UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
x ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13
OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006
or
o TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13
OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the transition period from to
Commission file number 001-10898
The St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Minnesota |
|
41-0518860 |
(State or other jurisdiction of |
|
(I.R.S. Employer |
incorporation or organization) |
|
Identification No.) |
385
Washington Street,
St. Paul, MN 55102
(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)
(651) 310-7911
(Registrants 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 stock, without par value |
|
New York Stock Exchange |
4.5% Convertible Junior Subordinated Notes due 2032 |
|
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 x No o
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 o No x
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 x No o
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrants knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. x
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer. See definition of accelerated filer and large accelerated filer in Rule 12b-2 of the Act (Check one):
Large accelerated filer x Accelerated filer o Non-accelerated filer o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes o No x
As of June 30, 2006, the aggregate market value of the registrants voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates was $30,756,413,821.
As of February 15, 2007, 675,597,123 shares of the registrants common stock (without par value) were outstanding.
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
Portions of the Registrants Proxy Statement relating to the 2007 Annual Meeting of Shareholders are incorporated by reference into Part III of this report.
The St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc.
Annual Report on Form 10-K
For Fiscal Year Ended
December 31, 2006
Item Number |
|
|
|
Page |
||
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
1 |
|
||
|
|
|
46 |
|
||
|
|
|
55 |
|
||
|
|
|
55 |
|
||
|
|
|
56 |
|
||
|
|
|
63 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
64 |
|
||
|
|
|
67 |
|
||
|
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations |
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
|
|
141 |
|
||
|
|
|
143 |
|
||
|
Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure |
|
|
244 |
|
|
|
|
|
244 |
|
||
|
|
|
247 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
247 |
|
||
|
|
|
249 |
|
||
|
Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Shareholder Matters |
|
|
250 |
|
|
|
|
|
251 |
|
||
|
|
|
251 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
251 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
252 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
254 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
262 |
|
The St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc. (together with its consolidated subsidiaries, the Company) is a holding company principally engaged, through its subsidiaries, in providing a wide range of commercial and personal property and casualty insurance products and services to businesses, government units, associations and individuals. The Company, known as The St. Paul Companies, Inc. (SPC) prior to its merger with Travelers Property Casualty Corp. (TPC) in 2004, is incorporated as a general business corporation under the laws of the state of Minnesota and is one of the oldest insurance organizations in the United States, dating back to 1853. The principal executive offices of the Company are located at 385 Washington Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55102, and the telephone number is (651) 310-7911. The term STA in this document refers to The St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc., the parent holding company excluding subsidiaries.
On April 1, 2004, TPC merged with a subsidiary of SPC, as a result of which TPC became a wholly-owned subsidiary of SPC, and SPC changed its name to The St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc. For accounting purposes, this transaction was accounted for as a reverse acquisition with TPC treated as the accounting acquirer. Accordingly, this transaction was accounted for as a purchase business combination, using TPCs historical financial information and applying fair value estimates to the acquired assets, liabilities and commitments of SPC as of April 1, 2004. Beginning on April 1, 2004, the results of operations and financial condition of SPC were consolidated with TPCs results of operations and financial condition. Accordingly, all financial information presented herein for the twelve months ended December 31, 2004 reflects the accounts of TPC for the three months ended March 31, 2004 and the consolidated accounts of SPC and TPC for the nine months ended December 31, 2004.
TPC is a Connecticut corporation that was formed in 1979 and, prior to its March 2002 initial public offering of class A common stock, was an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Citigroup Inc. (together with its consolidated subsidiaries, Citigroup). TPC was reorganized in connection with its IPO in March 2002. Pursuant to the reorganization, which was completed on March 19, 2002, TPCs consolidated financial statements were adjusted to exclude the accounts of certain formerly wholly-owned TPC subsidiaries, principally The Travelers Insurance Company and its subsidiaries (being the former U.S. life insurance operations of TPC), certain other wholly-owned non-insurance subsidiaries of TPC and substantially all of TPCs assets and certain liabilities not related to the property casualty insurance business.
STA intends to change its name to The Travelers Companies, Inc. and will begin trading on the New York Stock Exchange under the new stock symbol TRV during the first quarter of 2007.
For a summary of the Companys revenues, operating income and total assets by reportable business segments, see note 2 of notes to the Companys consolidated financial statements.
PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE OPERATIONS
The property and casualty insurance industry is highly competitive in the areas of price, service, product offerings, agent relationships and method of distribution, i.e. use of independent agents, exclusive agents and/or salaried employees. According to A.M. Best, there are approximately 975 property casualty organizations in the United States, comprising approximately 2,400 property and casualty companies. Of those organizations, the top 150 accounted for approximately 93% of the consolidated industrys total net written premiums in 2005. The Company competes with both foreign and domestic insurers. In addition, several property and casualty insurers writing commercial lines of business, including the Company, offer products for alternative forms of risk protection in addition to traditional insurance products. These products include large deductible programs and various forms of self-insurance that utilize captive insurance companies and risk retention groups. The Companys competitive position in the marketplace is based on many factors, including premiums charged; contract terms and conditions; products and services
1
offered; claim service; agent, broker and client relationships; ratings assigned by independent rating agencies; local presence; geographic scope of business; overall financial strength; qualifications of employees; and technology and information systems.
The following table shows the distribution of the Companys consolidated direct written premiums for the year ended December 31, 2006:
State |
|
|
|
% of |
|
New York |
|
9.7 |
% |
||
California |
|
8.7 |
|
||
Texas |
|
7.3 |
|
||
Florida |
|
5.5 |
|
||
Pennsylvania |
|
4.6 |
|
||
Massachusetts |
|
4.4 |
|
||
New Jersey |
|
4.3 |
|
||
Illinois |
|
3.7 |
|
||
Georgia |
|
3.1 |
|
||
Virginia |
|
3.0 |
|
||
All other domestic(1) |
|
38.6 |
|
||
Total domestic |
|
92.9 |
|
||
International |
|
7.1 |
|
||
Consolidated total |
|
100.0 |
% |
(1) No other single state accounted for 3.0% or more of the total direct written premiums written in 2006 by the Companys domestic operations.
In August 2006, the Company announced a realignment of two of its three reportable business segments. The former Commercial and Specialty segments were realigned into two new reportable segments: the Business Insurance segment and the Financial, Professional & International Insurance segment. The Personal segment was renamed Personal Insurance. The changes were designed to reflect the manner in which the Companys businesses are currently managed and represent an aggregation of products and services based on type of customer, how the business is marketed, and the manner in which risks are underwritten.
The following discussion of the Companys reportable business segments reflects the realigned segment reporting structure. Financial data for all prior periods presented was reclassified to be consistent with the 2006 presentation.
The Business Insurance segment offers a broad array of property and casualty insurance and insurance-related services to its clients primarily in the United States. Business Insurance is organized into the following six groups, which collectively comprise Business Insurance Core operations:
· Select Accounts serves small businesses for property and casualty products, including commercial multi-peril, property, general liability, commercial auto and workers compensation insurance.
· Commercial Accounts serves primarily mid-sized businesses for property and casualty products, including property, general liability, commercial multi-peril, commercial auto and workers compensation insurance. Certain units included in Commercial Accounts prior to the realignment
2
are now included in the Industry-Focused Underwriting, Target Risk Underwriting or Specialized Distribution groups.
· National Accounts comprises three business units. The largest provides casualty products and services to large companies, with particular emphasis on workers compensation, general liability and automobile liability. National Accounts also includes Discover Re, which provides property and casualty insurance products on an unbundled basis using third-party administrators for insureds who utilize programs such as collateralized deductibles, captive reinsurers and self-insurance. In addition, National Accounts includes the commercial residual market business, which primarily offers workers compensation products and services to the involuntary market.
· Industry-Focused Underwriting. The following units serve targeted industries with unique combinations of insurance coverage, risk management, claims handling and other services:
· Construction serves a broad range of construction businesses, offering guaranteed cost products for small to mid-sized policyholders and loss sensitive programs for larger accounts. For the larger accounts, the customer and the Company work together in actively managing and controlling exposure and claims and they share risk through policy features such as deductibles or retrospective rating. Products offered include workers compensation, general liability and commercial auto coverages, and other risk management solutions.
· Technology serves companies of all sizes involved in telecommunications, information technology, medical technology and electronics manufacturing, offering a well-balanced comprehensive portfolio of products and services. These products include property, commercial auto, general liability, workers compensation, umbrella, internet liability, technology errors and omissions coverages and global companion products.
· Public Sector Services markets insurance products and services to public entities including municipalities, counties, Indian Nation gaming and selected special government districts such as water and sewer utilities. The policies written by this unit typically cover property, commercial auto, general liability and errors and omissions exposures.
· Oil & Gas provides specialized property and liability products and services for customers involved in the exploration and production of oil and natural gas, including operators and drilling contractors, as well as various service and supply companies and manufacturers that support upstream operations. The policies written by this business group insure drilling rigs, natural gas facilities, and production and gathering platforms, and cover risks including physical damage, liability and business interruption.
· Agribusiness serves small to medium-sized agricultural businesses, including farms, ranches, wineries and related operations, offering property and liability coverages other than workers compensation.
· Target Risk Underwriting. The following units serve commercial businesses requiring specialized product underwriting, claims handling and risk management services:
· National Property serves large and mid-sized customers, including retailers, hospitals, colleges and universities, and owners of industrial parks, office buildings, apartments and amusement parks, covering losses on buildings, business assets and business interruption exposures.
· Inland Marine provides insurance for goods in transit and movable objects for customers such as jewelers, museums, contractors and the transportation industry. Builders risk insurance is also offered to customers during the construction, renovation or repair of buildings and other structures.
3
· Ocean Marine serves the marine transportation industry and related services, as well as other businesses involved in international trade. The Companys product offerings fall under six main coverage categories: marine liability, cargo, hull and machinery, protection and indemnity, pleasure craft, and marine property and liability.
· Excess Casualty serves small to mid-sized commercial businesses, offering mono-line umbrella and excess coverage where the Company does not write the primary casualty coverage, or where other business units within the Company prefer to outsource the underwriting of umbrella and excess business based on the expertise and/or limit capacity of Excess Casualty.
· Boiler & Machinery serves customers ranging from small commercial firms to Fortune 100 companies, offering comprehensive breakdown coverages for equipment, including property and business interruption coverages. Through the BoilerRe unit, Boiler & Machinery also serves other property casualty carriers that do not have in-house expertise with reinsurance, underwriting, engineering, claim handling and risk management services for this type of coverage.
· Global Accounts provides insurance to U.S. companies with foreign property and liability exposures (home-foreign), and foreign organizations with property and liability exposures located in the United States (reverse-flow), as part of a global program.
· Specialized Distribution. The following units market and underwrite their products to customers predominantly through licensed wholesale, general and program agents that manage customers uniqsue insurance requirements.
· Northland provides insurance coverage for the commercial transportation industry, and commercial liability and package policies for small, difficult to place specialty classes of commercial business on an admitted or excess and surplus lines basis.
· National Programs offers tailored property and casualty programs on an admitted basis for customers with common risk characteristics or coverage requirements. Programs available include those for entertainment, architects and engineers, equipment rental and golf services.
· Underwriting Facilities serves small commercial businesses, offering general liability, property and commercial auto physical damage coverages on an admitted or excess and surplus lines basis.
Business Insurance also includes the Special Liability Group (which manages the Companys asbestos and environmental liabilities); the assumed reinsurance, health care, and certain international and other runoff operations; policies written by the Companys Gulf operation (Gulf), which was placed into runoff during the second quarter of 2004; and the Companys Personal Catastrophe Risk operation, which was sold in November 2005. The Personal Catastrophe Risk operation had been included in the Specialty segment prior to the August 2006 segment realignment. These are collectively referred to as Business Insurance Other. The Personal Catastrophe Risk operation accounted for the majority of net written premiums in this category in 2005. In 2004, Gulf and the Personal Catastrophe Risk operation accounted for the majority of written premiums in this category.
4
Selected Market and Product Information
The following table sets forth Business Insurance net written premiums by market and product line for the periods indicated. For a description of the product lines and markets referred to in the table, see Principal Markets and Methods of Distribution and Product Lines, respectively.
(for the year ended December 31, in millions) |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|
2004 |
|
% of |
|
|||
By market: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Select Accounts |
|
$ |
2,663 |
|
$ |
2,722 |
|
$ |
2,555 |
|
24.1 |
% |
||
Commercial Accounts |
|
2,376 |
|
2,330 |
|
2,273 |
|
21.5 |
|
|||||
National Accounts |
|
1,135 |
|
1,230 |
|
1,040 |
|
10.3 |
|
|||||
Industry-Focused Underwriting |
|
2,196 |
|
2,080 |
|
1,747 |
|
19.9 |
|
|||||
Target Risk Underwriting |
|
1,629 |
|
1,482 |
|
1,345 |
|
14.8 |
|
|||||
Specialized Distribution |
|
1,022 |
|
908 |
|
807 |
|
9.2 |
|
|||||
Total Business Insurance Core |
|
11,021 |
|
10,752 |
|
9,767 |
|
99.8 |
|
|||||
Business Insurance Other |
|
25 |
|
247 |
|
607 |
|
0.2 |
|
|||||
Total Business Insurance by market |
|
$ |
11,046 |
|
$ |
10,999 |
|
$ |
10,374 |
|
100.0 |
% |
||
By product line (1): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Commercial multi-peril |
|
$ |
3,083 |
|
$ |
3,000 |
|
$ |
2,792 |
|
27.9 |
% |
||
Workers compensation |
|
2,135 |
|
2,080 |
|
1,888 |
|
19.3 |
|
|||||
Commercial automobile |
|
2,013 |
|
2,024 |
|
1,987 |
|
18.2 |
|
|||||
Property |
|
1,939 |
|
1,927 |
|
1,742 |
|
17.6 |
|
|||||
General liability |
|
1,857 |
|
1,922 |
|
1,912 |
|
16.8 |
|
|||||
Other |
|
19 |
|
46 |
|
53 |
|
0.2 |
|
|||||
Total Business Insurance by product line |
|
$ |
11,046 |
|
$ |
10,999 |
|
$ |
10,374 |
|
100.0 |
% |
(1) The reporting of SPC products was conformed to the Companys product definitions beginning with policy renewals on and after January 1, 2005. Accordingly, the amounts reported by product line for 2004 are not comparable with the years 2005 and 2006.
Principal Markets and Methods of Distribution
The Business Insurance segment distributes its products through approximately 7,100 independent agencies and brokers located throughout the United States that are serviced by approximately 90 field offices and three customer service centers. In recent years, the Business Insurance segment has made significant investments in enhanced technology utilizing internet-based applications to provide real-time interface capabilities with independent agencies and brokers. Business Insurance builds relationships with well-established, independent insurance agencies and brokers. In selecting new independent agencies and brokers to distribute its products, Business Insurance considers each agencys or brokers profitability, financial stability, staff experience and strategic fit with its operating and marketing plans. Once an agency or broker is appointed, Business Insurance carefully monitors its performance.
Select Accounts is a leading provider of property casualty products to small businesses. It serves firms with generally fewer than 50 employees. Products offered by Select Accounts are guaranteed cost policies, including packaged products covering property and liability exposures. Products are sold through independent agents and brokers, who are often the same agents and brokers that sell the Companys Commercial Accounts and Personal Insurance products.
Select Accounts offers its independent agents a system for small businesses that helps them connect all aspects of sales and service through a comprehensive service platform. Components of the platform include agency automation capabilities and service centers that function as an extension of an agencys
5
customer service operations, both of which are highly utilized by agencies. Approximately 4,700 agencies have chosen to take advantage of Select Accounts service centers, which offer agencies a wide range of services, including coverage and billing inquiries, policy changes, the assistance of licensed service professionals and extended hours of operations.
Commercial Accounts sells a broad range of property and casualty insurance products through a large network of independent agents and brokers. Commercial Accounts primarily targets mid-sized businesses with 50 to 1,000 employees. The Company offers a full line of products to its Commercial Accounts customers with an emphasis on guaranteed cost programs. Each account is underwritten based on the unique risk characteristics, loss history and coverage needs of the account. The ability to underwrite at this detailed level allows Commercial Accounts to have a broad risk appetite and a diversified customer base.
National Accounts group is comprised of three business units. The largest unit sells a variety of casualty products and services to large companies. National Accounts clients generally select loss-sensitive products in connection with a large deductible or self-insured program and, to a lesser extent, a retrospectively rated or a guaranteed cost insurance policy. Through a network of field offices, the Companys underwriting specialists work closely with national and regional brokers to tailor insurance programs to meet clients needs. Workers compensation accounted for approximately 78% of sales to National Accounts customers during 2006, based on direct written premiums and fees. National Accounts generated $346 million of fee income in 2006, excluding commercial residual market business discussed below.
