Act 2010, the anti-bribery provisions of the Swiss Penal Code and similar local laws prohibiting corrupt payments to governmental officials. The insurance industry is also affected by political, judicial, and legal developments that may create new and expanded regulations and theories of liability. The current economic climate and the recent financial crisis present additional uncertainties and risks relating to increased regulation and the potential for increased involvement of the U.S. and other governments in the financial services industry.

In addition, various legislative initiatives may impact the conduct of our business.


Regulators in countries where we have operations are working with the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS) to consider changes to insurance company supervision, including with respect to group supervision and solvency requirements. The IAIS is developing a common framework to supervise internationally active insurance groups, such as Chubb, known as Com Frame. As part of Com Frame, the IAIS has announced plans to develop an international capital standard for insurance groups. The details of Com Frame including this global capital standard and its applicability to Chubb are uncertain at this time. In addition, the European Union (EU) has implemented a new capital and risk management regime known as Solvency II that applies to our businesses across the EU, which became effective January 1, 2016. Chubb businesses are also subject to the requirements of the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) whose regulations include Swiss Solvency Tests. There are also Risk Based Capital Requirements in the U.S. which are also subject to revision in response to global developments. While it is not certain how or if these actions will impact Chubb, we do not currently expect that our capital management strategies, results of operations and financial condition will be materially affected by these regulatory changes.

In the event or absence of changes in applicable laws and regulations in particular jurisdictions, we may from time to time face challenges, or changes in approach to oversight of our business from insurance or other regulators, including challenges resulting from requiring the use of information technology that cannot be quickly adjusted to address new regulatory requirements.

We may not be able to comply fully with, or obtain appropriate exemptions from, applicable statutes and regulations and any changes thereto, which could have an adverse effect on our business. Failure to comply with or to obtain appropriate authorizations and/or exemptions under any applicable laws and regulations could result in restrictions on our ability to do business or undertake activities that are regulated in one or more of the jurisdictions in which we conduct business and could subject us to fines and other sanctions.

Our worldwide operations, particularly in developing nations expose us to global geopolitical developments that could have an adverse effect on our business, liquidity, results of operations, and financial condition.
With operations in 54 countries, we provide insurance and reinsurance products and services to a diverse group of clients worldwide, including operations in various developing nations. Both current and future foreign operations could be adversely affected by unfavorable geopolitical developments including law changes, tax changes, regulatory restrictions, government leadership changes, political events and upheaval, sociopolitical instability, and nationalization of our operations without compensation. Adverse activity in any one country could negatively impact operations, increase our loss exposure under certain of our insurance products, and could, otherwise, have an adverse effect on our business, liquidity, results of operations, and financial condition depending on the magnitude of the events and our net financial exposure at that time in that country.

A failure in our operational systems or infrastructure or those of third parties, including due to security breaches or cyber-attacks, could disrupt business, damage our reputation, and cause losses.
Our operations rely on the secure processing, storage, and transmission of confidential and other information and assets, including in our computer systems and networks and those of third-party service providers. Our business depends on effective information security and systems and the integrity and timeliness of the data our information systems use to run our business. Our ability to adequately price products and services, to establish reserves, to provide effective, efficient and secure service to our customers, to value our investments and to timely and accurately report our financial results also depends significantly on the integrity and availability of the data we maintain, including that within our information systems, as well as data in and assets held through third-party service providers and systems. In an effort to ensure the integrity of such data, we implement new security measures and systems, including the use of confidential intellectual property, and improve or upgrade our existing security measures and systems on a continuing basis. Although we have implemented administrative and technical controls and take protective actions to reduce the risk of cyber incidents and to protect our information technology and assets, and we endeavor to modify such procedures as circumstances warrant and negotiate agreements with third-party providers to protect our assets, such measures may be insufficient to prevent unauthorized access, computer viruses, malware or other malicious code or cyber-attack, catastrophic events, system failures and disruptions (including in relation to new security measures and systems), employee errors or malfeasance, third party (including outsourced service providers) errors or malfeasance, loss of assets and other events that could have security consequences (each, a Security Event). In some cases, such events may not be immediately detected. As the breadth and complexity of our security infrastructure continues to grow, the potential risk of a Security Event increases. Like other global companies, we have from time to time experienced Security Events, none of which had, individually or in the aggregate, an adverse impact on our business, results of operations, or financial condition. If additional Security Events occur, these events may jeopardize Chubb's or its clients' or counterparties' confidential and other information processed and stored within Chubb, and transmitted through its computer systems and networks, or otherwise cause interruptions, delays, or malfunctions in Chubb's, its clients', its counterparties', or third parties' operations, or result in data loss or loss of assets which could result in significant losses, reputational damage or an adverse effect on our operations and critical business functions. Chubb may be required to expend significant additional resources to modify our protective


measures or to investigate and remediate vulnerabilities or other exposures and to pursue recovery of lost data or assets and we may be subject to litigation and financial losses that are either not insured against or not fully covered by insurance maintained.
The regulatory environment surrounding information security and privacy is increasingly demanding. We are subject to numerous U.S. federal and state laws and regulations in jurisdictions outside the U.S. governing the protection of personal and confidential information of our clients or employees, including in relation to medical records, credit card data and financial information. These laws and regulations are increasing in complexity and number, change frequently and sometimes conflict. If any person, including any of our employees or those with whom we share such information, negligently disregards or intentionally breaches our established controls with respect to our client data, or otherwise mismanages or misappropriates that data, we could be subject to significant monetary damages, regulatory enforcement actions, fines and/or criminal prosecution in one or more jurisdictions.

Despite the contingency plans and facilities we have in place and our efforts to observe the regulatory requirements surrounding information security, our ability to conduct business may be adversely affected by a disruption of the infrastructure that supports our business in the communities in which we are located, or of outsourced services or functions. This may include a disruption involving electrical, communications, transportation, or other services used by Chubb. If a disruption occurs in one location and Chubb employees in that location are unable to occupy our offices and conduct business or communicate with or travel to other locations, our ability to service and interact with clients may suffer and we may not be able to successfully implement contingency plans that depend on communication or travel.

We use analytical models to assist our decision making in key areas such as underwriting, claims, reserving, and catastrophe risks but actual results could differ materially from the model outputs and related analyses.
We use various modeling techniques (e.g., scenarios, predictive, stochastic and/or forecasting) and data analytics to analyze and estimate exposures, loss trends and other risks associated with our assets and liabilities. We use the modeled outputs and related analyses to assist us in decision-making (e.g., underwriting, pricing, claims, reserving, reinsurance, and catastrophe risk) and to maintain competitive advantage. The modeled outputs and related analyses are subject to various assumptions, uncertainties, model errors and the inherent limitations of any statistical analysis, including the use of historical internal and industry data. In addition, the modeled outputs and related analyses may from time to time contain inaccuracies, perhaps in material respects, including as a result of inaccurate inputs or applications thereof. Consequently, actual results may differ materially from our modeled results. If, based upon these models or other factors, we misprice our products or underestimate the frequency and/or severity of loss events, or overestimate the risks we are exposed to, new business growth and retention of our existing business may be adversely affected which could have an adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

We could be adversely affected by the loss of one or more key executives or by an inability to attract and retain qualified personnel.
Our success depends on our ability to retain the services of our existing key executives and to attract and retain additional qualified personnel in the future. The loss of the services of any of our key executives or the inability to hire and retain other highly qualified personnel in the future could adversely affect our ability to conduct or grow our business. This risk may be particularly acute for us relative to some of our competitors because some of our senior executives work in countries where they are not citizens and work permit and immigration issues could adversely affect the ability to retain or hire key persons. We do not maintain key person life insurance policies with respect to our employees.

Employee error and misconduct may be difficult to detect and prevent and could adversely affect our business, results of operations, and financial condition.
Losses may result from, among other things, fraud, errors, failure to document transactions properly, failure to obtain proper internal authorization, failure to comply with underwriting or other internal guidelines, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements. It is not always possible to deter or prevent employee misconduct and the precautions that we take to prevent and detect this activity may not be effective in all cases. Resultant losses could adversely affect our business, results of operations, and financial condition.


Competition in the insurance and reinsurance markets could reduce our margins.
Insurance and reinsurance markets are highly competitive. We compete on an international and regional basis with major U.S., Bermuda, European, and other international insurers and reinsurers and with underwriting syndicates, some of which have greater financial, marketing, and management resources than we do. We also compete with new companies that continue to be formed to enter the insurance and reinsurance markets. In addition, capital market participants have created alternative


products that are intended to compete with reinsurance products. Increased competition could result in fewer submissions, lower premium rates, and less favorable policy terms and conditions, which could reduce our profit margins and adversely impact our net income and book value.

Insurance and reinsurance markets are historically cyclical, and we expect to experience periods with excess underwriting capacity and unfavorable premium rates.
The insurance and reinsurance markets have historically been cyclical, characterized by periods of intense price competition due to excessive underwriting capacity as well as periods when shortages of capacity permitted favorable premium levels. An increase in premium levels is often offset by an increasing supply of insurance and reinsurance capacity, either by capital provided by new entrants or by the commitment of additional capital by existing insurers or reinsurers, which may cause prices to decrease. Any of these factors could lead to a significant reduction in premium rates, less favorable policy terms, and fewer submissions for our underwriting services. In addition to these considerations, changes in the frequency and severity of losses suffered by insureds and insurers may affect the cycles of the insurance and reinsurance markets significantly, as could periods of economic weakness (such as recession).

The integration of acquired companies may not be as successful as we anticipate.
Acquisitions, such as our acquisition of The Chubb Corporation (Chubb Corporation) through a merger (the Chubb acquisition), involve numerous operational, strategic, financial, accounting, legal, tax, and other risks; potential liabilities associated with the acquired businesses; and uncertainties related to design, operation and integration of acquired businesses’ internal controls over financial reporting. Difficulties in integrating an acquired company, along with its personnel, may result in the acquired company performing differently than we expected, in operational challenges or in our failure to realize anticipated expense-related efficiencies. Our existing businesses could also be negatively impacted by acquisitions. In addition, goodwill and intangible assets recorded in connection with insurance company acquisitions may be impaired if premium growth, underwriting profitability, agency retention and policy persistency, among other factors, differ from expectations.

There is also the potential that proposed acquisitions that have been publicly announced will not be consummated, even if a definitive agreement has been signed by the parties. If an agreement is terminated before closing, the result would be that our proposed acquisition would not occur, which could, among other things, expose us to damages or liability and adversely impact our stock price and future operations.