National Accounts includes the Companys Discover Re operation, which principally provides commercial auto liability, general liability, workers compensation and property coverages. It serves retail brokers and insureds who utilize programs such as collateralized deductibles, captive reinsurers and self-insurance.
In addition, National Accounts includes the Companys commercial residual market business. The Companys commercial residual market business sells claims and policy management services to workers compensation pools throughout the United States. The Company services approximately 36% of the total workers compensation assigned risk market. The Company is one of very few servicing carriers that operate nationally. Assigned risk plan contracts generated $182 million in fee income in 2006.
Many National Accounts customers require insurance-related services in addition to or in lieu of pure risk coverage, primarily for workers compensation and, to a lesser extent, general liability and commercial automobile exposures. These types of services include risk management services, such as claims administration, loss control and risk management information services, and are generally offered in connection with large deductible or self-insured programs. These services generate fee income rather than net written premiums.
Industry-Focused Underwriting markets a wide array of property and casualty products and services tailored to targeted industry segments. Unique marketing and underwriting groups are focused on individual industry segments of significant size and complexity that require unique underwriting, claim, risk management or other insurance-related products and services. The following Industry-Focused units, which are described in more detail on pages _-_ of this report, have been established: Construction, Technology, Public Sector Services, Oil & Gas, and Agribusiness.
Products are distributed primarily through the same agents and brokers servicing Select Accounts and Commercial Accounts, although there may be more business with agents that also specialize in servicing the needs of certain of these industries.
Target Risk Underwriting services a wide customer base with unique and specialized insurance products and services. These specialized units have expertise in meeting customers specialized property and casualty coverage requirements. These units include National Property, Inland Marine, Ocean Marine,
6
Excess Casualty, Boiler & Machinery, and Global Accounts, which are described in more detail on page _ of this report.
Products are distributed primarily through the same agents and brokers servicing Select Accounts and Commercial Accounts, as well as specialized agents and brokers with expertise in certain of these products.
Specialized Distribution distributes admitted and excess and surplus lines property and casualty products predominantly through selected wholesale agents, both on a brokerage and managing general underwriting basis, and through selected program agents. Brokers, general agents and program agents operate in certain markets that are not typically served by the Companys appointed retail agents, or they maintain certain affinity arrangements in specialized market segments. The wholesale excess and surplus lines market, which is characterized by the absence of rate and form regulation, allows for more flexibility to write certain classes of business. In working with wholesale or program agents on a brokerage basis, Specialized Distribution underwrites the business and sets the premium level. In working with wholesale or program agents on a managing general underwriting or program manager basis, the agents produce and underwrite business that conforms to underwriting guidelines that have been specifically designed for each facility or program.
Business Insurance Other includes the Special Liability Group (which manages the Companys asbestos and environmental liabilities); the assumed reinsurance, health care, and certain international and other runoff operations; policies written by Gulf, which was placed into runoff during the second quarter of 2004; and the Personal Catastrophe Risk operation which was sold in November 2005. The Personal Catastrophe Risk operation had been included in the Specialty segment prior to the August 2006 segment realignment. Certain business previously written by Gulf is now being written in the Specialized Distribution market and in the Financial, Professional & International Insurance segment. Gulf provided specialty coverages including management and professional liability, excess and surplus lines, environmental, umbrella and fidelity. Gulf also provided insurance products specifically designed for financial institutions, the entertainment industry and sports organizations.
Pricing levels for Business Insurance property and casualty insurance products are generally developed based upon an expectation of estimated losses, the expenses of producing business and managing claims and a reasonable allowance for profit. Business Insurance has a disciplined approach to underwriting and risk management that emphasizes profitable growth rather than premium volume or market share.
Business Insurance has developed an underwriting and pricing methodology that incorporates underwriting, claims, engineering, actuarial and product development disciplines for particular industries. This approach is designed to maintain high quality underwriting and pricing discipline. It utilizes proprietary data gathered and analyzed with respect to its Business Insurance business over many years. The underwriters and engineers use this information to assess and evaluate risks prior to quotation. This information provides specialized knowledge about specific industry segments. This methodology enables Business Insurance to streamline its risk selection process and develop pricing parameters that will not compromise its underwriting integrity.
For smaller businesses, Select Accounts uses a process based on industry classifications to allow agents and field underwriting representatives to make underwriting and pricing decisions within predetermined classifications, because underwriting criteria and pricing tend to be more standardized for these smaller exposures.
A portion of business in this segment is written with large deductible insurance policies. Under workers compensation insurance contracts with deductible features, the Company is obligated to pay the
7
claimant the full amount of the claim. The Company is subsequently reimbursed by the contractholder for the deductible amount and is subject to credit risk until such reimbursement is made. At December 31, 2006, contractholder receivables and payables on unpaid losses associated with large deductible policies were each approximately $5.01 billion. Retrospectively rated policies are also used for workers compensation coverage. Although the retrospectively rated feature of the policy substantially reduces insurance risk for the Company, it introduces additional credit risk to the Company. Premium receivables from holders of retrospectively rated policies totaled approximately $223 million at December 31, 2006. Significant collateral, primarily letters of credit and, to a lesser extent cash collateral trusts and surety bonds, is generally requested for large deductible plans and/or retrospectively rated policies that provide for deferred collection of deductible recoveries and/or ultimate premiums. The amount of collateral requested is predicated upon the creditworthiness of the customer and the nature of the insured risks. Business Insurance continually monitors the credit exposure on individual accounts and the adequacy of collateral.
The Company continually monitors its exposure to natural and manmade peril catastrophic losses and attempts to mitigate such exposure. In order to reduce the Companys exposure to catastrophe losses, Business Insurance limits the writing of new property business and selectively takes underwriting action on existing business in some markets. In addition, underwriting standards have been tightened, price increases have been implemented in some catastrophe-prone areas, and deductibles are in place in hurricane and wind and hail prone areas. The Company uses various analyses and methods, including sophisticated computer modeling techniques, to analyze underwriting risks of business in hurricane-prone, earthquake-prone and target risk areas. The Company relies upon this analysis to make underwriting decisions designed to manage its exposure on catastrophe-exposed business. The Company also utilizes reinsurance to manage its aggregate exposures to catastrophes. See Reinsurance.
Commercial Multi-Peril provides a combination of property and liability coverage. Property insurance covers damages such as those caused by fire, wind, hail, water, theft and vandalism, and protects businesses from financial loss due to business interruption resulting from a covered loss. Liability coverage insures businesses against third parties from accidents occurring on their premises or arising out of their operations, such as injuries sustained from products sold.
Workers Compensation provides coverage for employers for specified benefits payable under state or federal law for workplace injuries to employees. There are typically four types of benefits payable under workers compensation policies: medical benefits, disability benefits, death benefits and vocational rehabilitation benefits. The Company emphasizes managed care cost containment strategies, which involve employers, employees and care providers in a cooperative effort that focuses on the injured employees early return to work, cost-effective quality care and customer service in this market. The Company offers the following three types of workers compensation products:
· guaranteed cost insurance products, in which policy premium charges are fixed for the period of coverage and do not vary as a result of the insureds loss experience;
· loss-sensitive insurance products, including large deductible and retrospectively rated policies, in which fees or premiums are adjusted based on actual loss experience of the insured during the policy period; and
· service programs, which are generally sold to the Companys National Accounts customers, where the Company receives fees rather than premiums for providing loss prevention, risk management, and claim and benefit administration services to organizations under service agreements. The Company also participates in state assigned risk pools as a servicing carrier and pool participant.
8
Commercial Automobile provides coverage for businesses against losses incurred from personal bodily injury, bodily injury to third parties, property damage to an insureds vehicle and property damage to other vehicles and other property resulting from the ownership, maintenance or use of automobiles and trucks in a business.
Property provides coverage for loss or damage to buildings, inventory and equipment from natural disasters, including hurricanes, windstorms, earthquakes, hail, and severe winter weather. Also covered are manmade events such as theft, vandalism, fires, explosions, terrorism and financial loss due to business interruption resulting from covered property damage. For additional information on terrorism coverages, see ReinsuranceTerrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 and Terrorism Risk Insurance Extension Act of 2005. Property also includes specialized equipment insurance, which provides coverage for loss or damage resulting from the mechanical breakdown of boilers and machinery, and ocean and inland marine, which provides coverage for goods in transit and unique, one-of-a-kind exposures.
General Liability provides coverage for liability exposures including bodily injury and property damage arising from products sold and general business operations. Specialized liability policies may also include coverage for directors and officers liability arising in their official capacities, employment practices liability insurance, fiduciary liability for trustees and sponsors of pension, health and welfare, and other employee benefit plans, errors and omissions insurance for employees, agents, professionals and others arising from acts or failures to act under specified circumstances, as well as umbrella and excess insurance. Errors and omissions insurance for professionals (such as lawyers, accountants, doctors and other health care providers) is sometimes also known as professional liability insurance.
The following discussion reflects the Companys retention policy as of January 1, 2007. For third party liability, Business Insurance generally limits its net retention to a maximum of $13 million per insured, per occurrence after reinsurance. The net retained amount per risk for property exposures is generally limited to $15 million, after reinsurance. The Company also utilizes facultative reinsurance to provide additional limits capacity or to reduce retentions on an individual risk basis. The Company may also retain amounts greater than those described herein based upon the individual characteristics of the risk.
The following table shows the distribution of Business Insurances direct written premiums for the states that accounted for the majority of premium volume for the year ended December 31, 2006:
State |
|
|
|
% of |
|
California |
|
12.1 |
% |
||
New York |
|
7.9 |
|
||
Texas |
|
7.3 |
|
||
Florida |
|
5.7 |
|
||
Illinois |
|
4.6 |
|
||
New Jersey |
|
4.1 |
|
||
Massachusetts |
|
4.1 |
|
||
Pennsylvania |
|
3.8 |
|
||
All Others(1) |
|
50.4 |
|
||
Total |
|
100.0 |
% |
(1) No other single state accounted for 3.0% or more of the total direct written premiums written in 2006 by the domestic operations of the Business Insurance segment.
9
The insurance industry is represented in the commercial marketplace by many insurance companies of varying size as well as other entities offering risk alternatives such as self-insured retentions or captive programs. Market competition works within the insurance regulatory framework to set the price charged for insurance products and the level of service provided. Growth is driven by a companys ability to provide insurance and services at a price that is reasonable and acceptable to the customer. In addition, the marketplace is affected by available capacity of the insurance industry, as measured by policyholders surplus, and the availability of reinsurance. Surplus expands and contracts primarily in conjunction with profit levels generated by the industry. Capital raised by debt and equity offerings also increases a companys surplus. Growth in premium and service business is also measured by a companys ability to retain existing customers and to attract new customers. Additionally, many large commercial customers self-insure their risks or utilize large deductibles on purchased insurance.
Select Accounts business is typically written through independent agents and, to a lesser extent, regional brokers and direct writers. Both national and regional property casualty insurance companies compete in the Select Accounts market which generally comprises lower hazard, main street business customers. Risks are underwritten and priced using standard industry practices and a combination of proprietary and standard industry product offerings. Competition in this market is primarily based on price, product offerings and response time in policy services. Select Accounts has established a strong marketing relationship with its distribution network and has provided it with defined underwriting policies, a broad array of products, competitive prices and one of the most efficient automated environments in the industry. In addition, the Company has established centralized service centers to help agents perform many service functions, in return for a fee. Select Accounts overall service platform is one of the strongest in the small business commercial market.
Commercial Accounts business has historically been written through independent agents and brokers, although some companies use direct writing. Competitors in this market are primarily national property casualty insurance companies willing to write most classes of business using traditional products and pricing, and regional insurance companies. Companies compete on price, product offerings, response time in policy issuance and claim and loss prevention services. Additionally, improved efficiency through automation and response time to customer needs are key to success in this market.
The National Accounts group is comprised of three business units:
· National Accounts business is typically written through national brokers and, to a lesser extent, regional brokers. Insurance companies compete in this market based on price, product offerings, claim and loss prevention services, managed care cost containment and risk management information systems. National Accounts also offers a large nationwide network of localized claim service centers which provide greater flexibility in claims adjusting and allows National Accounts to more quickly respond to the needs of its customers.
· Discover Re competes with traditional providers of commercial insurance coverages, as well as other underwriters of property and casualty insurance in the alternative risk transfer market, such as risk retention groups, self-insurance plans, captives managed by others, and a variety of other risk-financing vehicles and mechanisms.
· National Accounts residual market business competes for state contracts to provide claims and policy management services. These contracts, which generally have three-year terms, are selected by state agencies through a bid process based on the quality of service and price. National Accounts services approximately 36% of the total workers compensation assigned risk market, making the Company one of the largest servicing carriers in the industry.
10
There are several other business groups in Business Insurance that compete in focused target markets. Each of these markets is different and requires unique combinations of industry knowledge, proprietary coverage forms, specialized risk control and loss handling services, and partnerships with agents and brokers that also focus on these markets. In some cases the competition is national carriers with similarly dedicated underwriting and marketing groups. In other cases, smaller regional companies tend to be the primary competition. In either case, these businesses have regional structures that allow them to deliver personalized service and local knowledge to their customer base. Specialized agents and brokers, including managing general agents and wholesale agents, supplement this strategy. In all of these businesses, the competitive strategy is market leadership attained through focused industry knowledge applied to insurance and risk needs.
FINANCIAL, PROFESSIONAL & INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE
The Financial, Professional & International Insurance segment includes surety and financial liability coverages, which require a primarily credit-based underwriting process, as well as property and casualty products that are primarily marketed on an international basis. The segment includes the following businesses:
· Bond & Financial Products provides a wide range of customers with bond and insurance products and risk management services. The range of coverages includes surety and fidelity bonds for construction and general commercial enterprises, professional liability and management liability for public corporations, private companies and not-for-profit organizations for losses caused by the negligence or misconduct of named directors and officers; professional liability for a variety of professionals, such as lawyers, design professionals and real estate agents for liability from errors and omissions committed in the course of professional conduct or practice; and a full range of property, auto, liability, fidelity and professional/management liability insurance for financial institutions. This business represents the fourth quarter 2006 combination of the Companys previous Bond and Financial & Professional Services marketing groups.
In December 2006, the Company reached a definitive agreement to sell its Mexican surety subsidiary, Afianzadora Insurgentes, S.A. de C.V., which accounted for $79 million of net written premiums in 2006. The impact of this transaction will not be material to the Companys results of operations or financial condition.
· International and Lloyds includes coverages marketed to and underwritten for several customer groups within the United Kingdom, Canada and the Republic of Ireland and business written as a Corporate Member at Lloyds. International offers specialized insurance and risk management services to several customer groups, including those in the technology, public services, and financial and professional services industry sectors. International primarily underwrites employers liability (similar to workers compensation coverage in the United States), public and product liability (the equivalent of general liability), professional indemnity (similar to professional liability coverage), motor (similar to automobile coverage in the United States) and property exposures. The Company underwrites four principal lines of businessaviation, marine, global property, and accident and special risksthrough its Lloyds syndicate (Syndicate 5000), for which the Company provides 100% of the capital. During the second half of 2004, the Company made a decision to exit certain portions of the Lloyds personal lines business and, in early 2005, sold the right to renew this business as well as the operating companies that supported it.
11
Selected Market and Product Information
The following table sets forth Financial, Professional & International Insurance net written premiums by market and product line for the periods indicated. For a description of the markets and product lines referred to in the table, see Principal Markets and Methods of Distribution and Product Lines, respectively.
(for the year ended December 31, in millions) |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|
2004 |
|
% of Total |
|
|||||
By market: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Bond & Financial Products |
|
$ |
2,255 |
|
$ |
2,117 |
|
$ |
1,819 |
|
|
66.5 |
% |
|
||
International and Lloyds |
|
1,138 |
|
1,042 |
|
889 |
|
|
33.5 |
|
|
|||||
Total Financial, Professional & International |
|
$ |
3,393 |
|
$ |
3,159 |
|
$ |
2,708 |
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
||
By product line: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Fidelity and surety |
|
$ |
1,125 |
|
$ |
1,026 |
|
$ |
963 |
|
|
33.2 |
% |
|
||
General liability |
|
1,006 |
|
981 |
|
768 |
|
|
29.6 |
|
|
|||||
International |
|
1,138 |
|
1,042 |
|
889 |
|
|
33.5 |
|
|
|||||
Other |
|
124 |
|
110 |
|
88 |
|
|
3.7 |
|
|
|||||
Total
Financial,
Professional & International |
|
$ |
3,393 |
|
$ |
3,159 |
|
$ |
2,708 |
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
Principal Markets and Methods of Distribution
Within the Financial, Professional & International Insurance segment, Bond & Financial Products distributes the majority of its products in the United States through approximately 6,400 of the same independent agencies and brokers that distribute the Business Insurance segments products. These brokers and independent agencies are located throughout the United States. Bond & Financial Products, in conjunction with the Business Insurance segment, is making significant investments in enhanced technology utilizing internet-based applications to provide real-time interface capabilities with its independent agencies and brokers. Bond & Financial Products builds relationships with well-established, independent insurance agencies and brokers. In selecting new independent agencies and brokers to distribute its products, Bond & Financial Products considers each agencys or brokers profitability, financial stability, staff experience and strategic fit with its operating and marketing plans. Once an agency or broker is appointed, its ongoing performance is monitored. In addition, Bond & Financial Products sells its surety products through independent agents using subsidiaries in Mexico, Canada and the United Kingdom. The Company has reached a definitive agreement to sell its Mexican subsidiary.
The International and Lloyds market distributes its products through brokers in the domestic markets of each of the three countries in which it operates, the United Kingdom, Canada and the Republic of Ireland. It also writes business at Lloyds, where its products are distributed through Lloyds wholesale and retail brokers. By virtue of Lloyds worldwide licenses, Financial, Professional & International Insurance has access to international markets across the world.
Pricing levels for Financial, Professional & International Insurance property and casualty insurance products are generally developed based upon an expectation of the frequency and severity of estimated losses, the expenses of producing business and managing claims, and a reasonable allowance for profit. Financial, Professional & International Insurance has a disciplined approach to underwriting and risk management that emphasizes profitable growth rather than premium volume or market share.
12
Financial, Professional & International Insurance has developed an underwriting and pricing methodology that incorporates dedicated underwriting, claims, engineering, actuarial and product development disciplines. This approach is designed to maintain high quality underwriting and pricing discipline, based on an in-depth knowledge of the specific account or industry issues. The underwriters use proprietary data gathered and analyzed over many years to assess and evaluate risks prior to quotation, and then use proprietary forms to tailor insurance coverage to insureds within the target markets. This methodology enables Financial, Professional & International Insurance to streamline its risk selection process and develop pricing parameters that will not compromise its underwriting integrity.
The Company continually monitors its exposure to natural and manmade peril catastrophic losses and attempts to mitigate such exposure. In order to reduce the Companys exposure to catastrophe losses, Financial, Professional & International Insurance limits the writing of new commercial property and energy and marine business and selectively takes underwriting action on existing business in some markets. In addition, underwriting standards have been tightened, price increases have been implemented in some catastrophe-prone areas, and deductibles are in place in hurricane and wind and hail prone areas. The Company uses various analyses and methods, including sophisticated computer modeling techniques, to analyze underwriting risks of business in hurricane-prone, earthquake-prone and target risk areas. The Company relies upon this analysis to make underwriting decisions designed to manage its exposure on catastrophe-exposed business. The Company also utilizes reinsurance to manage its aggregate exposures to catastrophes. See Reinsurance.
Fidelity and Surety provides fidelity insurance coverage, which protects an insured for loss due to embezzlement or misappropriation of funds by an employee, and surety, which is a three-party agreement whereby the insurer agrees to pay a third party or make complete an obligation in response to the default, acts or omissions of an insured. Surety is generally provided for construction performance, legal matters such as appeals, trustees in bankruptcy and probate and other performance bonds. In addition to the business written in the United States, this product line includes surety business written in the following subsidiaries of the Company: St. Paul Guarantee (Canada), Afianzadora Insurgentes (Mexico) and St. Paul Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of Europe (United Kingdom). The Company has reached a definitive agreement to sell Afianzadora Insurgentes.
General Liability provides coverage for liability exposures including bodily injury and property damage arising from products sold and general business operations. Specialized liability policies may also include coverage for directors and officers liability arising in their official capacities, employment practices liability insurance, fiduciary liability for trustees and sponsors of pension, health and welfare, and other employee benefit plans, errors and omissions insurance for employees, agents, professionals and others arising from acts or failures to act under specified circumstances, as well as umbrella and excess insurance. Errors and omissions insurance for professionals (such as lawyers, accountants, doctors and other health care providers) is sometimes also known as professional liability insurance.
International provides coverage through operations in the United Kingdom, Canada and the Republic of Ireland, and at Lloyds. The coverage provided in those markets includes employers liability (similar to workers compensation coverage in the United States), public and product liability (the equivalent of general liability), professional indemnity (similar to professional liability coverage), motor (similar to automobile coverage in the United States) and property. While the covered hazards may be similar to those in the U.S. market, the different legal environments can make the product risks and coverage terms potentially very different from those in the United States.
Other coverages include Property, Workers Compensation, Commercial Automobile and Commercial Multi-Peril, which are described in more detail in the Business Insurance section of this narrative.
13
The following discussion reflects the Companys retention policy as of January 1, 2007. For third party liability, including but not limited to umbrella liability, professional liability, directors and officers liability, and employment practices liability, Financial, Professional & International Insurance generally limits the net retentions up to $11.5 million per policy after reinsurance. For surety protection, the Company generally retains up to $24.5 million probable maximum loss (PML) per principal but may retain higher amounts based on the type of obligation, credit quality and other credit risk factors. In the International and Lloyds operations, per risk retentions range from $3 million to $10 million. The Company also utilizes facultative reinsurance to provide additional limits capacity or to reduce retentions on an individual risk basis. The Company may also retain amounts greater than those described herein based upon the individual characteristics of the risk.
The following table shows the distribution of Financial, Professional & Internationals direct written premiums for the states, or for locations outside of the United States, that accounted for the majority of premium volume for the year ended December 31, 2006:
State |
|
|
|
% of |
|
California |
|
5.8 |
% |
||
New York |
|
5.3 |
|
||
Texas |
|
4.1 |
|
||
Florida |
|
3.7 |
|
||
Illinois |
|
3.1 |
|
||
All other domestic(1) |
|
44.2 |
|
||
Total domestic |
|
66.2 |
|
||
Total international |
|
33.8 |
|
||
Total |
|
100.0 |
% |
(1) No other single state within the United States accounted for 3.0% or more of the total direct written premiums written in 2006 by the Financial, Professional & International Insurance segment.
The competitive landscape in which the Financial, Professional & International Insurance segment operates is affected by many of the same factors described previously for the Business Insurance segment. Bond & Financial Products competes with other stock companies, mutual companies, alternative risk sharing groups and other underwriting organizations. Competitors in this market are primarily national property and casualty insurance companies willing to write most classes of business using traditional products and pricing and, to a lesser extent, regional insurance companies and companies that have developed niche programs for specific industry segments. In addition, many large commercial customers self-insure their risks or utilize large deductibles on purchased insurance.
Bond & Financial Products underwrites and markets its products to national, mid-sized and small businesses and organizations, as well as individuals, and distributes them through both national and wholesale brokers, regional brokers, and retail agents. Bond & Financial Products competes in the competitive surety and management liability marketplaces, as well as offering general property and casualty coverages to financial institutions. Both national and regional property casualty insurance companies compete with Bond & Financial Products. Its reputation for timely and consistent decision-making, a nationwide network of local underwriting, claims and industry experts and strong producer and
14
customer relationships, as well as its ability to offer its customers a full range of products, provides Bond & Financial Products an advantage over many of its competitors and enables it to compete effectively in a complex, dynamic marketplace. The ability of Bond & Financial Products to cross-sell its products to customers of the Business Insurance and Personal Insurance segments provides further competitive advantages for the Company.
International competes with numerous international and local country insurers in the United Kingdom, Canada and the Republic of Ireland. Companies compete on the basis of price, product offerings and the level of claim and risk management services provided. The Company has developed expertise in various markets in these countries similar to those served in the United States and provides both property and casualty coverage for these markets. Products are generally distributed through a relatively small broker base whose customer groups align with the Companys targeted markets.
At Lloyds, the Company competes with other syndicates operating in the Lloyds market as well as international and domestic insurers in the various markets where the Company writes business worldwide. Lloyds syndicates are increasingly capitalized by corporate capital, much of which is provided by large international insurance enterprises. Competition is again based on price and product offerings. The Company has an exclusive focus on lines it believes it can underwrite effectively and profitably with an emphasis on short-tail insurance lines. The Company underwrites through four principal lines of business at Lloyds: aviation, marine, global property, and accident and special risks.
Personal Insurance writes virtually all types of property and casualty insurance covering personal risks. The primary coverages in Personal Insurance are automobile and homeowners insurance sold to individuals. These products are distributed through independent agents, sponsoring organizations such as employee and affinity groups, and joint marketing arrangements with other insurers.
In January 2007, the Company reached a definitive agreement to sell its subsidiary, Mendota Insurance Company and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Mendakota Insurance Company and Mendota Insurance Agency, Inc. These subsidiaries primarily offered nonstandard automobile coverage and accounted for approximately $187 million of net written premium volume in 2006. The sale is not expected to be material to the Companys results of operations or financial condition.
Selected Product and Distribution Channel Information
The following table sets forth net written premiums for Personal Insurance by product line for the periods indicated. For a description of the product lines referred to in the accompanying table, see Product Lines. In addition, see Principal Markets and Methods of Distribution for a discussion of distribution channels for Personal Insurances product lines.
(for the year ended December 31, in millions) |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|
2004 |
|
% of Total |
|
|||||
By product line: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Personal automobile |
|
$ |
3,692 |
|
$ |
3,477 |
|
$ |
3,433 |
|
|
55.0 |
% |
|
||
Homeowners and other |
|
3,019 |
|
2,751 |
|
2,496 |
|
|
45.0 |
|
|
|||||
Total Personal Insurance |
|
$ |
6,711 |
|
$ |
6,228 |
|
$ |
5,929 |
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
15
Principal Markets and Methods of Distribution
Personal Insurance products are distributed primarily through approximately 8,700 independent agents located throughout the United States, supported by personnel in eleven marketing regions, three single state companies and six service centers. In selecting new independent agencies to distribute its products, Personal Insurance considers each agencys profitability, financial stability, staff experience and strategic fit with Personal Insurances operating and marketing plans. Once an agency is appointed, Personal Insurance carefully monitors its performance. While the principal markets for Personal Insurances insurance products are in states along the East Coast, in the South and Texas, Personal Insurance is expanding its geographic presence across the United States.
Personal Insurance operates single state companies in Massachusetts, New Jersey and Florida with products marketed primarily through independent agents. These states represented approximately 19% of Personal Insurance direct written premiums in 2006. The companies were established to manage complex markets in Massachusetts and New Jersey and property catastrophe exposure in Florida. Each company has dedicated resources in underwriting, claim, finance, legal and service functions.
Personal Insurance uses a consistent operating model with agents outside of the single state companies (see discussion above). The model provides technological alternatives to agents to maximize their ease of doing business. Personal Insurance agents quote and issue approximately 99% of Personal Insurances policies directly from their agencies by leveraging either their own agency management system or using Personal Insurances proprietary quote and issuance systems which allows agents to rate, quote and issue policies on line. All of these quote and issue platforms interface with Personal Insurances underwriting and rating systems, which edit transactions for compliance with Personal Insurances underwriting and pricing programs. Business processed by agents on these platforms is subject to consultative review by Personal Insurances in-house underwriters. Personal Insurance also provides a download capability that refreshes the individual agency system databases of approximately 6,000 agents each day with updated policy information.
Personal Insurance continues to develop functionality to provide its agents with a comprehensive array of online service capabilities packaged together in an easy-to-use agency service portal, including customer service, marketing and claim functionality. Agencies can also choose to shift the ongoing service responsibility for Personal Insurances customers to one of the Companys four Customer Care Centers, where the Company renders customer service on behalf of an agency by providing a comprehensive array of direct customer service needs, including response to billing and coverage inquiries, and policy changes. Approximately 1,300 agents take advantage of this service alternative.
Personal Insurance also markets through additional distribution channels, including sponsoring organizations such as employers and consumer associations, and joint marketing arrangements with other insurers. Personal Insurance handles the sales and service for these programs either through a sponsoring independent agent or through two of the Companys call center locations. A number of well-known corporations make the Companys product offerings available to their employees primarily through a payroll deduction payment process. The Company has significant relationships with the majority of the American Automobile Association (AAA) clubs in the United States and other affinity groups that make available Personal Insurances product offerings to their members. Since 1995, the Company has had a marketing agreement with GEICO to underwrite homeowners business for their auto customers. This agreement has added profitable business and helped to geographically diversify the homeowners line of business.
Pricing levels for Personal Insurance property and casualty insurance products are generally developed based upon an expectation of estimated losses, the expense of producing, issuing and servicing
16
the business and a reasonable allowance for profit and contingencies. The Company has a disciplined approach to underwriting and risk management that emphasizes profitable growth rather than premium volume or market share.
Personal Insurance has developed a product management methodology that integrates the disciplines of underwriting, claim, actuarial and product development. This approach is designed to maintain high quality underwriting discipline and pricing segmentation. Proprietary data is analyzed with respect to Personal Insurances business over many years. Personal Insurance uses a variety of proprietary and vendor produced risk differentiation models to facilitate its pricing segmentation. Personal Insurances product managers establish strict underwriting guidelines integrated with its filed pricing and rating plans, which enable Personal Insurance to streamline its risk selection and pricing processes.
Pricing for personal automobile insurance is driven by changes in the frequency of claims and by inflation in the cost of automobile repairs, medical care and litigation of liability claims. As a result, the profitability of the business is largely dependent on promptly identifying and rectifying disparities between premium levels and projected claim costs, and obtaining approval from state regulatory authorities when necessary for filed rate changes.
Pricing in the homeowners business is also driven by changes in the frequency of claims and by inflation in the cost of building supplies, labor and household possessions. Most homeowners policies offer, but do not require, automatic increases in coverage to reflect growth in replacement costs and property values. In addition to the normal risks associated with any multiple peril coverage, the profitability and pricing of homeowners insurance is affected by the incidence of natural disasters, particularly those related to weather and earthquakes. In order to reduce the Companys exposure to catastrophe losses, Personal Insurance limits the writing of new homeowners business and selectively takes underwriting action on existing business in some markets. In addition, underwriting standards have been tightened, price increases have been implemented in some catastrophe-prone areas, and deductibles are in place in hurricane and wind and hail prone areas. Personal Insurance uses computer-modeling techniques to assess its level of exposure to loss in hurricane and earthquake catastrophe-prone areas. Changes to methods of marketing and underwriting in some jurisdictions are subject to state-imposed restrictions, which can make it more difficult for an insurer to significantly reduce catastrophe exposures.
Insurers writing personal lines property and casualty policies may be unable to increase prices until some time after the costs associated with coverage have increased, primarily because of state insurance rate regulation. The pace at which an insurer can change rates in response to increased costs depends, in part, on whether the applicable state law requires prior approval of rate increases or notification to the regulator either before or after a rate change is imposed. In states with prior approval laws, rates must be approved by the regulator before being used by the insurer. In states having file-and-use laws, the insurer must file rate changes with the regulator, but does not need to wait for approval before using the new rates. A use-and-file law requires an insurer to file rates within a period of time after the insurer begins using the new rate. Approximately one-half of the states require prior approval of most rate changes. The Companys ability or willingness to raise prices, modify underwriting terms or reduce exposure to certain geographies may be limited due to considerations of public policy, the evolving political environment and/or social responsibilities. The Company also may choose to write business it might not otherwise write for strategic purposes, such as improving access to other underwriting opportunities.
Independent agents either utilize one of the Companys automated quote and issue systems or they submit applications to the Companys service centers for underwriting review, quote, and issuance. Automated transactions are edited by the Companys systems and issued if they conform to established guidelines. Exceptions are reviewed by underwriters in the Companys business centers. Audits are conducted by business center underwriters and agency managers, on a systematic sampling basis, across all of the Companys independent agency generated business. Each agent is assigned to a specific employee or
17
team of employees responsible for working with the agent on business plan development, marketing, and overall growth and profitability. The Company uses agency level management information to analyze and understand results and to identify problems and opportunities.
The Personal Insurance products sold through additional marketing channels utilize the same quote and issuance systems discussed previously and exceptions are underwritten by the Companys employees. Underwriters work with Company management on business plan development, marketing, and overall growth and profitability. Channel-specific production and claim information is used to analyze results and identify problems and opportunities.
The primary coverages in Personal Insurance are personal automobile and homeowners insurance sold to individuals. Personal Insurance had approximately 7.1 million policies in force at December 31, 2006.
Personal Automobile provides coverage for liability to others for both bodily injury and property damage and for physical damage to an insureds own vehicle from collision and various other perils. In addition, many states require policies to provide first-party personal injury protection, frequently referred to as no-fault coverage.