We may be subject to U.S. tax and Bermuda tax which may have an adverse effect on our results of operations and shareholder investment.
Chubb Limited and our non-U.S. subsidiaries operate in a manner so that none of these companies should be subject to U.S. tax (other than U.S. excise tax on insurance and reinsurance premium income attributable to insuring or reinsuring U.S. risks and U.S. withholding tax on some types of U.S. source investment income), because none of these companies should be treated as engaged in a trade or business within the U.S. However, because there is considerable uncertainty as to the activities that constitute being engaged in a trade or business within the U.S., we cannot be certain that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will not contend successfully that Chubb Limited or its non-U.S. subsidiaries are engaged in a trade or business in the U.S. If Chubb Limited or any of its non-U.S. subsidiaries were considered to be engaged in a trade or business in the U.S., such entity could be subject to U.S. corporate income and branch profits taxes on the portion of its earnings effectively connected to such U.S. business, in which case our results of operations and our shareholders' investments could be adversely affected.

The Bermuda Minister of Finance, under the Exempted Undertakings Tax Protection Act 1966 of Bermuda, as amended, has given Chubb Limited and its Bermuda insurance subsidiaries a written assurance that if any legislation is enacted in Bermuda that would impose tax computed on profits or income, or computed on any capital asset, gain, or appreciation, or any tax in the nature of estate duty or inheritance tax, then the imposition of any such tax would not be applicable to those companies or any of their respective operations, shares, debentures, or other obligations until March 31, 2035, except insofar as such tax would apply to persons ordinarily resident in Bermuda or is payable by us in respect of real property owned or leased by us in Bermuda. We cannot be certain that we will not be subject to any Bermuda tax after March 31, 2035.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the European Union (EU) are considering measures that might encourage countries to increase our taxes.
The OECD has published an action plan to address base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) impacting its member countries and other jurisdictions. It is possible that jurisdictions in which we do business could react to the BEPS initiative or their own concerns by enacting tax legislation that could adversely affect us or our shareholders.

A number of multilateral organizations, including the EU and the OECD have, in recent years, expressed concern about some countries not participating in adequate tax information exchange arrangements and have threatened those that do not agree to


cooperate with punitive sanctions by member countries. It is as yet unclear what all of these sanctions might be, which countries might adopt them, and when or if they might be imposed. We cannot assure, however, that the Tax Information Exchange Agreements (TIEAs) that have been or will be entered into by Switzerland and Bermuda will be sufficient to preclude all of the sanctions described above, which, if ultimately adopted, could adversely affect us or our shareholders.


There are provisions in our charter documents that may reduce the voting rights and diminish the value of our Common Shares.
Our Articles of Association generally provide that shareholders have one vote for each Common Share held by them and are entitled to vote at all meetings of shareholders. However, the voting rights exercisable by a shareholder may be limited so that certain persons or groups are not deemed to hold 10 percent or more of the voting power conferred by our Common Shares. Moreover, these provisions could have the effect of reducing the voting power of some shareholders who would not otherwise be subject to the limitation by virtue of their direct share ownership. Our Board of Directors may refuse to register holders of shares as shareholders with voting rights based on certain grounds, including if the holder would, directly or indirectly, formally, constructively or beneficially own (as described in Articles 8 and 14 of our Articles of Association) or otherwise control voting rights with respect to 10 percent or more of the registered share capital recorded in the commercial register. In addition, the Board of Directors shall reject entry of holders of registered shares as shareholders with voting rights in the share register or shall decide on their deregistration when the acquirer or shareholder upon request does not expressly state that she/he has acquired or holds the shares in her/his own name and for her/his account.

Applicable laws may make it difficult to effect a change of control of our company.
Before a person can acquire control of a U.S. insurance company, prior written approval must be obtained from the insurance commissioner of the state where the domestic insurer is domiciled. Prior to granting approval of an application to acquire control of a domestic insurer, the state insurance commissioner will consider such factors as the financial strength of the applicant, the integrity and management of the applicant's Board of Directors and executive officers, the acquirer's plans for the future operations of the domestic insurer, and any anti-competitive results that may arise from the consummation of the acquisition of control. Generally, state statutes provide that control over a domestic insurer is presumed to exist if any person, directly or indirectly, owns, controls, holds with the power to vote, or holds proxies representing 10 percent or more of the voting securities of the domestic insurer. Because a person acquiring 10 percent or more of our Common Shares would indirectly control the same percentage of the stock of our U.S. insurance subsidiaries, the insurance change of control laws of various U.S. jurisdictions would likely apply to such a transaction. Laws of other jurisdictions in which one or more of our existing subsidiaries are, or a future subsidiary may be, organized or domiciled may contain similar restrictions on the acquisition of control of Chubb.

While our Articles of Association limit the voting power of any shareholder to less than 10 percent, we cannot assure that the applicable regulatory body would agree that a shareholder who owned 10 percent or more of our Common Shares did not, because of the limitation on the voting power of such shares, control the applicable insurance subsidiary.

These laws may discourage potential acquisition proposals and may delay, deter, or prevent a change of control of Chubb, including transactions that some or all of our shareholders might consider to be desirable.

Shareholder voting requirements under Swiss law may limit our flexibility with respect to certain aspects of capital management.
Swiss law allows our shareholders to authorize share capital which can be issued by the Board of Directors without shareholder approval but this authorization must be renewed by the shareholders every two years. Swiss law also does not provide as much flexibility in the various terms that can attach to different classes of stock as permitted in other jurisdictions. Swiss law also reserves for approval by shareholders many corporate actions over which the Board of Directors had authority prior to our redomestication to Switzerland. For example, dividends must be approved by shareholders. While we do not believe that Swiss law requirements relating to our capital management will have an adverse effect on Chubb, we cannot assure that situations will not arise where such flexibility would have provided substantial benefits to our shareholders.

Chubb Limited is a Swiss company; it may be difficult to enforce judgments against it or its directors and executive officers.
Chubb Limited is incorporated pursuant to the laws of Switzerland. In addition, certain of our directors and officers reside outside the U.S. and all or a substantial portion of our assets and the assets of such persons are located in jurisdictions outside the U.S. As such, it may be difficult or impossible to effect service of process within the U.S. upon those persons or to recover against us or them on judgments of U.S. courts, including judgments predicated upon civil liability provisions of the U.S. federal securities laws.


Chubb has been advised by its Swiss counsel that there is doubt as to whether the courts in Switzerland would enforce:
judgments of U.S. courts based upon the civil liability provisions of the U.S. federal securities laws obtained in actions against it or its directors and officers, who reside outside the U.S.; or
original actions brought in Switzerland against these persons or Chubb predicated solely upon U.S. federal securities laws.

Chubb has also been advised by its Swiss counsel that there is no treaty in effect between the U.S. and Switzerland providing for this enforcement and there are grounds upon which Swiss courts may not enforce judgments of U.S. courts. Some remedies available under the laws of U.S. jurisdictions, including some remedies available under the U.S. federal securities laws, would not be allowed in Swiss courts as contrary to that nation's public policy.

Under Swiss law, if we need to raise equity capital at a time when our share price is below the par value of our shares, the equity issuance could be delayed by the need to obtain shareholder approval, which cannot be assured.
As of December 31, 2015, the par value of our Common Shares is CHF 24.15 per share. Under Swiss law, we generally may not issue registered shares below their par value. In the event there is a need to raise common equity capital at a time when the trading price of our registered shares is below our par value, we will need to obtain approval of our shareholders to decrease the par value of our registered shares. We cannot assure that we would be able to obtain such shareholder approval. Furthermore, obtaining shareholder approval would require filing a preliminary proxy statement with the SEC and convening a meeting of shareholders which would delay any capital raising plans. Furthermore, any reduction in par value would decrease our ability to pay dividends as a repayment of share capital which is not subject to Swiss withholding tax. See “Shareholders may be subject to Swiss withholding taxes on the payment of dividends” for additional information.

Shareholders may be subject to Swiss withholding taxes on the payment of dividends.
Our dividends are generally subject to a Swiss withholding tax at a rate of 35 percent; however, payment of a dividend in the form of a par value reduction or qualifying capital contribution reserves reduction is not subject to Swiss withholding tax. We have previously obtained shareholder approval for dividends to be paid in such form. We currently intend to recommend to shareholders that they annually approve the payment of dividends in such form but we cannot assure that our shareholders will continue to approve a reduction in such form each year or that we will be able to meet the other legal requirements for a reduction in par value, or that Swiss withholding tax rules will not be changed in the future. We estimate we would be able to pay dividends in such form, and thus exempt from Swiss withholding tax until 2028–2033. This range may vary depending upon changes in annual dividends, special dividends, fluctuations in U.S. dollar/Swiss franc exchange rates, changes in par value or qualifying capital contribution reserves or changes or new interpretations to Swiss corporate or tax law or regulations.

Under certain circumstances, U. S. shareholders may be subject to adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences.
Under certain circumstances, a U.S. person who owns 10 percent or more of the voting power of a foreign corporation that is a “controlled foreign corporation” (CFC) (a foreign corporation in which 10 percent U.S. shareholders own more than 50 percent of the voting power or value of the stock of a foreign corporation or more than 25 percent of certain foreign insurance corporations) for an uninterrupted period of 30 days or more during a taxable year must include in gross income for U.S. federal income tax purposes such "10 percent U.S. Shareholder's" pro rata share of the CFC's "subpart F income". We believe that because of the dispersion of our share ownership, provisions in our organizational documents that limit voting power, and other factors, no U.S. person who acquires shares of Chubb Limited directly or indirectly through one or more foreign entities should be required to include any subpart F income in income under the CFC rules of U.S. tax law. It is possible, however, that the IRS could challenge the effectiveness of these provisions and that a court could sustain such a challenge, in which case a U.S. person's investment in 10 percent or more of Chubb Limited's stock could be adversely affected.

Separately, any U.S. persons who hold shares may be subject to U.S. federal income taxation at ordinary income tax rates on their proportionate share of our Related Person Insurance Income (RPII). If the RPII of any of our non-U.S. insurance subsidiaries (each a "Non-U.S. Insurance Subsidiary") were to equal or exceed 20 percent of that company's gross insurance income in any taxable year and direct or indirect insureds (and persons related to those insureds) own directly or indirectly through foreign entities 20 percent or more of the voting power or value of Chubb Limited, then a U.S. person who owns any shares of Chubb Limited (directly or indirectly through foreign entities) on the last day of the taxable year would be required to include in his or her income for U.S. federal income tax purposes such person's pro rata share of such company's RPII for the entire taxable year. In addition, any RPII that is includible in the income of a U.S. tax-exempt organization may be treated as unrelated business taxable income. We believe that the gross RPII of each Non-U.S. Insurance Subsidiary did not in prior years of operation and is not expected in the foreseeable future to equal or exceed 20 percent of each such company's gross insurance income. Likewise, we do not expect the direct or indirect insureds of each Non-U.S. Insurance Subsidiary (and persons related to such insureds) to directly or indirectly own 20 percent or more of either the voting power or value of our shares. However, we


cannot be certain that this will be the case because some of the factors which determine the extent of RPII may be beyond our control. If these thresholds are met or exceeded, any U.S. person’s investment in Chubb Limited could be adversely affected.