Homeowners and Other provides protection against losses to dwellings and contents from a wide variety of perils, as well as coverage for liability arising from ownership or occupancy. The Company writes homeowners insurance for dwellings, condominiums and rental property contents. The Company also writes coverage for personal watercraft, personal articles such as jewelry, and umbrella liability protection.
The following discussion reflects the Companys retention policy as of January 1, 2007. Personal Insurance retains the first $5 million of umbrella policies and purchases facultative reinsurance for limits over $5 million. For personal property insurance, there is a $6 million maximum retention per risk. The Company also utilizes facultative reinsurance to provide additional limits capacity or to reduce retentions on an individual risk basis. The Company may also retain amounts greater than those described herein based upon the individual characteristics of the risk
18
The following table shows the distribution of Personal Insurances direct written premiums for the states that accounted for the majority of premium volume for the year ended December 31, 2006:
State |
|
|
|
% of |
|
New York |
|
15.4 |
% |
||
Texas |
|
9.3 |
|
||
Pennsylvania |
|
7.1 |
|
||
Massachusetts |
|
6.4 |
|
||
Florida |
|
6.1 |
|
||
New Jersey |
|
6.1 |
|
||
Georgia |
|
4.6 |
|
||
Virginia |
|
4.5 |
|
||
Connecticut |
|
4.5 |
|
||
California |
|
4.2 |
|
||
Maryland |
|
3.2 |
|
||
All Others(1) |
|
28.6 |
|
||
Total |
|
100.0 |
% |
(1) No other single state accounted for 3.0% or more of the total direct written premiums written in 2006 by the Personal Insurance segment.
Personal lines insurance is written by hundreds of insurance companies of varying sizes. Although national companies write the majority of the business, Personal Insurance also faces competition from local and regional companies which often have a competitive advantage because of their knowledge of the local marketplace and their relationship with local agents. Personal Insurance believes that the principal competitive factors are price, service, perceived stability of the insurer and name recognition. Personal Insurance competes for business within each independent agency since these agencies also offer policies of competing companies. At the agency level, competition is primarily based on price and the level of service, including claims handling, as well as the level of automation and the development of long-term relationships with individual agents. Personal Insurance also competes with insurance companies that use exclusive agents or salaried employees to sell their products. In addition to its traditional independent agency distribution, Personal Insurance has broadened its distribution of products by marketing to sponsoring organizations, including employee and affinity groups, and through joint marketing arrangements with other insurers. Personal Insurance believes that its continued focus on underwriting and pricing segmentation, claim settlement effectiveness strategies and expense management practices enable Personal Insurance to price its products competitively in all of its distribution channels.
The Companys claims management strategies, together with its focus on optimizing claim outcomes, cost efficiency and service are critical to the Companys ability to grow profitably and reflect these core tenets:
· fair, efficient, fact-based claims management processes;
· use of advanced technology provides front-line claim professionals with necessary information and facilitates prompt claim resolution;
19
· specialization of claim professionals and segmentation of claims by complexity, as indicated by severity, coverage and causation, allow the Company to focus its resources effectively;
· effective collaboration, using meaningful management information, across all divisions within the Company facilitates product analysis and enhances risk selection and risk pricing; and
· excellent customer service enhances customer retention.
The Companys claims function is managed through its Claim Services operations. With nearly 13,000 employees, Claim Services employs a diverse group of professionals, including claim adjusters, appraisers, attorneys, investigators, engineers, accountants, system specialists and training, management and support personnel. Approved external service providers, such as independent adjusters and appraisers, investigators and attorneys, are available for use as appropriate.
Field claim management teams located in 29 claim centers and 89 satellite and specialty-only offices in 46 states are organized to maintain focus on the specific claim characteristics unique to the businesses within the Business Insurance, Financial, Professional & International Insurance, and Personal Insurance segments. Claim teams with specialized skills, resources, and workflows are matched to the unique exposures of those businesses with local claim management dedicated to achieving optimal results within each segment. The Companys home office operations provide additional support in the form of workflow design, quality management, information technology, advanced management information and data analysis, training, financial reporting and control, and human resources strategy. In addition to the field teams, claim staff is dedicated to each of Personal Insurances single state companies in Florida, Massachusetts and New Jersey. This structure permits the Company to maintain the economies of scale of a larger, established company while retaining the agility to respond promptly to the needs of customers, brokers, agents and underwriters. Claims management for International is generally provided locally by staff in the respective international location due to local knowledge of applicable laws and regulations.
An integral part of the Companys strategy to benefit customers and shareholders is its continuing industry leadership in the fight against insurance fraud through its Investigative Services unit. The Company has a nationwide staff of experts that investigate a wide array of insurance fraud schemes using in-house forensic resources and other technological tools. This staff also has specialized expertise in fire scene examinations, medical provider fraud schemes and data mining. The Company also dedicates investigative resources to ensure that violations of law are reported to and prosecuted by law enforcement agencies.
Claim Services uses advanced technology, management information, and data analysis to assist the Company in reviewing its claim practices and results to evaluate and improve its performance. The Companys claim management strategy is focused on segmentation of claims and appropriate technical specialization to drive effective claim resolution. The Company continually monitors its investment in claim resources to maintain an effective focus on claim outcomes and a disciplined approach to continual improvement. In recent years, the Company has invested significant additional resources in many of its claim handling operations and routinely monitors the effect of its investments to ensure a consistent optimization between outcomes, cost, and service.
During 2006, Claim Services refined its catastrophic response strategy to increase the Companys ability to respond to a significant catastrophic event using its own personnel, placing less reliance on independent adjustors and appraisers. The Company established a larger dedicated catastrophe response team, and trained a larger Enterprise Response Team of existing Company employees who can be deployed on short notice in the event of a catastrophe that generates claim volume exceeding the capacity of the dedicated catastrophe response team.
The Company is also a leader in bringing effective claim solutions that provide superior customer service. One example of this is ConciergeClaimSM, a new auto claim service that features selected
20
independently-owned auto repair facilities with Company appraisers on site to complete an estimate, handle all rental arrangements and monitor the repair process from start to finish. By managing the claim in this way, the Company can help ensure prompt, quality results and create a differentiated, superior claim experience for customers.
Another strategic advantage is TravCompSM, a workers compensation claim resolution and medical management program that assists adjusters in the prompt investigation and effective management of workers compensation claims. Innovative medical and claims management technologies permit nurse, medical and claims professionals to share appropriate vital information that supports prompt investigation, effective return to work and claim resolution strategies. These technologies, together with effective matching of professional skills and authority to specific claim issues, have resulted in more efficient management of workers compensation claims with lower medical, wage replacement costs and loss adjustment expenses.
The Company reinsures a portion of the risks it underwrites in order to control its exposure to losses. The Company cedes to reinsurers a portion of these risks and pays premiums based upon the risk and exposure of the policies subject to such reinsurance. Ceded reinsurance involves credit risk, except with regard to mandatory pools, and is generally subject to aggregate loss limits. Although the reinsurer is liable to the Company to the extent of the reinsurance ceded, the Company remains liable as the direct insurer on all risks reinsured. Reinsurance recoverables are reported after reductions for known insolvencies and after allowances for uncollectible amounts. The Company also holds collateral, including trust agreements, escrow funds and letters of credit, under certain reinsurance agreements. The Company monitors the financial condition of reinsurers on an ongoing basis and reviews its reinsurance arrangements periodically. Reinsurers are selected based on their financial condition, business practices and the price of their product offerings. For additional information concerning reinsurance, see note 4 of notes to the Companys consolidated financial statements.
The Company utilizes a variety of reinsurance agreements to manage its exposure to large property and casualty losses, including:
· facultative reinsurance, in which reinsurance is provided for all or a portion of the insurance provided by a single policy and each policy reinsured is separately negotiated;
· treaty reinsurance, in which reinsurance is provided for a specified type or category of risks; and
· catastrophe reinsurance, in which the Company is indemnified for an amount of loss in excess of a specified retention with respect to losses resulting from a catastrophic event.
For a description of reinsurance-related litigation, see Item 3, Legal Proceedings.
Catastrophes can be caused by various natural and man-made events including hurricanes, windstorms, earthquakes, hail, severe winter weather, explosions and fires. The incidence and severity of catastrophes are inherently unpredictable. The extent of losses from a catastrophe is a function of both the total amount of insured exposure in the area affected by the event and the severity of the event. Most catastrophes are restricted to small geographic areas; however, hurricanes and earthquakes may produce significant damage in larger areas, especially those that are heavily populated. The Company generally seeks to reduce its exposure to catastrophes through individual risk selection and the purchase of catastrophe reinsurance.
The Company utilizes reinsurance agreements with nonaffiliated reinsurers to manage its exposure to losses resulting from one occurrence. The Companys General Catastrophe reinsurance treaty covers the
21
accumulation of net property losses arising out of one occurrence. The coverage provided under the General Catastrophe reinsurance treaty, effective for the time period indicated, is as follows:
|
|
|
July 1, 2006 - June 30, 2007 Reinsurance Coverage In-Force |
|
$0 - $1.0 billion |
|
Loss retained by the Company |
||
$1.0 billion - $1.50 billion |
|
72.4% ($362 million) of loss retained by the Company; 27.6% ($138 million) of loss covered by catastrophe treaty |
||
$1.50 billion - $2.25 billion |
|
44.0% ($330 million) of loss retained by the Company; 56.0% ($420 million) of loss covered by catastrophe treaty |
||
Greater than $2.25 billion |
|
Loss 100% retained by the Company |
This agreement excludes nuclear, chemical, biochemical and radiological losses and all terrorism losses as defined by the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 and the Terrorism Risk Insurance Extension Act of 2005. The agreement covers all of the Companys exposures in the United States and Canada and their possessions and waters contiguous thereto, the Caribbean and Mexico. For business underwritten in Canada, the United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland and in the Companys operations at Lloyds, separate reinsurance protections are purchased locally that have lower net retentions more commensurate with the size of the respective local balance sheet. The Company conducts an ongoing review of its risk and catastrophe coverages and makes changes as it deems appropriate.
In addition to its General Catastrophe treaty, the Company also is party to a Northeast General Catastrophe treaty providing $500 million of coverage, subject to a $2.25 billion retention, for losses arising from hurricanes, earthquakes and winter storm or freeze losses from Virginia to Maine, and waters contiguous thereto. Losses from a covered event (occurring over several days) anywhere in the United States may be used to satisfy the retention.
Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund (FHCF)
The Company participates in the FHCF, which is a state-mandated catastrophe reinsurance fund that provides reimbursement to insurers for a portion of their residential catastrophic hurricane losses. The FHCF is primarily funded by premiums from insurance companies that write residential property business in Florida and, if insufficient, assessments on all Florida property and casualty lines of business, excluding accident and health, the National Flood Insurance Program, workers compensation and medical malpractice insurance. The FHCFs resources are limited to these contributions and to its borrowing capacity at the time of a significant catastrophe in Florida. Based on current expected reimbursements for 2004 and 2005 losses, the state of Florida levied a 1% assessment effective January 1, 2007 for all of the Companys relevant policyholders as discussed above. The Company holds no liability for this pass-through assessment, since the Company is only liable for the assessments collected from insureds. Prior to the special legislative session in Florida in January 2007, the projected FHCF bonding for future events was adequate to cover its statutory capacity. In January 2007, the Governor of Florida signed into law legislation which expanded the capacity of the FHCF from $16 billion to $28 billion, with an option for the FHCF Board of Governors to add an additional $4 billion of capacity. Additionally, participating companies have the option to select lower attachment points to the FHCF in $1 billion increments ranging from $6 billion to $3 billion. As a result, the maximum potential industry capacity has been increased from approximately $16 billion to $35 billion for a single hurricane event impacting Florida residential property exposures. The Companys participation as of June 2006 (the most recent date for which data is available) accounted for less than 0.8% of the FHCF. This additional capacity is also funded primarily by premiums and relies on the same assessment and borrowing process described above. If there are hurricanes in 2007, the cash resources of the FHCF may not be sufficient to meet its obligations and continuing assessments may be necessary.
22
Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 and Terrorism Risk Insurance Extension Act of 2005
On November 26, 2002, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (the Terrorism Act) was enacted into Federal law and established the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program (the Program), a temporary Federal program in the Department of the Treasury that provided for a system of shared public and private compensation for insured losses resulting from acts of terrorism or war committed by or on behalf of a foreign interest. The Program was scheduled to terminate on December 31, 2005. In December 2005, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Extension Act of 2005 (the Terrorism Extension Act) was enacted into Federal law, reauthorizing the Program through December 31, 2007, while reducing the Federal role under the Program.
In order for a loss to be covered under the Program (subject losses), the loss must meet certain aggregate industry loss minimums that vary by Program year of amounts $100 million or less, and must be the result of an event that is certified as an act of terrorism by the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury. The original Program excluded from participation certain of the following types of insurance: Federal crop insurance, private mortgage insurance, financial guaranty insurance, medical malpractice insurance, health or life insurance, flood insurance and reinsurance. The Terrorism Extension Act exempted from coverage certain additional types of insurance, including commercial automobile, professional liability (other than directors and officers), surety, burglary and theft, and farm-owners multi-peril. In the case of a war declared by Congress, only workers compensation losses are covered by the Terrorism Act and the Terrorism Extension Act. Both Acts generally require that all commercial property casualty insurers licensed in the United States participate in the Program. Under the Program, a participating insurer is entitled to be reimbursed by the Federal government for a percentage of subject losses, after an insurer deductible, subject to an annual cap. The Federal reimbursement percentage is 85% in 2007.
The deductible is calculated by applying the deductible percentage to the insurers direct earned premiums for covered lines from the calendar year immediately preceding the applicable year. The deductible under the Program was 10% for 2004, 15% for 2005, 17.5% for 2006 and will be 20% for 2007. The Companys estimated deductible under the Program is $2.20 billion for 2007. The annual cap limits the amount of aggregate subject losses for all participating insurers to $100 billion. Once subject losses have reached the $100 billion aggregate during a program year, Congress shall determine the source of funds, if any, available for losses that exceed the $100 billion cap. The Company had no terrorism-related losses in 2006, 2005 or 2004. If the Program is not renewed for periods after January 1, 2008, the benefits of the Program will not be available to the Company, and the Company will be subject to losses from acts of terrorism subject only to the terms and provisions of applicable policies, including policies written in 2007 for which the period of coverage extends into 2008. Given the unpredictable frequency and severity of terrorism losses, as well as the limited terrorism coverage in the Companys own reinsurance program, future losses from acts of terrorism, particularly those involving nuclear, biological, chemical or radiological events, could be material to the Companys operating results, financial condition and/or liquidity in future periods, particularly if the Program is not extended. Regardless of whether the Terrorism Act is extended, the Company will continue to manage this type of catastrophic risk by monitoring and controlling terrorism risk aggregations to the best of its ability.
CLAIM AND CLAIM ADJUSTMENT EXPENSE RESERVES
Claim and claim adjustment expense reserves (loss reserves) represent managements estimate of ultimate unpaid costs of losses and loss adjustment expenses for claims that have been reported and claims that have been incurred but not yet reported.
Management continually refines its reserve estimates in a regular ongoing process that includes review of key assumptions, underlying variables and historical loss experience. The Company reflects adjustments to reserves in the results of operations in the periods in which the estimates are changed. In establishing reserves, the Company takes into account estimated recoveries for reinsurance, salvage and subrogation.
23
The reserves are also reviewed regularly by qualified actuaries employed by the Company. For additional information on the process of estimating reserves and a discussion of underlying variables and risk factors, see Item 7Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of OperationsCritical Accounting Estimates.
The process of estimating loss reserves involves a high degree of judgment and requires the consideration of a number of variables. These variables (discussed by product line in the Critical Accounting Estimates section) are affected by both internal and external events, such as changes in claims handling procedures, inflation, judicial trends and legislative changes, among others. The impact of many of these items on ultimate costs of claims and claim adjustment expenses is difficult to estimate. Reserve estimation difficulties also differ significantly by product line due to differences in the underlying insurance contract (e.g., claims made versus occurrence), claim complexity, the volume of claims, the potential severity of individual claims, determining the occurrence date for a claim, and reporting lags (the time between the occurrence of the insured event and when it is actually reported to the insurer). Informed judgment is applied throughout the process.
The Company derives estimates for unreported claims and development on reported claims principally from actuarial analyses of historical patterns of loss development by accident year for each type of exposure and business unit. Similarly, the Company derives estimates of unpaid loss adjustment expenses principally from actuarial analyses of historical development patterns of the relationship of loss adjustment expenses to losses for each line of business and type of exposure. For a description of the Companys reserving methods for asbestos and environmental claims, see Item 7Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of OperationsAsbestos Claims and Litigation, and Environmental Claims and Litigation.
Included in the claims and claim adjustment expense reserves in the consolidated balance sheet are certain reserves discounted to the present value of estimated future payments. The liabilities for losses for some long-term disability payments under workers compensation insurance and workers compensation excess insurance, which totaled $1.98 billion and $1.92 billion at December 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively, were discounted using a rate of 5% at December 31, 2006 and 2005. Reserves related to certain fixed and determinable asbestos-related settlements, where all payment amounts and their timing are known, totaled $34 million at December 31, 2005, and were discounted using a rate of 2.6% at that date. There were no such reserves at December 31, 2006. Reserves for certain assumed reinsurance business were discounted using a rate of 7% and a range of rates from 5% to 7.5%, at December 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively, and totaled $37 million and $79 million at December 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively.
Claims and Claim Adjustment Expense Development Table
The table on page 26 sets forth the year-end reserves from 1996 through 2006 and the subsequent changes in those reserves, presented on a historical basis. The original estimates, cumulative amounts paid and reestimated reserves in the table for the years 1996 through 2003 have not been restated to reflect the acquisition of SPC in 2004. The table includes SPC reserves beginning at December 31, 2004.
The original estimates, cumulative amounts paid and reestimated reserves in the table for the years 1996 to 2000 have also not been restated to reflect the acquisition of Northland and Commercial Guaranty Casualty. Beginning in 2001, the table includes the reserve activity of Northland and Commercial Guaranty Casualty. The data in the table is presented in accordance with reporting requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Care must be taken to avoid misinterpretation by those unfamiliar with this information or familiar with other data commonly reported by the insurance industry. The accompanying data is not accident year data, but rather a display of 1996 to 2006 year-end reserves and the subsequent changes in those reserves.
24
For instance, the cumulative deficiency (redundancy) shown in the accompanying table for each year represents the aggregate amount by which original estimates of reserves as of that year-end have changed in subsequent years. Accordingly, the cumulative deficiency for a year relates only to reserves at that year-end and those amounts are not additive. Expressed another way, if the original reserves at the end of 1996 included $4 million for a loss that is finally paid in 2005 for $5 million, the $1 million deficiency (the excess of the actual payment of $5 million over the original estimate of $4 million) would be included in the cumulative deficiencies in each of the years 1996 to 2004 shown in the accompanying table.
Various factors may distort the re-estimated reserves and cumulative deficiency or redundancy shown in the accompanying table. For example, a substantial portion of the cumulative deficiencies shown in the accompanying table arise from claims on policies written prior to the mid-1970s involving liability exposures such as asbestos and environmental claims. In the post-1984 period, the Company has developed more stringent underwriting standards and policy exclusions and has significantly contracted or terminated the writing of these risks. See Item 7Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of OperationsAsbestos Claims and Litigation, and Environmental Claims and Litigation. General conditions and trends that have affected the development of these liabilities in the past will not necessarily recur in the future.
Other factors that affect the data in the accompanying table include the discounting of certain reserves, as discussed above, and the use of retrospectively rated insurance policies. For example, workers compensation indemnity reserves (tabular reserves) are discounted to reflect the time value of money. Apparent deficiencies will continue to occur as the discount on these workers compensation reserves is accreted at the appropriate interest rates. Also, a portion of National Accounts business is underwritten with retrospectively rated insurance policies in which the ultimate loss experience is primarily borne by the insured. For this business, increases in loss experience result in an increase in reserves and an offsetting increase in amounts recoverable from insureds. Likewise, decreases in loss experience result in a decrease in reserves and an offsetting decrease in amounts recoverable from these insureds. The amounts recoverable on these retrospectively rated policies mitigate the impact of the cumulative deficiencies or redundancies on the Companys earnings but are not reflected in the accompanying table.
25
Because of these and other factors, it is difficult to develop a meaningful extrapolation of estimated future redundancies or deficiencies in loss reserves from the data in the accompanying table.
(at December 31, in millions) |
|
|
|
1996 |
|
1997 |
|
1998 |
|
1999 |
|
2000 |
|
2001(a) |
|
2002(a) |
|
2003(a) |
|
2004(a)(b) |
|
2005(a)(b) |
|
2006(a)(b) |
|
Reserves for claims and claim adjustment expense originally estimated |
|
$ |
21,816 |
|
$ |
21,406 |
|
$ |
20,763 |
|
$ |
19,983 |
|
$ |
19,435 |
|
$ |
20,197 |
|
|
$ |
23,268 |
|
|
|
$ |
24,055 |
|
|
|
$ |
41,446 |
|
|
|
$ |
42,895 |
|
|
|
$ |
42,844 |
|
|
Cumulative amounts paid as of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
One year later |
|
3,704 |
|
4,025 |
|
4,159 |
|
4,082 |
|
4,374 |
|
5,018 |
|
|
5,170 |
|
|
|
4,651 |
|
|
|
8,871 |
|
|
|
8,632 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Two years later |
|
6,600 |
|
6,882 |
|
6,879 |
|
6,957 |
|
7,517 |
|
8,745 |
|
|
8,319 |
|
|
|
8,686 |
|
|
|
14,666 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Three years later |
|
8,841 |
|
8,850 |
|
9,006 |
|
9,324 |
|
10,218 |
|
11,149 |
|
|
11,312 |
|
|
|
11,541 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Four years later |
|
10,355 |
|
10,480 |
|
10,809 |
|
11,493 |
|
12,000 |
|
13,402 |
|
|
13,548 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Five years later |
|
11,649 |
|
11,915 |
|
12,565 |
|
12,911 |
|
13,603 |
|
15,115 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Six years later |
|
12,893 |
|
13,376 |
|
13,647 |
|
14,172 |
|
14,958 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Seven years later |
|
14,154 |
|
14,306 |
|
14,697 |
|
15,301 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Eight years later |
|
14,987 |
|
15,225 |
|
15,681 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Nine years later |
|
15,844 |
|
16,061 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Ten years later |
|
16,223 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Reserves reestimated |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
One year later |
|
21,345 |
|
21,083 |
|
20,521 |
|
19,736 |
|
19,394 |
|
23,228 |
|
|
23,658 |
|
|
|
24,222 |
|
|
|
41,706 |
|
|
|
42,466 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Two years later |
|
21,160 |
|
20,697 |
|
20,172 |
|
19,600 |
|
22,233 |
|
24,083 |
|
|
24,592 |
|
|
|
25,272 |
|
|
|
42,565 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Three years later |
|
20,816 |
|
20,417 |
|
19,975 |
|
22,302 |
|
22,778 |
|
25,062 |
|
|
25,553 |
|
|
|
26,042 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Four years later |
|
20,664 |
|
20,168 |
|
22,489 |
|
22,612 |
|
23,871 |
|
25,953 |
|
|
26,288 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Five years later |
|
20,427 |
|
22,570 |
|
22,593 |
|
23,591 |
|
24,872 |
|
26,670 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Six years later |
|
22,851 |
|
22,625 |
|
23,492 |
|
24,559 |
|
25,521 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Seven years later |
|
22,861 |
|
23,530 |
|
24,446 |
|
25,114 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Eight years later |
|
23,759 |
|
24,425 |
|
24,908 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Nine years later |
|
24,601 |
|
24,832 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Ten years later |
|
24,783 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Cumulative deficiency (redundancy)(a)(b) |
|
2,967 |
|
3,426 |
|
4,145 |
|
5,131 |
|
6,086 |
|
6,473 |
|
|
3,020 |
|
|
|
1,987 |
|
|
|
1,119 |
|
|
|
(429 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Gross liabilityend |
|
$ |
30,969 |
|
$ |
30,138 |
|
$ |
29,411 |
|
$ |
28,854 |
|
$ |
28,312 |
|
$ |
30,617 |
|
|
$ |
33,628 |
|
|
|
$ |
34,474 |
|
|
|
$ |
58,984 |
|
|
|
$ |
61,007 |
|
|
|
$ |
59,202 |
|
|
Reinsurance recoverables |
|
9,153 |
|
8,732 |
|
8,648 |
|
8,871 |
|
8,877 |
|
10,420 |
|
|
10,360 |
|
|
|
10,419 |
|
|
|
17,538 |
|
|
|
18,112 |
|
|
|
16,358 |
|
|
|||||||||||
Net liabilityend of year |
|
$ |
21,816 |
|
$ |
21,406 |
|
$ |
20,763 |
|
$ |
19,983 |
|
$ |
19,435 |
|
$ |
20,197 |
|
|
$ |
23,268 |
|
|
|
$ |
24,055 |
|
|
|
$ |
41,446 |
|
|
|
$ |
42,895 |
|
|
|
$ |
42,844 |
|
|
Gross reestimated liability-latest |
|
$ |
33,970 |
|
$ |
33,724 |
|
$ |
34,115 |
|
$ |
35,055 |
|
$ |
36,211 |
|
$ |
38,950 |
|
|
$ |
37,927 |
|
|
|
$ |
37,003 |
|
|
|
$ |
60,376 |
|
|
|
$ |
61,041 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reestimated reinsurance recoverables-latest |
|
9,187 |
|
8,892 |
|
9,207 |
|
9,941 |
|
10,690 |
|
12,280 |
|
|
11,639 |
|
|
|
10,961 |
|
|
|
17,811 |
|
|
|
18,575 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Net reestimated liability-latest |
|
$ |
24,783 |
|
$ |
24,832 |
|
$ |
24,908 |
|
$ |
25,114 |
|
$ |
25,521 |
|
$ |
26,670 |
|
|
$ |
26,288 |
|
|
|
$ |
26,042 |
|
|
|
$ |
42,565 |
|
|
|
$ |
42,466 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross cumulative |
|
$ |
3,001 |
|
$ |
3,586 |
|
$ |
4,704 |
|
$ |
6,201 |
|
$ |
7,899 |
|
$ |
8,333 |
|
|
$ |
4,299 |
|
|
|
$ |
2,529 |
|
|
|
$ |
1,392 |
|
|
|
$ |
34 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Included in the cumulative deficiency by year is the following impact of unfavorable prior year reserve development related to asbestos and environmental claims and claim adjustment expenses, in millions:
Asbestos |
|
|
|
1996 |
|
1997 |
|
1998 |
|
1999 |
|
2000 |
|
2001 |
|
2002 |
|
2003 |
|
2004 |
|
2005 |
|
|
|
Gross |
|
$ |
6,150 |
|
$ |
6,063 |
|
$ |
5,928 |
|
$ |
5,800 |
|
$ |
5,613 |
|
$ |
5,330 |
|
|
$ |
1,670 |
|
|
|
$ |
1,645 |
|
|
|
$ |
1,031 |
|
|
|
$ |
197 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net |
|
$ |
4,474 |
|
$ |
4,405 |
|
$ |
4,339 |
|
$ |
4,282 |
|
$ |
4,232 |
|
$ |
4,043 |
|
|
$ |
1,098 |
|
|
|
$ |
1,074 |
|
|
|
$ |
987 |
|
|
|
$ |
156 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
26
Environmental |
|
|
|
1996 |
|
1997 |
|
1998 |
|
1999 |
|
2000 |
|
2001 |
|
2002 |
|
2003 |
|
2004 |
|
2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
Gross |
|
$ |
1,093 |
|
$ |
1,014 |
|
$ |
891 |
|
$ |
752 |
|
$ |
677 |
|
$ |
619 |
|
|
$ |
465 |
|
|
|
$ |
406 |
|
|
|
$ |
125 |
|
|
|
$ |
108 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net |
|
$ |
881 |
|
$ |
816 |
|
$ |
766 |
|
$ |
709 |
|
$ |
645 |
|
$ |
599 |
|
|
$ |
449 |
|
|
|
$ |
390 |
|
|
|
$ |
150 |
|
|
|
$ |
120 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) Includes reserves of The Northland Company and its subsidiaries and Commercial Guaranty Lloyds Insurance Company which were acquired from Citigroup on October 1, 2001. Also includes reserves of Commercial Guaranty Casualty Insurance Company, which was contributed to TPC by Citigroup on October 3, 2001. At December 31, 2001, these gross reserves were $867 million, and net reserves were $633 million.
(b) For years prior to 2004, excludes SPC reserves, which were acquired on April 1, 2004. Accordingly, the reserve development (net reserves for claims and claim adjustment expenses reestimated as of subsequent years less net reserves recorded at the end of the year, as originally estimated) for years prior to 2004 relates only to losses recorded by TPC and does not include reserve development recorded by SPC. For 2004 and subsequent years, includes SPC reserves and subsequent development recorded by SPC. At December 31, 2004, SPC gross reserves were $23,274 million and net reserves were $15,959 million.
Reserves on Statutory Accounting Basis
At December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004, claim and claim adjustment expense reserves (net of reinsurance) shown in the preceding table, which are prepared in accordance U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), were $104 million, $296 million and $282 million lower, respectively, than those reported in the Companys respective annual reports filed with insurance regulators, which are prepared in accordance with statutory accounting practices. The accounting for retroactive reinsurance is a significant factor in the difference in reserves. Retroactive reinsurance balances result from reinsurance placed to cover losses on insured events occurring prior to the contract inception. For GAAP reporting, retroactive reinsurance balances are included in reinsurance recoverables and result in lower net reserve amounts. Statutory accounting practices require retroactive reinsurance balances to be recorded in other liabilities as contra-liabilities rather than in loss reserves.
Asbestos and Environmental Claims
Asbestos and environmental claims are segregated from other claims and are handled separately by the Companys Special Liability Group, a separate unit staffed by dedicated legal, claim, finance and engineering professionals. For additional information on asbestos and environmental claims, see Item 7Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Conditions and Results of Operations.
INTERCOMPANY REINSURANCE POOLING ARRANGEMENTS
Most of the Companys insurance subsidiaries are members of intercompany property and casualty reinsurance pooling arrangements. Pooling arrangements permit the participating companies to rely on the capacity of the entire pools capital and surplus rather than just on its own capital and surplus. Under such arrangements, the members share substantially all insurance business that is written, and allocate the combined premiums, losses and expenses. During 2005, the Company combined the previously separate St. Paul Insurance Group and Travelers Property Casualty pools, forming the new St. Paul Travelers Reinsurance Pool. Travelers Indemnity Company is the lead company of the new pool, which includes 28 companies. The Company also merged Gulf Insurance Company, the lead company of the former Gulf Insurance Group, into Travelers Indemnity Company effective July 1, 2005. As of December 31, 2006, there were two intercompany pooling arrangements: the St. Paul Travelers Reinsurance Pool and the Northland Pool.
27
Ratings are an important factor in setting the Companys competitive position in the insurance marketplace. The Company receives ratings from the following major rating agencies: A.M. Best Company (A.M. Best), Fitch Ratings (Fitch), Moodys Investors Service (Moodys) and Standard & Poors Corp. (S&P). Rating agencies typically issue two types of ratings: claims-paying (or financial strength) ratings which assess an insurers ability to meet its financial obligations to policyholders and debt ratings which assess a companys prospects for repaying its debts and assist lenders in setting interest rates and terms for a companys short and long term borrowing needs. Agency ratings are not a recommendation to buy, sell or hold any security, and they may be revised or withdrawn at any time by the rating organization. Each agencys rating should be evaluated independently of any other agencys rating. The system and the number of rating categories can vary widely from rating agency to rating agency. Customers usually focus on claims-paying ratings, while creditors focus on debt ratings. Investors use both to evaluate a companys overall financial strength. The ratings issued on the Company or its subsidiaries by any of these agencies are announced publicly and are available on the Companys website and from the agencies.
The Companys insurance operations could be negatively impacted by a downgrade in one or more of the Companys financial strength ratings. If this were to occur, there could be a reduced demand for certain products in certain markets. Additionally, the Companys ability to access the capital markets could be impacted and higher borrowing costs may be incurred.