A U.S. tax-exempt organization may recognize unrelated business taxable income if a portion of our insurance income is allocated to the organization. This generally would be the case if either we are a CFC and the tax-exempt shareholder is a 10 percent U.S. shareholder or there is RPII, certain exceptions do not apply, and the tax-exempt organization, directly or indirectly through foreign entities, owns any shares of Chubb Limited. Although we do not believe that any U.S. tax-exempt organization should be allocated such insurance income, we cannot be certain that this will be the case. Potential U.S. tax-exempt investors are advised to consult their tax advisors.

U.S. persons who hold shares will be subject to adverse tax consequences if we are considered to be a Passive Foreign Investment Company (PFIC) for U.S. federal income tax purposes.
If Chubb Limited is considered a PFIC for U.S. federal income tax purposes, a U.S. person who holds Chubb Limited shares will be subject to adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences in which case their investment could be adversely affected. In addition, if Chubb Limited were considered a PFIC, upon the death of any U.S. individual owning shares, such individual's heirs or estate would not be entitled to a "step-up" in the basis of the shares which might otherwise be available under U.S. federal income tax laws. We believe that we are not, have not been, and currently do not expect to become, a PFIC for U.S. federal income tax purposes. We cannot assure, however, that we will not be deemed a PFIC by the IRS. The IRS issued proposed regulations regarding the application of the PFIC provisions to an insurance company, and final regulations or pronouncements interpreting or clarifying these rules may be forthcoming. We cannot predict what impact, if any, such guidance would have on an investor that is subject to U.S. federal income taxation.

Changes in tax law could adversely affect an investment in our shares.
Legislation is periodically introduced in the U.S. Congress intended to eliminate some perceived tax advantages of companies (including insurance companies) that have legal domiciles outside the U.S. but have certain U.S. connections. It is possible that such legislation or other legislation could be enacted in the future that could have an adverse impact on us or our shareholders.

Similarly, jurisdictions outside the U.S. in which we do business could enact tax legislation in the future that could have an adverse impact on us or our shareholders. For example, Switzerland is currently considering corporate tax reform measures that could adversely affect us or our shareholders.

Risks Relating to the Chubb Acquisition
We have incurred, and will continue to incur, significant integration-related costs in connection with the Chubb Acquisition.
We have incurred and will continue to incur substantial expenses in connection with the Chubb acquisition.
We expect to continue to incur a number of non-recurring costs associated with combining the operations of the two companies and achieving desired synergies. These fees and costs have been, and will continue to be, substantial. These non-recurring expenses will include, among others, severance and benefit costs, employee retention costs, filing fees, and legal and professional fees.
We also will incur fees and costs related to formulating and implementing integration plans, including facilities and systems consolidation costs and employment-related costs. We continue to assess the magnitude of these costs, and additional unanticipated costs may be incurred as of a result of the Chubb acquisition and the integration of the two companies’ businesses. Although we expect that the elimination of duplicative costs, as well as the realization of other efficiencies related to the integration of the businesses, should allow us company to offset integration-related costs over time, this net benefit may not be achieved in the near term, or at all.
These costs described above, as well as other unanticipated costs and expenses, could have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

We may fail to realize all of the anticipated benefits of the Chubb Acquisition.
The success of the Chubb acquisition will depend, in part, on our ability to realize the anticipated benefits and cost savings from combining our businesses. The anticipated benefits and cost savings of the Chubb acquisition may not be realized fully or at all, or may take longer to realize than expected or could have other adverse effects that we do not currently foresee. Some of the assumptions that we have made, such as the achievement of operating synergies, may not be realized. The integration process may result in the loss of key employees from both legacy ACE and Chubb Corporation, the disruption of ongoing businesses or inconsistencies in standards, controls, procedures and policies. There could be potential unknown liabilities and unforeseen expenses associated with the Chubb acquisition that were not discovered in the course of performing due diligence.


Chubb’s results will suffer if it does not effectively manage its expanded operations following the Chubb Acquisition.
Our success will depend, in part, on our ability to manage the expanded business following the merger, which poses numerous risks and uncertainties, including the need to integrate the operations and business of Chubb Corporation into our existing business in an efficient and timely manner, to combine systems and management controls, and to integrate relationships with customers, vendors, and business partners.

The effective tax rate that will apply to Chubb is uncertain and may vary from expectations.
There can be no assurance that the Chubb acquisition will allow us to maintain any particular worldwide effective corporate tax rate. No assurances can be given as to what our company's effective tax rate will be because of, among other things, uncertainty regarding the tax policies of the jurisdictions where it operates. Our company’s actual effective tax rate may vary from its expectations and that variance may be material.
If Section 7874 of the Internal Revenue Code were to apply as a result of the Chubb Acquisition, then we may be required to pay substantial additional U.S. federal income taxes going forward.
Section 7874 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code) would apply if, (i) the percentage (by vote and value) of Chubb common shares considered to be held by former Chubb Corporation shareholders immediately after the Chubb acquisition by reason of holding Chubb Corporation common stock as calculated for Section 7874 purposes (the Section 7874 Percentage) is at least 60 percent, and (ii) the expanded affiliated group that includes Chubb does not have substantial business activities in Switzerland. Determining the Section 7874 Percentage is complex and, with respect to the Chubb acquisition, subject to factual and legal uncertainties, including the uncertain scope and application of possible regulatory action under Section 7874 announced by the IRS and the U.S. Treasury Department in Notices 2014-52 and 2015-79.
If the Section 7874 Percentage were determined to be at least 60 percent, several limitations could apply to us. For example, we would be prohibited from using certain net operating losses, foreign tax credits or other tax attributes, if any, to offset the income or gain recognized by reason of the transfer of property to a foreign related person during the 10-year period following the Chubb acquisition or any income received or accrued during such period by reason of a license of any property by the U.S. corporation to a foreign related person. In addition, the IRS has announced that it intends to promulgate new rules, which may limit the ability to engage in certain restructuring transactions relating to the non-U.S. members of the Chubb Group after the Chubb acquisition. Additionally, recent legislative, regulatory and treaty proposals in the United States would impose certain earnings stripping limitations and reduce potential tax treaty benefits with respect to Chubb and its affiliates if the Section 7874 Percentage is calculated to be at least 60 percent.
Section 7874 is not expected to apply as a result of the Chubb acquisition because the former Chubb Corporation shareholders received less than 60 percent of the legacy ACE common shares (by vote or value) by reason of holding Chubb Corporation common stock. However, it is possible that there could be a change in law under Section 7874 or otherwise (including the promulgation of regulations announced by the IRS and the U.S. Treasury Department in Notices 2014-52 and 2015-79) that could, prospectively or retroactively, adversely affect Chubb and its affiliates.
ITEM 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments
There are currently no unresolved SEC staff comments regarding our periodic or current reports.

ITEM 2. Properties
We maintain office facilities around the world including in North America, Europe (including our principal executive offices in Switzerland), Bermuda, Latin America, Asia Pacific, and the Far East. Most of our office facilities are leased, although we own major facilities in Hamilton, Bermuda, and in the U.S., including in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Wilmington, Delaware. Management considers its office facilities suitable and adequate for the current level of operations.

ITEM 3. Legal Proceedings
The information required with respect to Item 3 is included in Note 10 h) to the Consolidated Financial Statements, which is hereby incorporated herein by reference.

ITEM 4. Mine Safety Disclosures
Item not applicable.


ITEM 5. Market for Registrant's Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Repurchases of Equity Securities

Our Common Shares have been listed on the New York Stock Exchange since March 25, 1993, with a current par value of CHF 24.15 per share. The trading symbol for our Common Shares is "CB."

Quarterly Stock Information
The following table sets forth the high and low closing sales prices of our Common Shares per fiscal quarter, as reported on the New York Stock Exchange Composite Tape, and cash dividends on Common Shares:
Quarter Ending






March 31






June 30






September 30






December 31






On January 10, 2014, our shareholders approved an increase to our dividend from $0.51 per share to $0.63 per share for the final two quarterly installments that had been earlier approved at our 2013 annual general meeting. Due to the timing of the approval, the $0.12 per share increase related to the quarter ended December 31, 2013 installment is included in the quarter ended March 31, 2014 dividend amount. Refer to Note 11 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information.

We have paid dividends each quarter since we became a public company in 1993. Following Chubb's redomestication to Switzerland, our dividends have been distributed primarily by way of a par value reduction. However, at our May 2015 annual general meeting, our shareholders approved an annual dividend to be paid by way of a distribution from capital contribution reserves (Additional paid-in capital) through the transfer of dividends from Additional paid-in capital to Retained earnings (free reserves). This methodology was also used for the dividend increase approved by our shareholders on January 10, 2014.

Chubb Limited is a holding company whose principal sources of income are investment income and dividends from its operating subsidiaries. The ability of the operating subsidiaries to pay dividends to us and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders are each subject to legal and regulatory restrictions. The recommendation and payment of future dividends will be based on the determination of the Board of Directors (Board) and will be dependent upon shareholder approval, profits and financial requirements of Chubb and other factors, including legal restrictions on the payment of dividends and such other factors as the Board deems relevant. Refer to Part I, Item 1A and Part II, Item 7 for additional information.

The last reported sale price of the Common Shares on the New York Stock Exchange Composite Tape on February 12, 2016 was $114.31.

The number of record holders of Common Shares as of February 12, 2016 was 7,893. This is not the actual number of beneficial owners of Chubb's Common Shares since most of our shareholders hold their shares through a stockbroker, bank or other nominee rather than directly in their own name. This number of record holders includes the beneficial owners of the shares issued in connection with The Chubb Corporation acquisition.

Refer to Part III, Item 12 for information relating to compensation plans under which equity securities are authorized for issuance.


Issuer's Repurchases of Equity Securities
Total Number of Shares Purchased(1)

Average Price
Paid per Share

Approximate Dollar Value of Shares that May Yet be Purchased Under Publicly Announced Plan(2)

October 1 through October 31


November 1 through November 30


December 1 through December 31




This column includes activity related to the surrender to Chubb of common shares to satisfy tax withholding obligations in connection with the vesting of restricted stock issued to employees and the exercising of options by employees.
There are no outstanding share repurchase authorizations at December 31, 2015.