ClaimsPaying Ratings
The following table summarizes the current claims-paying (or financial strength) ratings of the St. Paul Travelers Reinsurance Pool, Travelers C&S of America, Northland Pool, Travelers Personal single state companies, Travelers Europe, Discover Reinsurance Company, Afianzadora Insurgentes, S.A. de C.V., St. Paul Guarantee Insurance Company and St. Paul Travelers Insurance Company Limited by A.M. Best, Moodys, S&P and Fitch as of February 23, 2007. The table also presents the position of each rating in the applicable agencys rating scale.
|
|
A.M. Best |
|
Moodys |
|
S&P |
|
Fitch |
|
St. Paul Travelers Reinsurance Pool(a)(b) |
|
A+ (2nd of 16) |
|
Aa3 (4th of 21) |
|
AA- (4th of 21) |
|
AA- (4th of 24) |
|
Travelers C&S of America |
|
A+ (2nd of 16) |
|
Aa3 (4th of 21) |
|
AA- (4th of 21) |
|
AA- (4th of 24) |
|
Northland Pool(c) |
|
A (3rd of 16) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First Floridian Auto and Home Ins. Co. |
|
A- (4th of 16) |
|
|
|
|
|
AA- (4th of 24) |
|
First Trenton Indemnity Company |
|
A (3rd of 16) |
|
|
|
|
|
AA- (4th of 24) |
|
The Premier Insurance Co. of MA |
|
A (3rd of 16) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Travelers Europe |
|
A+ (2nd of 16) |
|
Aa3 (4th of 21) |
|
AA- (4th of 21) |
|
|
|
Discover Reinsurance Company |
|
A- (4th of 16) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Afianzadora Insurgentes, S.A. de C.V.(d) |
|
A- (4th of 16) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
St. Paul Guarantee Insurance Company |
|
A (3rd of 16) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
St. Paul Travelers Insurance Company Limited |
|
A (3rd of 16) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) The St. Paul Travelers Reinsurance Pool consists of: The Travelers Indemnity Company, The Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company, The Phoenix Insurance Company, The Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut, The Travelers Indemnity Company of America, Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, Travelers Commercial Casualty Company, TravCo Insurance Company, The Travelers
28
Home and Marine Insurance Company, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, The Standard Fire Insurance Company, The Automobile Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut, Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America, Farmington Casualty Company, Travelers Commercial Insurance Company, Travelers Casualty Company of Connecticut, Travelers Property Casualty Insurance Company, Travelers Personal Security Insurance Company, Travelers Personal Insurance Company, Travelers Excess and Surplus Lines Company, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance Company, Athena Assurance Company, St. Paul Protective Insurance Company, St. Paul Medical Liability Insurance Company, Discover Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Discover Specialty Insurance Company, and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company.
(b) The following affiliated companies are 100% reinsured by one of the pool participants noted in (a) above: Atlantic Insurance Company, Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company, Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc., Gulf Underwriters Insurance Company, Seaboard Surety Company, Select Insurance Company, St. Paul Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company, St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company, The Travelers Lloyds Insurance Company and Travelers Lloyds of Texas Insurance Company.
(c) The Northland Pool consists of: Northland Insurance Company, Northfield Insurance Company, Northland Casualty Company, Mendota Insurance Company, Mendakota Insurance Company, American Equity Insurance Company and American Equity Specialty Insurance Company. In January 2007, the Company reached a definitive agreement to sell Mendota Insurance Company and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Mendakota Insurance Company.
(d) In December 2006, the Company reached a definitive agreement to sell its Mexican subsidiary, Afianzadora Insurgentes, S.A. de C.V.
Debt Ratings
The following table summarizes the current debt, preferred stock and commercial paper ratings of the Company and its subsidiaries by A.M. Best, Moodys, S&P and Fitch as of February 23, 2007. The table also presents the position of each rating in the applicable agencys rating scale.
|
|
A.M. Best |
|
Moodys |
|
S&P |
|
Fitch |
|
Senior debt |
|
a- (7th of 22) |
|
A3 (7th of 21) |
|
A- (7th of 22) |
|
A- (7th of 22) |
|
Subordinated debt |
|
bbb+ (8th of 22) |
|
Baa (8th of 21) |
|
BBB (9th of 22) |
|
A- (7th of 22) |
|
Junior subordinated debt |
|
bbb+ (8th of 22) |
|
Baa (8th of 21) |
|
BBB- (10th of 22) |
|
BBB+ (8th of 22) |
|
Trust preferred securities |
|
bbb (9th of 22) |
|
Baa (8th of 21) |
|
BBB- (10th of 22) |
|
BBB+ (8th of 22) |
|
Preferred stock |
|
bbb (9th of 22) |
|
Baa2 (9th of 21) |
|
BBB- (10th of 22) |
|
BBB+ (8th of 22) |
|
Commercial paper. |
|
AMB-1 (2nd of 6) |
|
Prime-2 (2nd of 4) |
|
A-2 (3rd of 8) |
|
F-2 (3rd of 8) |
|
Rating Agency Actions
The following rating agency actions were taken with respect to the Company in 2006 and through February 23, 2007:
· On February 2, 2006, Fitch affirmed all ratings of the Company, including the A- long-term issuer rating, A- ratings on the Companys senior unsecured notes, and BBB+ ratings on the Companys subordinated notes in capital securities. Additionally, Fitch affirmed the AA- insurer financial strength (IFS) ratings on members of the St. Paul Travelers Reinsurance Pool. The rating outlooks are stable.
29
· On May 3, 2006, Moodys affirmed the long-term debt ratings (senior unsecured debt at A3) of the Company and the IFS ratings on members of the St. Paul Travelers Reinsurance Pool (Aa3). The outlook for these ratings was changed to stable from negative.
· On May 30, 2006, A.M. Best affirmed the financial strength rating (FSR) of A+ (Superior) and issuer credit ratings (ICR) of aa- of St. Paul Travelers Insurance Companies and its property/casualty members. Concurrently, A.M. Best affirmed the debt ratings of a- on senior debt, bbb+ on subordinated debt, bbb on trust preferred securities, bbb on preferred stock and AMB-1 on commercial paper of The St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc. Additionally, A.M. Best downgraded the FSR to A- (Excellent) from A (Excellent) and assigned an ICR of a- to First Floridian Auto and Home Insurance Company.
· On June 14, 2006, S&P raised its FSR ratings on the St. Paul Travelers Reinsurance Pool to AA- from A+ and raised its counterparty credit rating on The St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc. to A- from BBB+. The ratings outlooks are stable.
· On June 15, 2006, S&P assigned its A- senior debt rating to the $800 million senior unsecured notes due in 2016 and 2036 issued by the Company in June 2006.
· On June 15, 2006, A.M. Best assigned a debt rating of a- to the $800 million senior unsecured notes due in 2016 and 2036 issued by the Company in June 2006.
· On June 15, 2006, Fitch announced that it expected to assign an A- debt rating to the $800 million senior unsecured notes due in 2016 and 2036 planned to be issued by the Company in June 2006. Subsequently, on June 19, 2006, Fitch assigned the A- debt rating to these senior notes.
· On June 16, 2006, Moodys assigned an A3 debt rating to the $800 million senior unsecured notes due in 2016 and 2036 issued by the Company in June 2006, and affirmed the stable outlook it had announced on May 3, 2006.
· On July 28, 2006, Fitch affirmed all ratings of The St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc., including the issuer default rating of A, the A- ratings on senior unsecured notes and the BBB+ ratings on subordinated notes and capital securities. In addition, the AA- insurer financial strength ratings on members of the St. Paul Travelers Inter-Company Pool was affirmed. The ratings outlooks are stable.
· On December 18, 2006, A.M. Best reaffirmed the FSR of A- (Excellent) of Afianzadora Insurgentes, S.A. de C.V., the Companys Mexican subsidiary.
· On January 18, 2007, A.M. Best placed the FSR of A- (Excellent) of Afianzadora Insurgentes, S.A. de C.V., the Companys Mexican subsidiary, under review with negative implications. This rating action was a result of the Company having reached a definitive agreement to sell this surety company. The rating will remain under review until the sale is finalized.
· On January 24, 2007, A.M. Best placed the FSR of A (Excellent) and the ICR of a of Mendota Insurance Company and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Mendakota Insurance Company, under review with negative implications. These ratings actions were the result of the Company having reached a definitive agreement to sell these subsidiaries. The ratings will remain under review pending regulatory approval and completion of the transaction. The ratings of the Northland Pool were unchanged.
A significant majority of funds available for investment are deployed in a widely diversified portfolio of high quality, liquid intermediate-term taxable U.S. government, corporate and mortgage backed bonds
30
and tax-exempt U.S. municipal bonds. The Company closely monitors the duration of its fixed maturity investments, and investment purchases and sales are executed with the objective of having adequate funds available to satisfy the Companys insurance and debt obligations. The Companys management of the duration of the fixed income investment portfolio generally produces a duration that modestly exceeds the duration of the Companys net insurance liabilities.
The primary goals of the Companys asset liability management process are to satisfy the insurance liabilities, manage the interest rate risk embedded in those insurance liabilities, and maintain sufficient liquidity to cover fluctuations in projected liability cash flows. Generally, the expected principal and interest payments produced by the Companys fixed income portfolio adequately fund the estimated runoff of the Companys insurance reserves. Although this is not an exact cash flow match in each period, the substantial degree by which the market value of the fixed income portfolio exceeds the present value of the net insurance liabilities, plus the positive cash flow from newly sold policies and the large amount of high quality liquid bonds provides assurance of the Companys ability to fund the payment of claims without having to sell illiquid assets or access credit facilities.
The Company also invests much smaller amounts in equity securities, venture capital and real estate. These investment classes have the potential for higher returns but also involve varying degrees of risk, including less stable rates of return and less liquidity.
See note 3 of notes to the Companys consolidated financial statements for additional information regarding the Companys investment portfolio.
See notes 1 and 14 of notes to the Companys consolidated financial statements for a discussion of the policies and transactions related to the Companys derivative financial instruments.
STAs insurance subsidiaries are subject to regulation in the various states and jurisdictions in which they transact business. The extent of regulation varies, but generally derives from statutes that delegate regulatory, supervisory and administrative authority to a department of insurance in each state. The regulation, supervision and administration relate, among other things, to standards of solvency that must be met and maintained, the licensing of insurers and their agents, the nature of and limitations on investments, premium rates, restrictions on the size of risks that may be insured under a single policy, reserves and provisions for unearned premiums, losses and other obligations, deposits of securities for the benefit of policyholders, approval of policy forms and the regulation of market conduct, including the use of credit information in underwriting as well as other underwriting and claims practices. In addition, many states have enacted variations of competitive ratemaking laws, which allow insurers to set certain premium rates for certain classes of insurance without having to obtain the prior approval of the state insurance department. State insurance departments also conduct periodic examinations of the financial condition and market conduct of insurance companies and require the filing of financial and other reports on a quarterly and annual basis. STAs insurance subsidiaries are collectively licensed to transact insurance business in all states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, Bermuda and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
As part of ongoing, industry-wide investigations, the Company has received subpoenas and written requests for information from government agencies and authorities, including 21 states and the SEC. The areas of inquiry addressed to the Company include the method by which brokers and agents are compensated. The Company is cooperating with these subpoenas and requests for information. As
31
described in more detail in Part I, Item 3Legal Proceedings herein, in August 2006, the Company entered into agreements with several of these states to resolve issues related to broker and agent compensation. The Company discontinued paying contingent commissions on excess casualty and umbrella business effective September 30, 2006. In addition, the Company discontinued paying contingent commissions for homeowners multi-peril, private passenger automobile physical damage, private passenger automobile no-fault, other private passenger automobile liability, boiler and machinery and financial guaranty insurance lines effective January 1, 2007. The Company has developed alternative compensation arrangements for these lines of business that compensate brokers and agents in a manner that differentiates for business performance and is consistent with all applicable laws. Beginning January 1, 2007, the Company is offering an optional fixed commission program for most commercial insurance lines.
Insurance Regulation Concerning Dividends
STAs principal insurance subsidiaries are domiciled in the states of Connecticut and Minnesota. The insurance holding company laws of both states applicable to STAs subsidiaries require notice to, and approval by, the state insurance commissioner for the declaration or payment of any dividend, that together with other distributions made within the preceding twelve months, exceeds the greater of 10% of the insurers capital and surplus as of the preceding December 31, or the insurers net income for the twelve-month period ending the preceding December 31, in each case determined in accordance with statutory accounting practices and by state regulation. This declaration or payment is further limited by adjusted unassigned surplus, as determined in accordance with statutory accounting practices.
The insurance holding company laws of other states in which STAs insurance subsidiaries are domiciled generally contain similar, although in some instances somewhat more restrictive, limitations on the payment of dividends.
STAs insurance subsidiaries are subject to each states regulations regarding premium rate approvals. The applicable regulations are used by states to establish standards to ensure that rates are not excessive, inadequate, unfairly discriminatory, or used to engage in unfair price competition. An insurers ability to increase premiums and the relative timing of the process, are dependent upon each respective states requirements.
Requirements for Exiting Geographic Markets and/or Canceling or Nonrenewing Policies
Several states have regulations which may impact the timing and/or the ability of an insurer to either discontinue or substantially reduce its writings in that state. These regulations typically require prior notice, and in some instances insurance department approval, prior to discontinuing a line of business or withdrawing from that state.
Insurance Holding Company Statutes
As a holding company, STA is not regulated as an insurance company. However, since STA owns capital stock in insurance subsidiaries, it is subject to state insurance holding company statutes, as well as certain other laws, of each of its insurance subsidiaries states of domicile. All holding company statutes, as well as other laws, require disclosure and, in some instances, prior approval of material transactions between an insurance company and an affiliate. The holding company statutes and other laws also require, among other things, prior approval of an acquisition of control of a domestic insurer, some transactions between affiliates and the payment of extraordinary dividends or distributions.
32
Insurance Regulations Concerning Change of Control
Many state insurance regulatory laws contain provisions that require advance approval by state agencies of any change in control of an insurance company that is domiciled, or, in some cases, having substantial business that it is deemed to be commercially domiciled, in that state.
The laws of many states also contain provisions requiring pre-notification to state agencies prior to any change in control of a non-domestic insurance company admitted to transact business in that state. While these pre-notification statutes do not authorize the state agency to disapprove the change of control, they do authorize issuance of cease and desist orders with respect to the non-domestic insurer if it is determined that some conditions, such as undue market concentration, would result from the acquisition.
Any transactions that would constitute a change in control of any of STAs insurance subsidiaries would generally require prior approval by the insurance departments of the states in which the insurance subsidiaries are domiciled or commercially domiciled. They may also require preacquisition notification in those states that have adopted preacquisition notification provisions and in which such insurance subsidiaries are admitted to transact business.
One of STAs insurance subsidiaries and its operations at Lloyds are domiciled in the United Kingdom. Insurers in the United Kingdom are subject to change of control restrictions in the Financial Services and Markets Act of 2000 including approval of the Financial Services Authority. Insurers in the Republic of Ireland are subject to regulation by the Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority.
Some of STAs other insurance subsidiaries are domiciled in, or authorized to conduct insurance business in, Canada. Authorized insurers in Canada are subject to change of control restrictions in Section 407 of the Insurance Companies Act, including approval of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.
These requirements may deter, delay or prevent transactions affecting the control of or the ownership of common stock, including transactions that could be advantageous to STAs shareholders.
Assessments for Guaranty Funds and Second-Injury Funds and Other Mandatory Pooling Arrangements
Virtually all states require insurers licensed to do business in their state to bear a portion of the loss suffered by some insureds because of the insolvency of other insurers. Many states also have laws that established second-injury funds to provide compensation to injured employees for aggravation of a prior condition or injury.
STAs insurance subsidiaries are also required to participate in various involuntary assigned risk pools, principally involving workers compensation and automobile insurance, which provide various insurance coverages to individuals or other entities that otherwise are unable to purchase that coverage in the voluntary market.
Insurance Regulatory Information System
The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) developed the Insurance Regulatory Information System (IRIS) to help state regulators identify companies that may require special attention. Financial examiners review annual statements and key financial ratios based on year-end data. These ratios assist state insurance departments in executing their statutory mandate to oversee the financial condition of insurance companies. Each ratio has an established usual range of results. A ratio result falling outside the usual range of IRIS ratios, however, is not considered a failing result; rather, unusual values are viewed as part of the regulatory early monitoring system. Furthermore, in some years, it may not be unusual for financially sound companies to have several ratios with results outside the usual ranges.
33
Generally, an insurance company will become subject to regulatory scrutiny if it falls outside the usual ranges of four or more of the ratios.
Based on preliminary 2006 IRIS ratios calculated by the Company, Discover Reinsurance Company had results outside the normal range for two of the IRIS ratios, due to reserve strengthening actions taken in 2005. In 2005, most of the Companys insurance subsidiaries in the St. Paul Travelers Reinsurance pool had results outside the normal range for one of the IRIS ratios, due to reserve strengthening actions that occurred in 2004 and the combining of the two pools that occurred in 2005. In addition, Discover Reinsurance Company had results outside the normal range for three of the IRIS ratios, due to reserve strengthening actions in 2005 and 2004.
Management does not anticipate regulatory action as a result of the 2006 IRIS ratio results. In all instances in prior years, regulators have been satisfied upon follow-up that no regulatory action was required. It is possible that similar results could occur in the future. No state insurance department has taken any regulatory action with respect to the IRIS ratios of any of STAs insurance subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2005.
Risk-Based Capital (RBC) Requirements
The NAIC has an RBC requirement for most property and casualty insurance companies. The RBC requirement determines minimum capital requirements and is intended to raise the level of protection for policyholder obligations. Under laws adopted by individual states, insurers having total adjusted capital less than that required by the RBC calculation will be subject to varying degrees of regulatory action, depending on the level of capital inadequacy.
The formulas have not been designed to differentiate among adequately capitalized companies that operate with higher levels of capital. Therefore, it is inappropriate and ineffective to use the formulas to rate or to rank these companies. At December 31, 2006, all of STAs insurance subsidiaries had total adjusted capital in excess of the RBC requirement.
Insurance company investments must comply with applicable laws and regulations which prescribe the kind, quality and concentration of investments. In general, these laws and regulations permit investments in federal, state and municipal obligations, corporate bonds, preferred and common equity securities, mortgage loans, real estate and certain other investments, subject to specified limits and certain other qualifications.
STAs insurance underwriting subsidiary based in the United Kingdom, St. Paul Travelers Insurance Company Limited, is regulated by the Financial Services Authority (FSA). The FSAs principal objectives are to maintain market confidence, promote public understanding of the financial system, protect consumers, and to fight financial crime. STAs Lloyds syndicates are also regulated by the FSA, which has delegated certain regulatory responsibilities to the Council of Lloyds. Through Lloyds, STA is licensed to write business in over 70 countries throughout the world by virtue of Lloyds international licenses. In each such country STA is subject to the laws and insurance regulation of that country. In Canada, the conduct of STAs insurance business is regulated under provisions of the Insurance Companies Act, which requires insurance companies to maintain certain levels of capital depending on the type and amount of insurance policies in force. In Australia, STAs branch in runoff is regulated by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority.
34
In the opinion of the Companys management, no material part of the business of the Company and its subsidiaries is dependent upon a single customer or group of customers, the loss of any one of which would have a materially adverse effect on the Company, and no one customer or group of affiliated customers accounts for as much as 10% of the Companys consolidated revenues.
At December 31, 2006, the Company had approximately 32,800 employees. The Company believes that its employee relations are satisfactory. None of the Companys employees are subject to collective bargaining agreements.
For a discussion of the Companys sources of funds and maturities of the long-term debt of the Company, see Item 7, Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of OperationsLiquidity and Capital Resources, and note 7 of notes to the Companys consolidated financial statements.
For a discussion of tax matters affecting the Company and its operations, see note 10 of notes to the Companys consolidated financial statements.
Financial Information about Reportable Business Segments
For financial information regarding reportable business segments of the Company, see Item 7Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, and note 2 of notes to the Companys consolidated financial statements.
For information regarding recent transactions of the Company, see Item 7, Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.
On February 13, 2007, STA announced that it had signed a definitive agreement with Citigroup, Inc. to reacquire the red umbrella trademark, a familiar symbol that had represented Travelers and insurance protection for many years. STA expects to allocate the purchase price principally to the umbrella trademark, which will be owned by the Company. After the closing of the transaction, STA intends to change its name to The Travelers Companies, Inc. and will begin trading on the New York Stock Exchange under the new stock symbol TRV. The transaction is expected to be completed during the first quarter of 2007.
Company Website and Availability of SEC Filings
The Companys Internet website is www.stpaultravelers.com. Information on the Companys website is not a part of this Form 10-K. The Company makes available free of charge on its website or provides a link on its website to the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and Current Reports on Form 8-K, and any amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as soon as reasonably practicable after those reports are electronically filed with, or furnished to, the SEC. To access these filings, go to the Companys website, then click on SEC Filings under the Investors heading.
35
Glossary of Selected Insurance Terms
Accident year |
|
The annual calendar accounting period in which loss events occurred, regardless of when the losses are actually reported, booked or paid. |
Adjusted unassigned surplus |
|
Unassigned surplus as of the most recent statutory annual report reduced by twenty-five percent of that years unrealized appreciation in value or revaluation of assets or unrealized profits on investments, as defined in that report. |
Admitted insurer |
|
A company licensed to transact insurance business within a state. |
Annuity |
|
A contract that pays a periodic benefit over the remaining life of a person (the annuitant), the lives of two or more persons or for a specified period of time. |
Assigned risk pools |
|
Reinsurance pools which cover risks for those unable to purchase insurance in the voluntary market. Possible reasons for this inability include the risk being too great or the profit being too small under the required insurance rate structure. The costs of the risks associated with these pools are charged back to insurance carriers in proportion to their direct writings. |
Assumed reinsurance |
|
Insurance risks acquired from a ceding company. |
Average value method |
|
An actuarial method used to estimate ultimate losses for a given cohort of claims such as an accident year/product line component. If the paid-to-date losses are then subtracted from the estimated ultimate losses, the result is an indication of the unpaid losses. The basic premise of the method is that average claim values are stable and predictable over time for a particular cohort of claims. The method is utilized most often where ultimate claim counts are known or reliably estimable fairly early after the start of an accident year and average values are expected to be fairly predictable from one year to the next. Ultimate losses under the method equal the known or estimated ultimate claim counts times the estimated average value. Estimated ultimate claim counts are frequently based on a claim count development method, essentially the same as the paid and case incurred development methods mentioned elsewhere in this glossary but using claim count rather than claim dollar data. The average values can be based on historical trends from past closed claims, or backed into from estimated ultimate losses divided by estimated ultimate claim counts, or some other approach. When the average values are calculated from ultimate loss estimates, the resulting estimated averages may be supplemented with other data/analyses. |
36
Bornheutter-Ferguson method |
|
An actuarial method to estimate ultimate losses for a given cohort of claims such as an accident year/product line component. If the paid-to-date losses are then subtracted from the estimated ultimate losses, the result is an indication of the outstanding losses. The basic premise of the method is that the historical ratio of additional claim activity to earned premium for a given product line component/age-to-age period is stable and predictable. It implicitly assumes that the actual activity to-date for past periods for that cohort is not a credible predictor of future activity for that cohort, or at least is not credible enough to override the a priori assumption as to future activity. It may be applied to either paid or case incurred claim data. It is used most often where the claim data is sparse and/or volatile and for relatively young cohorts with low volumes and/or data credibility. To illustrate, the method may assume that the ratio of additional paid losses from the 12 to 24 month period for an accident year is 10% of the original a priori expected losses for that accident year. The original a priori expected losses are typically based on the original loss ratio assumption for that accident year, with subsequent adjustment as facts develop. The ultimate losses equal actual activity to-date plus the expected values for future periods. |
Broker |
|
One who negotiates contracts of insurance or reinsurance on behalf of an insured party, receiving a commission from the insurer or reinsurer for placement and other services rendered. |
Capacity |
|
The percentage of surplus, or the dollar amount of exposure, that an insurer or reinsurer is willing or able to place at risk. Capacity may apply to a single risk, a program, a line of business or an entire book of business. Capacity may be constrained by legal restrictions, corporate restrictions or indirect restrictions. |
Captive |
|
A closely-held insurance company whose primary purpose is to provide insurance coverage to the companys owners or their affiliates. |
Case incurred loss development method |
|
The approach is the same as that described in this glossary under the paid loss development method, but based on the growth in cumulative case incurred losses (i.e., the sum of claim-adjustor incurred estimates for claims in the cohort) rather than paid losses. The basic premise of the method is that cumulative case incurred losses for a given cohort of claims will grow in a stable, predictable pattern from year-to-year, based on the age of the cohort. |
Case reserves |
|
Claim department estimates of anticipated future payments to be made on each specific individual reported claim. |
37
Casualty insurance |
|
Insurance which is primarily concerned with the losses caused by injuries to third persons, i.e., not the insured, and the legal liability imposed on the insured resulting therefrom. It includes, but is not limited to, employers liability, workers compensation, public liability, automobile liability, personal liability and aviation liability insurance. It excludes certain types of losses that by law or custom are considered as being exclusively within the scope of other types of insurance, such as fire or marine. |
Catastrophe |
|
A severe loss, resulting from natural and manmade events, including risks such as fire, earthquake, windstorm, explosion, terrorism and other similar events. Each catastrophe has unique characteristics. Catastrophes are not predictable as to timing or amount in advance, and therefore their effects are not included in earnings or claims and claim adjustment expense reserves prior to occurrence. A catastrophe may also result in the payment of reinstatement premiums and assessments from various pools. |
Catastrophe loss |
|
Loss and directly identified loss adjustment expenses from catastrophes. |
Catastrophe reinsurance |
|
A form of excess of loss reinsurance which, subject to a specified limit, indemnifies the ceding company for the amount of loss in excess of a specified retention with respect to an accumulation of losses resulting from a catastrophic event. The actual reinsurance document is called a catastrophe cover. These reinsurance contracts are typically designed to cover property insurance losses but can be written to cover casualty insurance losses such as from workers compensation policies. |
Cede; ceding company |
|
When an insurer reinsures its liability with another insurer or a cession, it cedes business and is referred to as the ceding company. |
Ceded reinsurance |
|
Insurance risks transferred to another company as reinsurance. See Reinsurance. |
Claim |
|
Request by an insured for indemnification by an insurance company for loss incurred from an insured peril. |
Claim adjustment expenses |
|
See Loss adjustment expenses (LAE). |
Claims and claim adjustment expenses |
|
|
Claims and claim adjustment expense reserves |
|
|
Cohort |
|
A group of items or individuals that share a particular statistical or demographic characteristic. For example, all claims for a given product in a given market for a given accident year would represent a cohort of claims |
38
Combined ratio |
|
The sum of the loss and LAE ratio, the underwriting expense ratio and, where applicable, the ratio of dividends to policyholders to net premiums earned. A combined ratio under 100% generally indicates an underwriting profit. A combined ratio over 100% generally indicates an underwriting loss. |
Commercial multi-peril policies |
|
Refers to policies which cover both property and third-party liability exposures. |
Commutation agreement |
|
An agreement between a reinsurer and a ceding company whereby the reinsurer pays an agreed upon amount in exchange for a complete discharge of all obligations, including future obligations, between the parties for reinsurance losses incurred. |
Deductible |
|
The amount of loss that an insured retains. |
Deferred acquisition costs |
|
Primarily commissions and premium-related taxes that vary with and are primarily related to the production of new contracts and are deferred and amortized to achieve a matching of revenues and expenses when reported in financial statements prepared in accordance with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). |
Deficiency |
|
With regard to reserves for a given liability, a deficiency exists when it is estimated or determined that the reserves are insufficient to pay the ultimate settlement value of the related liabilities. Where the deficiency is the result of an estimate, the estimated amount of deficiency (or even the finding of whether or not a deficiency exists) may change as new information becomes available. |
Direct written premiums |
|
The amounts charged by an insurer to insureds in exchange for coverages provided in accordance with the terms of an insurance contract. The amounts exclude the impact of all reinsurance premiums, either assumed or ceded. |
Earned premiums or premiums earned |
|
|
Excess liability |
|
Additional casualty coverage above a layer of insurance exposures. |
Excess of loss reinsurance |
|
Reinsurance that indemnifies the reinsured against all or a specified portion of losses over a specified dollar amount or retention. |
Expense ratio |
|
See Underwriting expense ratio. |
Facultative reinsurance |
|
The reinsurance of all or a portion of the insurance provided by a single policy. Each policy reinsured is separately negotiated. |
Fidelity and surety programs |
|
Fidelity insurance coverage protects an insured for loss due to embezzlement or misappropriation of funds by an employee. Surety is a three-party agreement in which the insurer agrees to pay a second party or make complete an obligation in response to the default, acts or omissions of an insured. |
39
Ground-up method |
|
A method to estimate ultimate claim costs for a given cohort of claims such as an accident year/product line component. It involves analyzing the exposure at an individual insured level and then through the use of deterministic or stochastic scenarios and/or simulations, estimating the ultimate losses for those insureds. The total losses for the cohort are then the sum of the losses for each individual insured. In practice, the method is sometimes simplified by performing the individual insured analysis only for the larger insureds, with the costs for the smaller insureds estimated via sampling approaches (extrapolated to the rest of the smaller insured population) or aggregate approaches (using assumptions consistent with the ground-up larger insured analysis). |
Guaranteed cost products |
|
An insurance policy where the premiums charged will not be adjusted for actual loss experience during the covered period. |
Guaranty fund |
|
State-regulated mechanism which is financed by assessing insurers doing business in those states. Should insolvencies occur, these funds are available to meet some or all of the insolvent insurers obligations to policyholders. |
Incurred but not reported (IBNR) reserves |
|
|
Inland marine |
|
A broad type of insurance generally covering articles that may be transported from one place to another, as well as bridges, tunnels and other instrumentalities of transportation. It includes goods in transit, generally other than transoceanic, and may include policies for movable objects such as personal effects, personal property, jewelry, furs, fine art and others. |
IRIS ratios |
|
Financial ratios calculated by the NAIC to assist state insurance departments in monitoring the financial condition of insurance companies. |
Large deductible policy |
|
An insurance policy where the customer assumes at least $25,000 or more of each loss. Typically, the insurer is responsible for paying the entire loss under those policies and then seeks reimbursement from the insured for the deductible amount. |
Lloyds |
|
An insurance marketplace based in London, England, where brokers, representing clients with insurable risks, deal with Lloyds underwriters, who represent investors. The investors are grouped together into syndicates that provide capital to insure the risks. |
Loss |
|
An occurrence that is the basis for submission and/or payment of a claim. Losses may be covered, limited or excluded from coverage, depending on the terms of the policy. |
Loss adjustment |
|
|
40
Loss and LAE ratio |
|
For SAP, it is the ratio of incurred losses and loss adjustment expenses to net earned premiums. For GAAP, it is the ratio of incurred losses and loss adjustment expenses reduced by an allocation of fee income to net earned premiums. |
Loss reserves |
|
Liabilities established by insurers and reinsurers to reflect the estimated cost of claims incurred that the insurer or reinsurer will ultimately be required to pay in respect of insurance or reinsurance it has written. Reserves are established for losses and for LAE, and consist of case reserves and IBNR reserves. As the term is used in this document, loss reserves is meant to include reserves for both losses and LAE. |
Loss reserve development |
|
The increase or decrease in incurred claims and claim adjustment expenses as a result of the re-estimation of claims and claim adjustment expense reserves at successive valuation dates for a given group of claims. Loss reserve development may be related to prior year or current year development. |
Losses incurred |
|
The total losses sustained by an insurance company under a policy or policies, whether paid or unpaid. Incurred losses include a provision for IBNR. |
National Association of |
|
|
Net written premiums |
|
Direct written premiums plus assumed reinsurance premiums less premiums ceded to reinsurers. |
Operating income (loss) |
|
Net income (loss) excluding the after-tax impact of net realized investment gains (losses), discontinued operations and cumulative effect of changes in accounting principles when applicable. |
Operating income (loss) |
|
|
Operating return on equity |
|
The ratio of operating income to average equity excluding net unrealized investment gains and losses and discontinued operations, net of tax. |
41
Paid loss development method |
|
An actuarial method to estimate ultimate losses for a given cohort of claims such as an accident year/product line component. If the paid-to-date losses are then subtracted from the estimated ultimate losses, the result is an indication of the unpaid losses. The basic premise of the method is that cumulative paid losses for a given cohort of claims will grow in a stable, predictable pattern from year-to-year, based on the age of the cohort. These age-to-age growth factors are sometimes called link ratios. For example, if cumulative paid losses for a product line XYZ for accident year 2004 were $100 as of December 31, 2004 (12 months after the start of that accident year), then grew to $120 as of December 31, 2005 (24 months after the start), the link ratio for that accident year from 12 to 24 months would be 1.20. If the link ratio for other recent accident years from 12 to 24 months for that product line were also at or around 1.20, then the method would assume a similar result for the most recent accident year, i.e., that it too would have its cumulative paid losses grow 120% from the 12 month to 24 month valuation. This is repeated for each age-to-age period into the future until the age-to-age link ratios for future periods are assumed to be 1.0 (i.e., the age at which cumulative losses are assumed to have stopped growing). A given accident years cumulative losses are then projected to ultimate by multiplying current cumulative losses by successive age-to-age link ratios up to that future age where growth is expected to end. For example, if growth is expected to end at 60 months, then the ultimate indication for an accident year with cumulative losses at 12 months equals those losses times a 12 to 24 month link ratio, times a 24 to 36 month link ratio, times a 36 to 48 month link ratio, times a 48 to 60 month link ratio. Advanced applications of the method include adjustments for changing conditions during the historical period and anticipated changes in the future. |
Pool |
|
An organization of insurers or reinsurers through which particular types of risks are underwritten with premiums, losses and expenses being shared in agreed-upon percentages. |
Premiums |
|
The amount charged during the year on policies and contracts issued, renewed or reinsured by an insurance company. |
Producer |
|
Contractual entity which directs insureds to the insurer for coverage. This term includes agents and brokers. |
Property insurance |
|
Insurance that provides coverage to a person or business with an insurable interest in tangible property for that persons or businesss property loss, damage or loss of use. |
Quota share reinsurance |
|
Reinsurance wherein the insurer cedes an agreed-upon fixed percentage of liabilities, premiums and losses for each policy covered on a pro rata basis. |
42
Rates |
|
Amounts charged per unit of insurance. |
Redundancy |
|