Performance Graph
Set forth below is a line graph comparing the dollar change in the cumulative total shareholder return on Chubb's Common Shares from December 31, 2010, through December 31, 2015, as compared to the cumulative total return of the Standard & Poor's 500 Stock Index and the cumulative total return of the Standard & Poor's Property-Casualty Insurance Index. The cumulative total shareholder return is a concept used to compare the performance of a company's stock over time and is the ratio of the stock price change plus the cumulative amount of dividends over the specified time period (assuming dividend reinvestment), to the stock price at the beginning of the time period. The chart depicts the value on December 31, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015, of a $100 investment made on December 31, 2010, with all dividends reinvested.
Chubb Limited
S&P 500 Index
S&P 500 P&C Index


ITEM 6. Selected Financial Data
(in millions, except per share data and percentages)





Operations data:
Net premiums earned – excluding Life segment





Net premiums earned – Life segment





Total net premiums earned





Net investment income





Losses and loss expenses





Policy benefits





Policy acquisition costs and administrative expenses





Net income





Weighted-average shares outstanding – diluted





Diluted earnings per share





Balance sheet data (at end of period):
Total investments





Total assets





Net unpaid losses and loss expenses





Net future policy benefits





Long-term debt





Trust preferred securities





Total liabilities





Shareholders' equity





Book value per share





Selected data:
Loss and loss expense ratio (1)
Underwriting and administrative expense ratio (2)
Combined ratio (3)
Net loss reserves to capital and surplus ratio (4)
Cash dividends per share (5)





The loss and loss expense ratio is calculated by dividing Losses and loss expenses, excluding the Life segment, by Net premiums earned – excluding Life segment. Losses and loss expenses for the Life segment were $601 million, $589 million, $582 million, $611 million, and $593 million for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, and 2011, respectively.
The underwriting and administrative expense ratio is calculated by dividing the Policy acquisition costs and administrative expenses, excluding the Life segment, by Net premiums earned – excluding Life segment. Policy acquisition costs and administrative expenses for the Life segment were $767 million, $763 million, $701 million, $662 million, and $656 million for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, and 2011, respectively.
The combined ratio is the sum of loss and loss expense ratio and the underwriting and administrative expense ratio.
The net loss reserves to capital and surplus ratio is calculated by dividing the sum of the Net unpaid losses and loss expenses and Net future policy benefits by Shareholders' equity.
Cash dividends per share in 2014 and 2012 include a $0.12 per share increase related to the fourth quarter 2013 and 2011 dividend installments, approved by our shareholders on January 10, 2014 and January 9, 2012, respectively.


ITEM 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

The following is a discussion of our results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity and capital resources as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015. This discussion should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and related Notes, under Item 8 of this Form 10-K.

All comparisons in this discussion are to the corresponding prior year unless otherwise indicated.


Forward-Looking Statements
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides a “safe harbor” for forward-looking statements. Any written or oral statements made by us or on our behalf may include forward-looking statements that reflect our current views with respect to future events and financial performance. These forward-looking statements are subject to certain risks, uncertainties, and other factors that could, should potential events occur, cause actual results to differ materially from such statements. These risks, uncertainties, and other factors, which are described in more detail under Part I, Item 1A, under Risk Factors, starting on page 19 and elsewhere herein and in other documents we file with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), include but are not limited to:
losses arising out of natural or man-made catastrophes such as hurricanes, typhoons, earthquakes, floods, climate change (including effects on weather patterns; greenhouse gases; sea; land and air temperatures; sea levels; and rain and snow), nuclear accidents, or terrorism which could be affected by:
the number of insureds and ceding companies affected;
the amount and timing of losses actually incurred and reported by insureds;
the impact of these losses on our reinsurers and the amount and timing of reinsurance recoverable actually received;
the cost of building materials and labor to reconstruct properties or to perform environmental remediation following a catastrophic event; and
complex coverage and regulatory issues such as whether losses occurred from storm surge or flooding and related lawsuits;
actions that rating agencies may take from time to time, such as financial strength or credit ratings downgrades or placing these ratings on credit watch negative or the equivalent;
the ability to collect reinsurance recoverable, credit developments of reinsurers, and any delays with respect thereto and changes in the cost, quality, or availability of reinsurance;
actual loss experience from insured or reinsured events and the timing of claim payments;
the uncertainties of the loss-reserving and claims-settlement processes, including the difficulties associated with assessing environmental damage and asbestos-related latent injuries, the impact of aggregate-policy-coverage limits, the impact of bankruptcy protection sought by various asbestos producers and other related businesses, and the timing of loss payments;
changes to our assessment as to whether it is more likely than not that we will be required to sell, or have the intent to sell, available for sale fixed maturity investments before their anticipated recovery;
infection rates and severity of pandemics and their effects on our business operations and claims activity;
developments in global financial markets, including changes in interest rates, stock markets, and other financial markets, increased government involvement or intervention in the financial services industry, the cost and availability of financing, and foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations (which we refer to in this report as foreign exchange and foreign currency exchange), which could affect our statement of operations, investment portfolio, financial condition, and financing plans;
general economic and business conditions resulting from volatility in the stock and credit markets and the depth and duration of potential recession;
global political conditions, the occurrence of any terrorist attacks, including any nuclear, radiological, biological, or chemical events, or the outbreak and effects of war, and possible business disruption or economic contraction that may result from such events;
judicial decisions and rulings, new theories of liability, legal tactics, and settlement terms;
the effects of public company bankruptcies and/or accounting restatements, as well as disclosures by and investigations of public companies relating to possible accounting irregularities, and other corporate governance issues, including the effects of such events on:
the capital markets;
the markets for directors and officers (D&O) and errors and omissions (E&O) insurance; and
claims and litigation arising out of such disclosures or practices by other companies;


uncertainties relating to governmental, legislative and regulatory policies, developments, actions, investigations, and treaties, which, among other things, could subject us to insurance regulation or taxation in additional jurisdictions or affect our current operations;
the actual amount of new and renewal business, market acceptance of our products, and risks associated with the introduction of new products and services and entering new markets, including regulatory constraints on exit strategies;
the competitive environment in which we operate, including trends in pricing or in policy terms and conditions, which may differ from our projections and changes in market conditions that could render our business strategies ineffective or obsolete;
acquisitions made by us performing differently than expected, our failure to realize anticipated expense-related efficiencies or growth from acquisitions, the impact of acquisitions on our pre-existing organization, or announced acquisitions not closing;
risks and uncertainties relating to our the acquisition of The Chubb Corporation including our ability to successfully integrate the acquired company;
risks associated with being a Swiss corporation, including reduced flexibility with respect to certain aspects of capital management and the potential for additional regulatory burdens;
the potential impact from government-mandated insurance coverage for acts of terrorism;
the availability of borrowings and letters of credit under our credit facilities;
the adequacy of collateral supporting funded high deductible programs;
changes in the distribution or placement of risks due to increased consolidation of insurance and reinsurance brokers;
material differences between actual and expected assessments for guaranty funds and mandatory pooling arrangements;
the effects of investigations into market practices in the property and casualty (P&C) industry;
changing rates of inflation and other economic conditions, for example, recession;
the amount of dividends received from subsidiaries;
loss of the services of any of our executive officers without suitable replacements being recruited in a reasonable time frame;
the ability of our technology resources, including information systems and security, to perform as anticipated such as with respect to preventing material information technology failures or third-party infiltrations or hacking resulting in consequences adverse to Chubb or its customers or partners; and
management’s response to these factors and actual events (including, but not limited to, those described above).
The words “believe,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “project,” “should,” “plan,” “expect,” “intend,” “hope,” “feel,” “foresee,” “will likely result,” or “will continue,” and variations thereof and similar expressions, identify forward-looking statements. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of their dates. We undertake no obligation to publicly update or review any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.


Through December 31, 2015, we operated through five business segments: Insurance – North American P&C, Insurance – North American Agriculture, Insurance – Overseas General, Global Reinsurance, and Life. For more information on our segments refer to “Segment Information” under Item 1.

We have grown our business through increased premium volume, expansion of product offerings and geographic reach, and acquisitions of other companies. Acquisitions in 2015, 2014, and 2013 are as follows:
Insurance – North American P&C: the Fireman's Fund Insurance Company high net worth personal lines insurance business in the U.S. (April 1, 2015).
Insurance – Overseas General:
The large corporate account property and casualty (P&C) insurance business of Itaú Seguros (Itaú Seguros) (October 31, 2014);
The Siam Commercial Samaggi Insurance PCL (Samaggi) (we and our local partner acquired 60.86 percent ownership on April 28, 2014, and subsequently acquired an additional 32.17 percent ownership through a mandatory tender offer, which expired on June 17, 2014);
ABA Seguros (May 2, 2013);
Fianzas Monterrey (April 1, 2013); and
PT Asuransi Jaya Proteksi (JaPro) (we acquired 80 percent on September 18, 2012, and our local partner acquired the remaining 20 percent on January 3, 2013).

The consolidated financial statements include results of acquired businesses from the acquisition dates.

On January 14, 2016, we completed the acquisition of The Chubb Corporation (Chubb acquisition), a leading provider of middle-market commercial, specialty, surety, and personal insurance. Together, we expect the combined company, which operates under the Chubb brand, to be a global leader in commercial, specialty, and personal P&C insurance. The financial condition of the combined company, results of operations, liquidity, and capital resources are expected to materially change in 2016 and subsequent years.

Refer to Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information on our acquisitions.

Our product and geographic diversification differentiates us from the vast majority of our competitors and has been a source of stability during periods of industry volatility. Our long-term business strategy focuses on sustained growth in book value achieved through a combination of underwriting and investment income. By doing so, we provide value to our clients and shareholders through use of our substantial capital base in the insurance and reinsurance markets.

We are organized along a profit center structure by line of business and territory that does not necessarily correspond to corporate legal entities. Profit centers can access various legal entities, subject to licensing and other regulatory rules. Profit centers are expected to generate underwriting income and appropriate risk-adjusted returns. Our corporate structure has facilitated the development of management talent by giving each profit center's senior management team the necessary autonomy within underwriting authorities to make operating decisions and create products and coverages needed by its target customer base. We are focused on delivering underwriting profit by only writing policies which we believe adequately compensate us for the risk we accept.

Our insurance and reinsurance operations generate gross revenues from two principal sources: premiums and investment income. Cash flow is generated from premiums collected and investment income received less paid losses and loss expenses, policy acquisition costs, and administrative expenses. Invested assets are substantially held in liquid, investment grade fixed income securities of relatively short duration. Claims payments in any short-term period are highly unpredictable due to the random nature of loss events and the timing of claims awards or settlements. The value of investments held to pay future claims is subject to market forces such as the level of interest rates, stock market volatility, and credit events such as corporate defaults. The actual cost of claims is also volatile based on loss trends, inflation rates, court awards, and catastrophes. We believe that our cash balance, our highly liquid investments, credit facilities, and reinsurance protection provide sufficient liquidity to meet unforeseen claim demands that might occur in the year ahead. Refer to “Liquidity” and “Capital Resources” for additional information.


Financial Highlights for the Year Ended December 31, 2015

Net income was $2,834 million compared with $2,853 million last year.
Total company net premiums written decreased 0.5 percent (increased 5.1 percent in constant dollars). Net premiums written included $252 million from the transfer of the Fireman's Fund in-force business at the time of the transaction and will be non-recurring in 2016.
P&C combined ratio was 87.4 percent compared with 87.7 percent in 2014. The GAAP combined ratio was 87.3 percent compared with 88.1 percent in 2014.
The current accident year P&C combined ratio excluding catastrophe losses was 88.8 percent compared with 89.3 percent in 2014.
The P&C expense ratio was 29.2 percent compared with 29.4 percent in 2014.
Total pre-tax and after-tax catastrophe losses including reinstatement premiums were $322 million (2.1 percentage points of the combined ratio) and $272 million, respectively, compared with $288 million (1.8 percentage points of the combined ratio) and $249 million, respectively, in 2014.
Favorable prior period development pre-tax and after-tax were $546 million (3.5 percentage points of the combined ratio) and $474 million, respectively, compared with $527 million (3.4 percentage points of the combined ratio) and $459 million, respectively, in 2014.
Operating cash flow was $3.9 billion compared with $4.5 billion in 2014. Refer to “Liquidity” for additional information on our cash flows.
Net investment income was $2.2 billion compared with $2.3 billion in 2014, down 2.6 percent, primarily reflecting the negative impact of foreign exchange of $49 million.
Shareholders' equity declined during the year, as net income was more than offset by the negative impact of unrealized losses in our investment portfolio and unfavorable foreign currency movement, together totaling $2 billion, after-tax, dividends on common shares, and share repurchases during the year.
The acquisition of The Chubb Corporation (Chubb acquisition) for $29.5 billion was completed on January 14, 2016, and included $14.3 billion in cash (including proceeds from the issuance of $5.3 billion of senior notes in November 2015) and $15.2 billion in newly issued stock. In addition, we assumed outstanding equity awards to employees and directors with an attributed value of approximately $340 million.
Integration expenses related to the Chubb acquisition were $33 million, pre-tax, or $23 million, after-tax, in 2015 and include legal and professional fees and all costs directly related to the integration activities of the Chubb acquisition.

All divisions contributed positively to net income in 2015, driven by excellent underwriting results resulting in a record low combined ratio and strong investment income, despite the adverse impact of foreign exchange. On a constant-dollar basis, net premiums written grew over 5 percent, primarily in North America, Latin America, and Asia, and Net investment income declined less than one percent, despite historic low interest rates.

We completed the acquisition of the Fireman’s Fund high net worth personal lines business in the U.S. and launched ABR Reinsurance Ltd. (ABR Re), an independent reinsurance company. We own approximately 11.3 percent of the common equity of ABR Re's holding company. Through long-term arrangements, Chubb will be the sole source of reinsurance risks ceded to ABR Re. We also closed on our acquisition of The Chubb Corporation in January 2016 creating what we expect to be a global leader, operating under the Chubb brand, in commercial P&C for customers of many sizes, a premier provider of personal lines to high net worth individuals and families in the U.S., and a global leader in professional lines, commercial, specialty, and A&H. Our growth plans include new product capabilities into the middle market and agency channels. With respect to 2016 earnings of the combined entities, we estimate an investment income run rate for a full quarter of approximately $810 million to $825 million. We are now executing a detailed integration road map globally with integration plans on track including expense and growth-related initiatives. Our expected expense synergy target at this time for the Chubb acquisition is a $650 million annual run rate by the end of 2018. Our current estimate of integration costs is $535


million with an additional $100 million in branding-related expenses. We plan to update these estimates at the end of the first quarter of 2016.

Critical Accounting Estimates
Our consolidated financial statements include amounts that, either by their nature or due to requirements of generally accepted accounting principles in the U.S. (GAAP), are determined using best estimates and assumptions. While we believe that the amounts included in our consolidated financial statements reflect our best judgment, actual amounts could ultimately materially differ from those currently presented. We believe the items that require the most subjective and complex estimates are:

unpaid loss and loss expense reserves, including long-tail asbestos and environmental (A&E) reserves;
future policy benefits reserves;
the valuation of value of business acquired (VOBA) and amortization of deferred policy acquisition costs and VOBA;
the assessment of risk transfer for certain structured insurance and reinsurance contracts;
reinsurance recoverable, including a provision for uncollectible reinsurance;
the valuation of our investment portfolio and assessment of other-than-temporary impairments (OTTI);
the valuation of deferred tax assets;
the valuation of derivative instruments related to guaranteed living benefits (GLB); and
the assessment of goodwill for impairment.

We believe our accounting policies for these items are of critical importance to our consolidated financial statements. The following discussion provides more information regarding the estimates and assumptions required to arrive at these amounts and should be read in conjunction with the sections entitled: Prior Period Development, Asbestos and Environmental (A&E), Reinsurance Recoverable on Ceded Reinsurance, Investments, Net Realized and Unrealized Gains (Losses), and Other Income and Expense Items.

Unpaid losses and loss expenses
As an insurance and reinsurance company, we are required by applicable laws and regulations and GAAP to establish loss and loss expense reserves for the estimated unpaid portion of the ultimate liability for losses and loss expenses under the terms of our policies and agreements with our insured and reinsured customers. At December 31, 2015, our gross unpaid loss and loss expense reserves were $37.3 billion and our net unpaid loss and loss expense reserves were $26.6 billion. With the exception of certain structured settlements, for which the timing and amount of future claim payments are reliably determinable, and certain reserves for unsettled claims that are discounted in statutory filings, our loss reserves are not discounted for the time value of money. In connection with such structured settlements and certain reserves for unsettled claims, we carried net discounted reserves of $92 million and $111 million at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

The following table presents a roll-forward of our unpaid losses and loss expenses:
December 31, 2015
December 31, 2014
(in millions of U.S. dollars)






Balance, beginning of year






Losses and loss expenses incurred






Losses and loss expenses paid
Other (including foreign exchange translation)
Losses and loss expenses acquired






Balance, end of year






Net of provision for uncollectible reinsurance.
The estimate of the liabilities includes provisions for claims that have been reported but are unpaid at the balance sheet date (case reserves) and for obligations on claims that have been incurred but not reported (IBNR) at the balance sheet date. IBNR


may also include provisions to account for the possibility that reported claims may settle for amounts that differ from the established case reserves. Loss reserves also include an estimate of expenses associated with processing and settling unpaid claims (loss expenses). Our loss reserves comprise approximately 85 percent casualty-related business, which typically encompasses long-tail risks and other risks where a high degree of judgment is required (see discussion below on reserving for long-tail business).

The following table segregates loss reserves by three broad line of business groupings: property and all other, casualty, and A&H (or personal accident). In the table, loss expenses are defined to include unallocated and allocated loss adjustment expenses.
December 31, 2015
December 31, 2014
(in millions of U.S. dollars)






Property and all other
Case reserves






Loss expenses






IBNR reserves












Case reserves






Loss expenses






IBNR reserves












Case reserves






Loss expenses






IBNR reserves












Case reserves






Loss expenses






IBNR reserves












The process of establishing loss reserves for property and casualty claims can be complex and is subject to considerable uncertainty as it requires the use of informed estimates and judgments based on circumstances underlying the insured loss known at the date of accrual. For example, the reserves established for high excess casualty claims, asbestos and environmental claims, claims from major catastrophic events or for our various product lines each require different assumptions and judgments to be made. Necessary judgments are based on numerous factors and may be revised as additional experience and other data become available and are reviewed, as new or improved methods are developed, or as laws change. Hence, ultimate loss payments may differ from the estimate of the ultimate liabilities made at the balance sheet date. Changes to our previous estimates of prior period loss reserves impact the reported calendar year underwriting results, adversely if our estimates increase and favorably if our estimates decrease. The potential for variation in loss reserve estimates is impacted by numerous factors, which we discuss below (see also the section on reserving for long-tail business). Reserve estimates for casualty lines are particularly uncertain given the lengthy reporting patterns and corresponding need for IBNR.

Case reserves for those claims reported by insureds or ceding companies to us prior to the balance sheet date, and where we have sufficient information, are determined by our claims personnel as appropriate based on the circumstances of the claim(s), standard claim handling practices, and professional judgment. Furthermore, for our Brandywine run-off operations and our
assumed reinsurance operation, Global Reinsurance, we may adjust the case reserves as notified by the ceding company via use of an additional case reserve if the judgment of our respective claims department differs from that of the cedant (see also the Assumed reinsurance section below).

With respect to IBNR reserves, and those claims that have been incurred but not reported prior to the balance sheet date, there is, by definition, limited actual information to form the case reserve estimate and reliance is placed upon historical loss


experience and actuarial methods to estimate the ultimate loss obligations and the corresponding amount of IBNR. IBNR reserve estimates are generally calculated by first projecting the ultimate amount of losses for a product line and subtracting paid losses and case reserves for reported claims. The judgments involved in projecting the ultimate losses may pertain to the use and interpretation of various standard actuarial reserving methods that place reliance on the extrapolation of actual historical data, loss development patterns, industry data, and other benchmarks as appropriate. The estimate of the required IBNR reserve also requires judgment by actuaries and management to reflect the impact of more contemporary and subjective factors, both qualitative and quantitative. Among some of these factors that might be considered are changes in business mix or volume, changes in ceded reinsurance structures, changes in claims handling practices, reported and projected loss trends, inflation, the legal environment, and the terms and conditions of the contracts sold to our insured parties.

Determining management's best estimate
Our recorded reserves represent management's best estimate of the provision for unpaid claims as of the balance sheet date. Management's best estimate is developed after collaboration with actuarial, underwriting, claims, legal, and finance departments and culminates with the input of reserve committees. Each business unit reserve committee includes the participation of the relevant parties from actuarial, finance, claims, and unit senior management and has the responsibility for finalizing, recommending and approving the estimate to be used as management's best estimate. Reserves are further reviewed by Chubb's Chief Actuary and senior management. The objective of such a process is to determine a single estimate that we believe represents a better estimate than any other and which is viewed by management to be the best estimate of ultimate loss settlements.

This estimate is generally based on a combination of exposure and experience based actuarial methods (described below) and other considerations such as claims reviews, reinsurance recovery assumptions and/or input from other subject matter experts such as underwriting. Exposure-based methods are most commonly used on relatively immature origin years while experience-based methods provide a view based on the projection of loss experience that has emerged as of the valuation date. Greater reliance is placed upon experience-based methods as the pool of emerging loss experience grows and where it is deemed sufficiently credible and reliable as the basis for the estimate. In comparing the held reserve for any given origin year to the actuarial projections, judgment is required as to the credibility, uncertainty and inherent limitations of applying actuarial techniques to historical data to project future loss experience. Examples of factors that impact such judgments include, but are not limited to, the following:
nature and complexity of underlying coverage provided and net limits of exposure provided;
segmentation of data to provide sufficient homogeneity and credibility for loss projection methods;
extent of credible internal historical loss data and reliance upon industry information as required;
historical variability of actual loss emergence compared with expected loss emergence;
extent of emerged loss experience relative to the remaining expected period of loss emergence;
rate monitor information for new and renewal business;
facts and circumstances of large claims;
impact of applicable reinsurance recoveries; and
nature and extent of underlying assumptions.
Management does not build in any specific provision for uncertainty.
We do not calculate ranges of loss reserve estimates for our individual loss reserve studies, given the lack of robust statistical approaches and the limited usefulness for such information in decision making. Determining such ranges is a complex and uncertain process, and such ranges generally do not capture the potential changes in external and internal circumstances between the balance sheet date and the final settlement date that may impact the ultimate value of loss. While we believe that our recorded reserves are reasonable and represent management's best estimate for each product line as of the current valuation date, future changes to our view of the ultimate liabilities are possible. A five percent change in our net loss reserves equates to $1.3 billion and represents five percent of shareholders' equity at December 31, 2015. Historically our reserves, at times, have developed in excess of 10 percent of recorded amounts. Refer to “Analysis of Losses and Loss Expenses Development”, under Item 1, for a summary of historical volatility between estimated loss reserves and ultimate loss settlements.

We have actuarial staff within each of our business units who analyze loss reserves and regularly project estimates of ultimate losses and the corresponding indications of the required IBNR reserve. Note that losses include loss expenses for the purposes


of this discussion. We perform an actuarial reserve review for each product line at least once a year. At the conclusion of each review, we establish an actuarial central estimate. The process to select the actuarial central estimate, when more than one estimate is available, may differ across product lines. For example, an actuary may base the central estimate on loss projections developed using an incurred loss development approach instead of a paid loss development approach when reported losses are viewed to be a more credible indication of the ultimate loss compared with paid losses. The availability of estimates for different projection techniques will depend upon the product line, the underwriting circumstances, and the maturity of the loss emergence. For a well-established product line with sufficient volume and history and low volatility, the actuarial central estimate may be drawn from a weighting of paid and reported loss development and/or Bornhuetter-Ferguson methods (described below). However, for a new long-tail product line for which we have limited data and experience, a rapidly growing line, or an established line with volatile experience, the emerging loss experience may not have sufficient credibility to allow selection of loss development or Bornhuetter-Ferguson methods and reliance may be placed upon the expected loss ratio method (described below) until the experience matures and becomes credible.

Typically, for each product line, one or more standard actuarial reserving methods may be used to estimate ultimate losses and loss expenses, and from these estimates, a single actuarial central estimate is selected. Exceptions to the use of standard actuarial projection methods occur for individual claims of significance that require complex legal, claims, and actuarial analysis and judgment (for example, A&E account projections or high excess casualty/professional lines accounts in litigation) or for product lines where the nature of the claims experience and/or availability of the data prevent application of such standard methods. In addition, claims arising from certain catastrophic events require evaluations that do not utilize standard actuarial loss projection methods but are based upon our exposure at the time of the event and the circumstances of the catastrophe and its post-event impact.

In addition to the annual loss reserve studies performed for each product line, we review the emergence of actual losses relative to expectations for most product lines each quarter. If warranted from findings in loss emergence tests, we may alter the timing of our product line reserve studies. Finally, loss reserve studies are performed annually by external third-parties and the findings are used to provide management an independent assessment of our internal findings.

Standard actuarial reserving methods
Standard actuarial reserving methods include, but are not limited to, expected loss ratio, paid and reported loss development, and Bornhuetter-Ferguson methods. A general description of these methods is provided below. In the subsequent discussion on short-tail and long-tail business, reference is also made, where appropriate, to how consideration in method selection impacted 2015 results. In addition to these standard methods, depending upon the product line characteristics and available data we may use other recognized actuarial methods and approaches. To ensure that the projections of future loss emergence based on historical loss development patterns are representative of the underlying business, historical loss and premium data is required to be of sufficient homogeneity and credibility. For example, to improve data homogeneity, we may subdivide product line data further by similar risk attribute (e.g., geography, coverage such as property versus liability exposure, or elements of program structure such as attachments or limits), project ultimate losses for these homogeneous groups and then combine the results to provide the overall product line estimate. The premium and loss data are aggregated by origin year (e.g., the year in which the losses were incurred - “accident year” or “report year”) and annual or quarterly development periods, and data at all valuations is converted at the same foreign exchange rates in order to avoid distortions from exchange rate movements over time. Implicit in the standard actuarial methods that we generally utilize is the need for two fundamental assumptions: first, the pattern by which losses are expected to emerge over time for each origin year, and second the expected loss ratio for each origin year.

The expected loss ratio for any particular origin year is selected after consideration of a number of factors, including historical loss ratios adjusted for rate changes, premium and loss trends, industry benchmarks, the results of policy level loss modeling at the time of underwriting, and/or other more subjective considerations for the product line (e.g., terms and conditions) and external environment as noted above. The expected loss ratio for a given origin year is initially established at the start of the origin year as part of the planning process. This analysis is performed in conjunction with underwriters and management. The expected loss ratio method arrives at an ultimate loss estimate by multiplying the expected ultimate loss ratio by the corresponding premium base. This method is most commonly used as the basis for the actuarial central estimate for immature origin periods on product lines where the actual paid or reported loss experience is not yet deemed sufficiently credible to serve as the principal basis for the selection of ultimate losses. The expected loss ratio for a given origin year may be modified over time if the underlying assumptions differ from the original assumptions (for example, the assessment of prior year loss ratios, loss trend, rate changes, actual claims, or other information).

Our selected paid and reported development patterns provide a benchmark against which the actual emerging loss experience can be monitored. Where possible, development patterns are selected based on historical loss emergence by origin year with


appropriate allowance for changes in business mix, claims handling process, and/or ceded reinsurance that are likely to lead to a discernible difference between the rate of historical and future loss emergence. For product lines where the historical data is viewed to have low statistical credibility, the selected development patterns also reflect relevant industry benchmarks and/or experience from similar product lines written elsewhere within Chubb. This most commonly occurs for relatively new product lines that have limited historical data or for high severity/low frequency portfolios where our historical experience exhibits considerable volatility and/or lacks credibility. The paid and reported loss development methods convert the selected loss emergence pattern to a set of multiplicative factors which are then applied to actual paid or reported losses to arrive at an estimate of ultimate losses for each period. Due to their multiplicative nature, the paid and reported loss development methods will leverage differences between actual and expected loss emergence. These methods tend to be utilized for more mature origin periods and for those portfolios where the loss emergence has been relatively consistent over time.

The Bornhuetter-Ferguson method is essentially a combination of the expected loss ratio method and the loss development method, where the loss development method is given more weight as the origin year matures. This approach allows a logical transition between the expected loss ratio method which is generally utilized at earlier maturities and the loss development methods which are typically utilized at later maturities. We usually apply this method using reported loss data although paid data may also be used.

The applicability of actuarial methods will also be impacted by the attachment point of the policy or contract with the insured or ceding company. In the case of low attachment points typical of primary insurance or working layer reinsurance, the experience tends to be more frequency driven. For these product types, standard actuarial methods are generally applicable in determining loss reserve levels given sufficient history and credible loss experience (although still subject to the same limitations and uncertainties described elsewhere in this section, for example, changing inflationary or legal environments). In the case of high attachment points typical of excess insurance or excess of loss reinsurance, the experience tends to be severity driven, as only a loss of significant size will enter the layer. For these product lines, it typically takes longer for loss experience to gain credibility, which adds uncertainty to the estimates derived from standard actuarial methods. For products such as our assumed reinsurance business, we typically supplement the standard actuarial methods with an analysis of each contract's terms, original pricing information, subsequent internal and external analyses of the ongoing contracts, market exposures and history, and qualitative input from claims managers. This approach is also used for structured or unique contracts.

Short-tail and long-tail business
The time period between the date of loss occurrence and the final payment date of the ensuing claim(s) is referred to as the "claim-tail." The following is a discussion of specific reserving considerations for both short-tail and long-tail product lines. In this section, we reference the nature of recent prior period development to give a high-level understanding of how these considerations translate through the reserving process into financial decisions. Refer to Note 7 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information on prior period development.

Short-tail business
Short-tail business generally describes product lines for which losses are typically known and paid shortly after the loss actually occurs. This would include, for example, most property, personal accident, aviation hull, and automobile physical damage policies that we write. There are some exceptions on certain product lines or events (e.g., major hurricanes or aviation crashes) where the event has occurred, but the final settlement amount is highly uncertain (e.g., coverage disputes or liability-related claims) and not known with certainty for a potentially lengthy period. Due to the short reporting and development pattern for these product lines, the uncertainty associated with our estimate of ultimate losses for any particular accident period diminishes relatively quickly as actual loss experience emerges. We typically assign credibility to methods that incorporate actual loss emergence, such as the paid and reported loss development and Bornhuetter-Ferguson methods, sooner than would be the case for long-tail lines at a similar stage of development for a given origin year. The reserving process for short-tail losses arising from catastrophic events typically involves an assessment by the claims department, in conjunction with underwriters and actuaries, of our exposure and estimated losses immediately following an event and then subsequent revisions of the estimated losses as our insureds provide updated actual loss information.

For origin year 2015, loss reserves for short-tail lines were typically established for the non-catastrophe exposures using a combination of the initial expected loss ratio method (see above) and loss development methods that incorporate actual loss emergence. As the year progressed, we also adjusted these reserves for non-catastrophe large loss activity that we considered to be greater or less than the assumptions used to establish the initial expected loss ratio. Catastrophe activity was relatively low in 2015 and accordingly the judgments and uncertainties used to establish reserves for incurred catastrophe events were correspondingly less complex. For our short-tail businesses taken as a whole, overall loss trend assumptions did not differ significantly relative to prior years.


In terms of prior accident years, the bulk of the changes made in the 2015 calendar year arose from origin years 2010 through 2013. Specifically, the Insurance – North American P&C, Insurance – Overseas General, and Global Reinsurance segments experienced $70 million, $177 million, and $13 million of favorable prior period development, respectively, primarily due to lower than anticipated loss emergence rather than any significant changes to underlying actuarial assumptions such as loss development patterns. This favorable prior period development was primarily the result of changes to the ultimate loss estimates for origin years 2012 and 2013 for Insurance – North American P&C, origin years 2010 through 2013 for Insurance – Overseas General, and origin year 2001 for Global Reinsurance. Insurance – North American Agriculture experienced $45 million of favorable prior period development primarily due to better than expected claim development for the 2014 crop year in our Multiple Peril Crop Insurance business.

Long-tail business
Long-tail business describes lines of business for which specific losses may not be known/reported for some period and for which claims can take significant time to settle/close. This includes most casualty lines such as general liability, D&O, and workers' compensation. There are various factors contributing to the uncertainty and volatility of long-tail business. Among these are:
The nature and complexity of underlying coverage provided and net limits of exposure provided;
Our historical loss data and experience is sometimes too immature and lacking in credibility to rely upon for reserving purposes. Where this is the case, in our reserve analysis we may utilize industry loss ratios or industry benchmark development patterns that we believe reflect the nature and coverage of the underwritten business and its future development, where available. For such product lines, actual loss experience may differ from industry loss statistics as well as loss experience for previous underwriting years;
The considerable inherent uncertainty around loss trends, claims inflation (e.g., medical and judicial) and underlying economic conditions;
The inherent uncertainty of the estimated duration of the paid and reported loss development patterns beyond the historical record requires that professional judgment be used in the determination of the length of the patterns based on the historical data and other information;
The inherent uncertainty of assuming that historical paid and reported loss development patterns for older origin years will be representative of subsequent loss emergence on recent origin years. For example, changes over time in the processes and procedures for establishing case reserves can distort reported loss development patterns or changes in ceded reinsurance structures by origin year can alter the development of paid and reported losses;
Loss reserve analyses typically require loss or other data be grouped by common characteristics in some manner. If data from two combined lines of business exhibit different characteristics, such as loss payment patterns, the credibility of the reserve estimate could be affected. Additionally, since casualty lines of business can have significant intricacies in the terms and conditions afforded to the insured, there is an inherent risk as to the homogeneity of the underlying data used in performing reserve analyses; and
The applicability of the price change data used to estimate ultimate loss ratios for most recent origin years.
As can be seen from the above, various factors are considered when determining appropriate data, assumptions, and methods used to establish the loss reserve estimates for long-tail product lines. These factors may also vary by origin year for given product lines. The derivation of loss development patterns from data and the selection of a tail factor to project ultimate losses from actual loss emergence require considerable judgment, particularly with respect to the extent to which historical loss experience is relied upon to support changes in key reserving assumptions. Examples of the relationship between changes in historical loss experience and key reserving assumptions are provided below.

For those long-tail product lines that are less claim frequency and more claim severity oriented, such as high excess professional and casualty lines, we placed more reliance upon expert legal and claims review of the specific circumstances underlying reported cases rather than loss development patterns. Where appropriate, we then supplemented this with loss development and Bornhuetter-Ferguson approaches to provide for claims that have been reported but are too immature to develop individual claims estimates and also to provide for claims that have occurred but have not been reported. The assumptions used for these lines of business are updated over time to reflect new claim and legal advice judged to be of significance.

Our assumptions on loss trend and development patterns reflect reliance on our historical loss data provided the length and volume of history and homogeneity afford credibility. For those lines where our internal historical experience lacks credibility, we may place reliance upon the latest benchmark patterns (where available) from external industry bodies such as Insurance


Services Office (ISO) or the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. (NCCI). In such cases, the assumptions used to project ultimate loss estimates will not fully reflect our own actual loss experience until our data is deemed sufficiently credible. We note that industry patterns are not always available to match the nature of the business being written; this issue is particularly problematic for non-U.S. exposed lines. Given the underlying volatility of the long-tail product lines and the lengthy period required for full paid and reported loss emergence, we typically assign little to no credibility to actual loss emergence that is lower than expected in the early development periods. Accordingly, we generally used the expected loss ratio method for the 2015 and immediately preceding origin years to establish reserves by product line. We monitor actual paid and reported loss emergence relative to expected loss emergence for most individual product lines.
As described earlier, the process to develop origin year 2015 reserves for our long-tail casualty business relies on estimates of ultimate and historical loss ratios for prior origin years adjusted to current levels through the use of key assumptions such as expected rate change and loss trend. When estimating the ultimate loss levels for these prior origin years for the major long-tail lines in Insurance – North American P&C, Insurance – Overseas General, and Global Reinsurance no changes of significance were made to the loss development patterns. While we generally use trends observed in internal and/or industry data to adjust prior year losses to current levels, we have made no material changes to the prospective loss trends used to develop ultimate loss ratios for origin year 2015.

For long-tail portfolios where actual loss emergence in calendar year 2015 was lower than expected for the more recent origin years, the deviation was not typically seen as sufficiently credible, particularly given the volatility and lengthy period for full loss emergence, to fully reflect in our booked ultimate loss selections or the actuarial assumptions underlying the reserve reviews. However, for certain product lines with early loss emergence on more recent origin years that was greater than expected, we did respond where we believed that such adverse emergence was generally significant relative to the loss emergence assumptions (e.g., origin years 2012 and 2014 for casualty and financial lines in Insurance – Overseas General). Such judgments were made with due consideration to the factors impacting reserve uncertainty as discussed above. The reserve actions that we took in 2015 are discussed further below and in Note 7 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

For more mature origin years, typically 2011 and prior, we gave meaningful weight to indicated ultimates derived from methods that rely on the paid and reported loss development patterns based on our own historical experience where sufficient credibility was deemed to exist. As noted previously, this is consistent with our practice of allowing favorable loss emergence sufficient time to be reliably established before assigning partial or full credibility.

The prior period development in 2015 for long-tail lines of business comprised several main components. First, we experienced favorable prior period development on a number of product lines where actual loss emergence was lower than expected and/or increased weighting was given to experience-based methods as relevant origin years mature (typically 2011 and prior). In particular, this included management and professional liability portfolios, and auto liability excess and general liability portfolios, in Insurance – North American P&C ($166 million favorable) principally in origin years 2009 through 2011, casualty and financial lines in Insurance – Overseas General for origin years 2011 and prior ($175 million favorable), and origin years 2010 and prior for long-tail product lines in Global Reinsurance ($64 million favorable). Second, we recorded reserve actions in response to development on specific large claims. Third, we experienced adverse development from Insurance – North American P&C run-off operations including Westchester and Brandywine run-off operations ($200 million). The causes for the Westchester and Brandywine operations are described further below.

Sensitivity to underlying assumptions
While we believe that our reserve for unpaid losses and loss expenses at December 31, 2015, is adequate, new information or emerging trends that differ from our assumptions may lead to future development of losses and loss expenses that is significantly greater or less than the recorded reserve, which could have a material effect on future operating results. As noted previously, our best estimate of required loss reserves for most portfolios is judgmentally selected for each origin year after considering the results from a number of reserving methods and is not a purely mechanical process. Therefore, it is difficult to convey, in a simple and quantitative manner, the impact that a change to a single assumption will have on our best estimate. In the examples below, we attempt to give an indication of the potential impact by isolating a single change for a specific reserving method that would be pertinent in establishing the best estimate for the product line described. We consider each of the following sensitivity analyses to represent a reasonably likely deviation in the underlying assumption.

Insurance – North American P&C
Given the long reporting and paid development patterns for workers' compensation business, the development factors used to project actual current losses to ultimate losses for our current exposure requires considerable judgment that could be material to consolidated loss and loss expense reserves. Specifically, adjusting ground up ultimate losses by a one percent change in the


tail factor (i.e., 1.04 changed to either 1.05 or 1.03) would cause a change of approximately $470 million, either positive or negative, for the projected net loss and loss expense reserves. This represents an impact of 10 percent relative to recorded net loss and loss expense reserves of approximately $4.6 billion.

The reserve portfolio for our ACE Bermuda operations contains exposure to predominantly high excess liability coverage on an occurrence-first-reported basis (typically with attachment points in excess of $325 million and gross limits of up to $150 million) and D&O and other professional liability coverage on a claims-made basis (typically with attachment points in excess of $125 million and gross limits of up to $75 million). Due to the layer of exposure covered, the expected frequency for this book is very low. As a result of the low frequency/high severity nature of the book, a small difference in the actual vs. expected claim frequency, either positive or negative, could result in a material change to the projected ultimate loss if such change in claim frequency was related to a policy where close to maximum limits were deployed.

Insurance – North American Agriculture
Approximately 69 percent of the reserves for this segment are from the crop related lines, which all have short payout patterns, with the majority of the liabilities expected to be resolved in the ensuing twelve months. Reserves for our Multiple Peril Crop Insurance (MPCI) product are set on a case-by-case basis and our aggregate exposure is subject to state level risk sharing formulae as well as third-party reinsurance. The majority of the development risk arises out of the accuracy of case reserve estimates. We do not view our Agriculture reserves as substantially influenced by the general assumptions and risks underlying more typical P&C reserve estimates.

Insurance – Overseas General
Certain long-tail lines, such as casualty and professional lines, are particularly susceptible to changes in loss trend and claim inflation.  Heightened perceptions of tort and settlement awards around the world are increasing the demand for these products as well as contributing to the uncertainty in the reserving estimates.  Our reserving methods rely on loss development patterns estimated from historical data and while we attempt to adjust such factors for known changes in the current tort environment, it is possible that such factors may not entirely reflect all recent trends in tort environments.  For example, when applying the reported loss development method, the lengthening of our selected loss development patterns by six months would increase reserve estimates on long-tail casualty and professional lines for accident years 2013 and prior by approximately $262 million. This represents an impact of 12.4 percent relative to recorded net loss and loss expense reserves of approximately $2.1 billion.

Global Reinsurance
Typically, there is inherent uncertainty around the length of paid and reported development patterns, especially for certain casualty lines such as excess workers' compensation or general liability, which may take up to 30 years to fully develop.  This uncertainty is accentuated by the need to supplement client development patterns with industry development patterns due to the sometimes low credibility of the data. The underlying source and selection of the final development patterns can thus have a significant impact on the selected ultimate net losses and loss expenses. For example, a 20 percent shortening or lengthening of the development patterns used for U.S. long-tail lines would cause the loss reserve estimate derived by the reported Bornhuetter-Ferguson method for these lines to change by approximately $446 million. This represents an impact of 45 percent relative to recorded net loss and loss expense reserves of approximately $1.0 billion.

Assumed reinsurance
At December 31, 2015, net unpaid losses and loss expenses for the Global Reinsurance segment aggregated to $1.7 billion, consisting of $740 million of case reserves and $975 million of IBNR. In comparison, at December 31, 2014, net unpaid losses and loss expenses for the Global Reinsurance segment aggregated to $2.0 billion, consisting of $872 million of case reserves and $1.1 billion of IBNR.

For catastrophe business, we principally estimate unpaid losses and loss expenses on an event basis by considering various sources of information, including specific loss estimates reported by our cedants, ceding company and overall industry loss estimates reported by our brokers, and our internal data regarding reinsured exposures related to the geographical location of the event. Our internal data analysis enables us to establish catastrophe reserves for known events with more certainty at an earlier date than would be the case if we solely relied on reports from third parties to determine carried reserves.


For our casualty reinsurance business, we generally rely on ceding companies to report claims and then use that data as a key input to estimate unpaid losses and loss expenses. Due to the reliance on claims information reported by ceding companies, as well as other factors, the estimation of unpaid losses and loss expenses for assumed reinsurance includes certain risks and uncertainties that are unique relative to our direct insurance business. These include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:

The reported claims information could be inaccurate;
Typically, a lag exists between the reporting of a loss event to a ceding company and its reporting to us as a reinsurance claim. The use of a broker to transmit financial information from a ceding company to us increases the reporting lag. Because most of our reinsurance business is produced by brokers, ceding companies generally first submit claim and other financial information to brokers, who then report the proportionate share of such information to each reinsurer of a particular treaty. The reporting lag generally results in a longer period of time between the date a claim is incurred and the date a claim is reported compared with direct insurance operations. Therefore, the risk of delayed recognition of loss reserve development is higher for assumed reinsurance than for direct insurance lines; and
The historical claims data for a particular reinsurance contract can be limited relative to our insurance business in that there may be less historical information available. Further, for certain coverages or products, such as excess of loss contracts, there may be relatively few expected claims in a particular year so the actual number of claims may be susceptible to significant variability. In such cases, the actuary often relies on industry data from several recognized sources.

We mitigate the above risks in several ways. In addition to routine analytical reviews of ceding company reports to ensure reported claims information appears reasonable, we perform regular underwriting and claims audits of certain ceding companies to ensure reported claims information is accurate, complete, and timely. As appropriate, audit findings are used to adjust claims in the reserving process. We also use our knowledge of the historical development of losses from individual ceding companies to adjust the level of adequacy we believe exists in the reported ceded losses.

On occasion, there will be differences between our carried loss reserves and unearned premium reserves and the amount of loss reserves and unearned premium reserves reported by the ceding companies.  This is due to the fact that we receive consistent and timely information from ceding companies only with respect to case reserves.  For IBNR, we use historical experience and other statistical information, depending on the type of business, to estimate the ultimate loss.  We estimate our unearned premium reserve by applying estimated earning patterns to net premiums written for each treaty based upon that treaty's coverage basis (i.e., risks attaching or losses occurring).  At December 31, 2015, the case reserves reported to us by our ceding companies were $723 million, compared with the $740 million we recorded.  Our policy is to post additional case reserves in addition to the amounts reported by our cedants when our evaluation of the ultimate value of a reported claim is different than the evaluation of that claim by our cedant.

Within the Insurance – North American P&C segment, we also have exposure to certain liability reinsurance lines that have been in run-off since 1994. Unpaid losses and loss expenses relating to this run-off reinsurance business resides within the Brandywine Division of our Insurance – North American P&C segment. Most of the remaining unpaid loss and loss expense reserves for the run-off reinsurance business relate to A&E claims. Refer to the “Asbestos and Environmental (A&E)” section for additional information.

Asbestos and environmental reserves
Included in our liabilities for losses and loss expenses are amounts for A&E (A&E liabilities). The A&E liabilities principally relate to claims arising from bodily-injury claims related to asbestos products and remediation costs associated with hazardous waste sites. The estimation of our A&E liabilities is particularly sensitive to future changes in the legal, social, and economic environment. We have not assumed any such future changes in setting the value of our A&E liabilities, which include provisions for both reported and IBNR claims.

There are many complex variables that we consider when estimating the reserves for our inventory of asbestos accounts and these variables may directly impact the predicted outcome. We believe the most significant variables relating to our A&E liabilities include the current legal environment; specific settlements that may be used as precedents to settle future claims; assumptions regarding trends with respect to claim severity and the frequency of higher severity claims; assumptions regarding the ability to allocate liability among defendants (including bankruptcy trusts) and other insurers; the ability of a claimant to bring a claim in a state in which they have no residency or exposure; the ability of a policyholder to claim the right to unaggregated coverage; whether high-level excess policies have the potential to be accessed given the policyholder's claim trends and liability situation; payments to unimpaired claimants; and, the potential liability of peripheral defendants. Based on


the policies, the facts, the law, and a careful analysis of the impact that these factors will likely have on any given account, we estimate the potential liability for indemnity, policyholder defense costs, and coverage litigation expense.

The results in asbestos cases announced by other carriers or defendants may well have little or no relevance to us because coverage exposures are highly dependent upon the specific facts of individual coverage and resolution status of disputes among carriers, policyholders, and claimants.

For additional information refer to the “Asbestos and Environmental (A&E)” section and to Note 7 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

Future policy benefits reserves
We issue contracts in our Insurance – Overseas General and Life segments that are classified as long-duration.  These contracts generally include accident and supplemental health products, term and whole life products, endowment products, and annuities.  In accordance with GAAP, we establish reserves for contracts determined to be long-duration based on approved actuarial methods that include assumptions related to expenses, mortality, morbidity, persistency, and investment yields with a factor for adverse deviation.  These assumptions are “locked in” at the inception of the contract, meaning we use our original assumptions throughout the life of the policy and do not subsequently modify them unless we deem the reserves to be inadequate.  The future policy benefits reserves balance is regularly evaluated for a premium deficiency.  If experience is less favorable than assumptions, additional liabilities may be required, resulting in a charge to policyholder benefits and claims.

Valuation of value of business acquired (VOBA) and amortization of deferred policy acquisition costs and VOBA
As part of the acquisition of businesses that sell long-duration contracts, such as life products, we established an intangible asset related to VOBA, which represented the fair value of the future profits of the in-force contracts.  The valuation of VOBA at the time of acquisition is derived from similar assumptions to those used to establish the associated future policy benefits reserves.  The most significant input in this calculation is the discount rate used to arrive at the present value of the net cash flows.  We amortize deferred policy acquisition costs associated with long-duration contracts and VOBA (collectively policy acquisition costs) over the estimated life of the contracts, generally in proportion to premium revenue recognized based upon the same assumptions used in estimating the liability for future policy benefits. For non-traditional long-duration contracts, we amortize policy acquisition costs over the expected life of the contracts in proportion to estimates of expected gross profits. The estimated life is established at the inception of the contracts or upon acquisition and is based on current persistency assumptions.  Policy acquisition costs, which consist of commissions, premium taxes, and certain underwriting costs related directly to the successful acquisition of a new or renewal insurance contract, are reviewed to determine if they are recoverable from future income, including investment income. Unrecoverable costs are expensed in the period identified.

Risk transfer
In the ordinary course of business, we both purchase (or cede) and sell (or assume) reinsurance protection. We discontinued the purchase of all finite risk reinsurance contracts, as a matter of policy, in 2002. For both ceded and assumed reinsurance, risk transfer requirements must be met in order to use reinsurance accounting, principally resulting in the recognition of cash flows under the contract as premiums and losses. If risk transfer requirements are not met, a contract is to be accounted for as a deposit, typically resulting in the recognition of cash flows under the contract through a deposit asset or liability and not as revenue or expense. To meet risk transfer requirements, a reinsurance contract must include both insurance risk, consisting of underwriting and timing risk, and a reasonable possibility of a significant loss for the assuming entity. We also apply similar risk transfer requirements to determine whether certain commercial insurance contracts should be accounted for as insurance or a deposit. Contracts that include fixed premium (i.e., premium not subject to adjustment based on loss experience under the contract) for fixed coverage generally transfer risk and do not require judgment.

Reinsurance and insurance contracts that include both significant risk sharing provisions, such as adjustments to premiums or loss coverage based on loss experience, and relatively low policy limits, as evidenced by a high proportion of maximum premium assessments to loss limits, can require considerable judgment to determine whether or not risk transfer requirements are met. For such contracts, often referred to as finite or structured products, we require that risk transfer be specifically assessed for each contract by developing expected cash flow analyses at contract inception. To support risk transfer, the cash flow analyses must demonstrate that a significant loss is reasonably possible, such as a scenario in which the ratio of the net present value of losses divided by the net present value of premiums equals or exceeds 110 percent. For purposes of cash flow analyses, we generally use a risk-free rate of return consistent with the expected average duration of loss payments. In addition, to support insurance risk, we must prove the reinsurer's risk of loss varies with that of the reinsured and/or support various scenarios under which the assuming entity can recognize a significant loss.


To ensure risk transfer requirements are routinely assessed, qualitative and quantitative risk transfer analyses and memoranda supporting risk transfer are developed by underwriters for all structured products. We have established protocols for structured products that include criteria triggering an accounting review of the contract prior to quoting. If any criterion is triggered, a contract must be reviewed by a committee established by each of our segments with reporting oversight, including peer review, from our global Structured Transaction Review Committee.

With respect to ceded reinsurance, we entered into a few multi-year excess of loss retrospectively-rated contracts, principally in 2002. These contracts primarily provided severity protection for specific product divisions. Because traditional one-year reinsurance coverage had become relatively costly, these contracts were generally entered in order to secure a more cost-effective reinsurance program. All of these contracts transferred risk and were accounted for as reinsurance. In addition, we maintain a few aggregate excess of loss reinsurance contracts that were principally entered into prior to 2003, such as the Nati