With regard to reserves for a given liability, a redundancy exists when it is estimated or determined that the reserves are greater than what will be needed to pay the ultimate settlement value of the related liabilities. Where the redundancy is the result of an estimate, the estimated amount of redundancy (or even the finding of whether or not a redundancy exists) may change as new information becomes available. |
Reinstatement premiums |
|
Additional premiums payable to reinsurers to restore coverage limits that have been exhausted as a result of reinsured losses under certain excess of loss reinsurance treaties. |
Reinsurance |
|
The practice whereby one insurer, called the reinsurer, in consideration of a premium paid to that insurer, agrees to indemnify another insurer, called the ceding company, for part or all of the liability of the ceding company under one or more policies or contracts of insurance which it has issued. |
Reinsurance agreement |
|
A contract specifying the terms of a reinsurance transaction. |
Reported claim development method |
|
The approach is the same as that described in this glossary under the paid loss development method, but based on the growth in cumulative claim counts rather than paid losses. The basic premise of the method is that cumulative claim counts for a given cohort of claims will grow in a stable, predictable pattern from year-to-year, based on the age of the cohort. |
Residual market (involuntary business) |
|
|
Retention |
|
The amount of exposure a policyholder company retains on any one risk or group of risks. The term may apply to an insurance policy, where the policyholder is an individual, family or business, or a reinsurance policy, where the policyholder is an insurance company. |
Retention ratio |
|
Current period renewal premiums, accounts or policies as a percentage of total premiums, accounts or policies available for renewal. |
Retrospective premiums |
|
Premiums related to retrospectively rated policies. |
43
Retrospective rating |
|
A plan or method which permits adjustment of the final premium or commission on the basis of actual loss experience, subject to certain minimum and maximum limits. |
Return on equity |
|
The ratio of net income to average equity. |
Risk-based capital (RBC) |
|
A measure adopted by the NAIC and enacted by states for determining the minimum statutory capital and surplus requirements of insurers. Insurers having total adjusted capital less than that required by the RBC calculation will be subject to varying degrees of regulatory action depending on the level of capital inadequacy. |
Risk retention group |
|
An alternative form of insurance in which members of a similar profession or business band together to self insure their risks. |
Run-off business |
|
An operation which has been determined to be nonstrategic; includes non-renewals of inforce policies and a cessation of writing new business, where allowed by law. |
Salvage |
|
The amount of money an insurer recovers through the sale of property transferred to the insurer as a result of a loss payment. |
S-curve method |
|
A mathematical function which depicts an initial slow change, followed by a rapid change and then ending in a slow change again. This results in an S shaped line when depicted graphically. The actuarial application of these curves fit the reported data to-date for a particular cohort of claims to an S-curve to project future activity for that cohort. |
Second-injury fund |
|
The employer of an injured, impaired worker is responsible only for the workers compensation benefit for the most recent injury; the second-injury fund would cover the cost of any additional benefits for aggravation of a prior condition. The cost is shared by the insurance industry and self-insureds, funded through assessments to insurance companies and self-insureds based on either premiums or losses. |
Self-insured retentions |
|
That portion of the risk retained by a person for its own account. |
Servicing carrier |
|
An insurance company that provides, for a fee, various services including policy issuance, claims adjusting and customer service for insureds in a reinsurance pool. |
Statutory accounting practices (SAP) |
|
|
Statutory surplus |
|
As determined under SAP, the amount remaining after all liabilities, including loss reserves, are subtracted from all admitted assets. Admitted assets are assets of an insurer prescribed or permitted by a state to be recognized on the statutory balance sheet. Statutory surplus is also referred to as surplus or surplus as regards policyholders for statutory accounting purposes. |
44
Structured settlements |
|
Periodic payments to an injured person or survivor for a determined number of years or for life, typically in settlement of a claim under a liability policy, usually funded through the purchase of an annuity. |
Subrogation |
|
A principle of law incorporated in insurance policies, which enables an insurance company, after paying a claim under a policy, to recover the amount of the loss from another who is legally liable for it. |
Third-party liability |
|
A liability owed to a claimant (third party) who is not one of the two parties to the insurance contract. Insured liability claims are referred to as third-party claims. |
Treaty reinsurance |
|
The reinsurance of a specified type or category of risks defined in a reinsurance agreement (a treaty) between a primary insurer or other reinsured and a reinsurer. Typically, in treaty reinsurance, the primary insurer or reinsured is obligated to offer and the reinsurer is obligated to accept a specified portion of all that type or category of risks originally written by the primary insurer or reinsured. |
Umbrella coverage |
|
A form of insurance protection against losses in excess of amounts covered by other liability insurance policies or amounts not covered by the usual liability policies. |
Unassigned surplus |
|
The undistributed and unappropriated amount of statutory surplus. |
Underwriter |
|
An employee of an insurance company who examines, accepts or rejects risks and classifies accepted risks in order to charge an appropriate premium for each accepted risk. The underwriter is expected to select business that will produce an average risk of loss no greater than that anticipated for the class of business. |
Underwriting |
|
The insurers or reinsurers process of reviewing applications for insurance coverage, and the decision as to whether to accept all or part of the coverage and determination of the applicable premiums; also refers to the acceptance of that coverage. |
Underwriting expense ratio |
|
For SAP, it is the ratio of underwriting expenses incurred less other income to net written premiums. For GAAP, it is the ratio of underwriting expenses incurred reduced by an allocation of fee income and billing and policy fees to net earned premiums. |
Underwriting gain or loss |
|
Net earned premiums and fee income less claims and claim adjustment expenses and insurance-related expenses. |
Unearned premium |
|
The portion of premiums written that is allocable to the unexpired portion of the policy term. |
Voluntary market |
|
The market in which a person seeking insurance obtains coverage without the assistance of residual market mechanisms. |
Wholesale broker |
|
An independent or exclusive agent that represents both admitted and nonadmitted insurers in market areas, which include standard, non-standard, specialty and excess and surplus lines of insurance. The wholesaler does not deal directly with the insurance consumer. The wholesaler deals with the retail agent or broker. |
Workers compensation |
|
A system (established under state and federal laws) under which employers provide insurance for benefit payments to their employees for work-related injuries, deaths and diseases, regardless of fault. |
45
You should carefully consider the following risks and all of the other information set forth in this report, including our consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto.
Catastrophe losses could materially reduce our profitability and adversely impact our ratings, our ability to raise capital and the availability and cost of reinsurance. Our property and casualty insurance operations expose us to claims arising out of catastrophes. Catastrophes can be caused by various natural events, including hurricanes, windstorms, earthquakes, hail, severe winter weather and fires. Catastrophes can also be man-made, such as a terrorist attack (including those involving nuclear, biological, chemical or radiological events) or a consequence of war or political instability. The geographic distribution of our business subjects us to catastrophe exposure from hurricanes in the Northeast, Florida, Gulf Coast and Mid-Atlantic regions, as well as catastrophe exposure from earthquakes in California and the New Madrid and Pacific Northwest regions. The incidence and severity of catastrophes are inherently unpredictable. Over the last several years, changing climate conditions have added to the unpredictability and frequency of natural disasters in certain parts of the world and created additional uncertainty as to future trends and exposures. It is possible that both the frequency and severity of natural and man-made catastrophic events will increase. In particular, we expect that the trend of increased severity and frequency of storms experienced in 2005 and 2004, although not evident in 2006, may continue in the foreseeable future.
The extent of losses from a catastrophe is a function of both the total amount of insured exposure in the area affected by the event and the severity of the event. States have from time to time passed legislation that has the effect of limiting the ability of insurers to manage catastrophe risk, such as legislation prohibiting insurers from withdrawing from catastrophe-prone areas. In addition, following catastrophes, there are sometimes legislative initiatives and court decisions which seek to expand insurance coverage for catastrophe claims beyond the original intent of the policies. Also, our ability to increase pricing to the extent necessary to offset rising costs of catastrophes, particularly in the Personal Insurance segment, requires approval of regulatory authorities of certain states. Our ability or our willingness to raise pricing, modify underwriting terms or reduce exposure to certain geographies may be limited due to considerations of public policy, the evolving political environment and/or social responsibilities. We also may choose to write business we might not otherwise write for strategic purposes, such as improving our access to other underwriting opportunities.
There are also risks which impact the estimation of ultimate costs for catastrophes. For example, the estimation of reserves related to hurricanes can be affected by the inability by us and our insureds to access portions of the impacted areas, the complexity of factors contributing to the losses, the legal and regulatory uncertainties and the nature of the information available to establish the reserves. Complex factors include, but are not limited to: determining whether damage was caused by flooding versus wind; evaluating general liability and pollution exposures; estimating additional living expenses; the impact of demand surge; infrastructure disruption; fraud; the effect of mold damage and business interruption costs; and reinsurance collectibility. The timing of a catastrophes occurrence, such as at or near the end of a reporting period, can also affect the information available to us in estimating reserves for that reporting period. The estimates related to catastrophes are adjusted as actual claims emerge.
Catastrophe losses could materially and adversely affect our results of operations for any fiscal quarter or year and may materially harm our financial condition, which in turn could adversely affect our financial strength and claims-paying ratings and could impair our ability to raise capital on acceptable terms or at all. Also, rating agencies may further increase their capital requirements, which may require us to raise capital to maintain our ratings or adversely affect our ratings. In addition, catastrophic events could cause us to exhaust our available reinsurance limits and could adversely impact the cost and availability of reinsurance.
For our exposure to catastrophe losses from acts of terrorism, we have limited terrorism coverage in our reinsurance program, and although the Terrorism Risk Insurance Extension Act of 2005 provides
46
benefits in the event of certain acts of terrorism, it may not be extended beyond 2007 or its benefits may be reduced. Given the unpredictable frequency and severity of terrorism losses, as well as the limited terrorism coverage in our own reinsurance program, future losses from acts of terrorism, particularly those involving nuclear, biological, chemical or radiological events, could materially and adversely affect our results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity in future periods, particularly if the Terrorism Act is not extended.
If actual claims exceed our loss reserves, or if changes in the estimated level of loss reserves are necessary, our financial results could be significantly and adversely affected. Claim and claim adjustment expense reserves (loss reserves) represent managements estimate of ultimate unpaid costs of losses and loss adjustment expenses for claims that have been reported and claims that have been incurred but not yet reported. Loss reserves do not represent an exact calculation of liability, but instead represent management estimates, generally utilizing actuarial expertise and projection techniques, at a given accounting date. These loss reserve estimates are expectations of what the ultimate settlement and administration of claims will cost upon final resolution in the future, based on our assessment of facts and circumstances then known, review of historical settlement patterns, estimates of trends in claims severity and frequency, expected interpretations of legal theories of liability and other factors. In establishing reserves, we also take into account estimated recoveries from reinsurance, salvage and subrogation.
The process of estimating loss reserves involves a high degree of judgment and is subject to a number of variables. These variables can be affected by both internal and external events, such as changes in claims handling procedures, economic inflation, legal trends and legislative changes, among others. The impact of many of these items on ultimate costs for claims and claim adjustment expenses is difficult to estimate. Loss reserve estimation difficulties also differ significantly by product line due to differences in claim complexity, the volume of claims, the potential severity of individual claims, the determination of occurrence date for a claim and reporting lags (the time between the occurrence of the policyholder event and when it is actually reported to the insurer).
We continually refine our loss reserve estimates in a regular ongoing process as historical loss experience develops and additional claims are reported and settled. Informed judgment is applied throughout the process, including the application, on a consistent basis over time, of various individual experiences and expertise to multiple sets of data and analyses. Different experts may choose different assumptions when faced with material uncertainty, based on their individual backgrounds, professional experiences and areas of focus. Hence, such experts may at times produce estimates materially different from each other. Experts providing input to the various estimates and underlying assumptions include actuaries, underwriters, claim personnel and lawyers, as well as other Company management. Therefore, management may have to consider varying individual viewpoints as part of its estimation of loss reserves.
We rigorously attempt to consider all significant facts and circumstances known at the time loss reserves are established. Due to the inherent uncertainty underlying loss reserve estimates including but not limited to the future settlement environment, final resolution of the estimated liability will be different from that anticipated at the reporting date. Therefore, actual paid losses in the future may yield a materially different amount than currently reservedfavorable or unfavorable.
Because of the uncertainties set forth above, additional liabilities may arise for amounts in excess of the current related reserves. In addition, our estimate of claims and claim adjustment expenses may change. These additional liabilities or increases in estimates, or a range of either, cannot now be reasonably estimated and could materially and adversely affect our results of operations or financial condition in future periods.
For a discussion of claims and claim adjustment expense reserves by product line, including examples of common factors that can affect required reserves, see Item 7Managements Discussion and Analysis
47
of Financial Condition and Results of OperationsCritical Accounting EstimatesClaims and Claim Adjustment Expense Reserves.
Our business could be harmed because of our potential exposure to asbestos and environmental claims and related litigation.
Asbestos Claims. We believe that the property and casualty insurance industry has suffered from court decisions and other trends that have attempted to expand insurance coverage for asbestos claims far beyond the intent of insurers and policyholders. While we have experienced a decrease in asbestos claims over the past two years, we continue to receive a significant number of asbestos claims from our policyholders (which includes others seeking coverage under a policy), including claims against our policyholders by individuals who do not appear to be impaired by asbestos exposure. Factors underlying these claim filings include intensive advertising by lawyers seeking asbestos claimants, the focus by plaintiffs on new and previously peripheral defendants and entities seeking bankruptcy protection as a result of asbestos-related liabilities. In addition to contributing to the overall number of claims, bankruptcy proceedings may increase the volatility of asbestos-related losses by initially delaying the reporting of claims and later by significantly accelerating and increasing loss payments by insurers, including us. Bankruptcy proceedings have also caused increased settlement demands against those policyholders who are not in bankruptcy but that remain in the tort system. Recently, in many jurisdictions, those who allege very serious injury and who can present credible medical evidence of their injuries are receiving priority trial settings in the courts, while those who have not shown any credible disease manifestation have their hearing dates delayed or placed on an inactive docket. This trend of prioritizing claims involving credible evidence of injuries, along with the focus on new and previously peripheral defendants, contributes to the loss and loss expense payments experienced by us. In addition, our asbestos-related loss and loss expense experience is impacted by the exhaustion or unavailability due to insolvency of other insurance potentially available to policyholders along with the insolvency or bankruptcy of other defendants.
We continue to be involved in coverage litigation concerning a number of policyholders, some of whom have filed for bankruptcy, including, among others, ACandS, Inc., who in some instances have asserted that all or a portion of their asbestos-related claims are not subject to aggregate limits on coverage. (See Item 3Legal Proceedings). In these instances, policyholders also may assert that each individual bodily injury claim should be treated as a separate occurrence under the policy. It is difficult to predict whether these policyholders will be successful on both issues. To the extent both issues are resolved in policyholders favor and our other defenses are not successful, our coverage obligations under the policies at issue would be materially increased and bounded only by the applicable per-occurrence limits and the number of asbestos bodily injury claims against the policyholders. Accordingly, although we have seen a moderation in the overall risk associated with these lawsuits, it remains difficult to predict the ultimate cost of these claims.
Many coverage disputes with policyholders are only resolved through settlement agreements. Because many policyholders make exaggerated demands, it is difficult to predict the outcome of settlement negotiations. Settlements involving bankrupt policyholders may include extensive releases which are favorable to us but which could result in settlements for larger amounts than originally anticipated. There also may be instances where a court may not approve a proposed settlement, which may result in additional litigation and potentially less beneficial outcomes for us. As in the past, we will continue to pursue settlement opportunities.
In addition, proceedings have been launched directly against insurers, including us, challenging insurers conduct in respect of asbestos claims, and claims by individuals seeking damages arising from alleged asbestos-related bodily injuries. Other direct actions against insurers, including us, could be filed in the future. It is difficult to predict the outcome of these proceedings, including whether the plaintiffs will be able to sustain these actions against insurers based on novel legal theories of liability.
48
Environmental Claims. We continue to receive claims from policyholders who allege that they are liable for injury or damage arising out of their alleged disposition of toxic substances. Mostly, these claims are due to various legislative as well as regulatory efforts aimed at environmental remediation. For instance, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), enacted in 1980 and later modified, enables private parties as well as federal and state governments to take action with respect to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances. This federal statute permits the recovery of response costs from some liable parties and may require liable parties to undertake their own remedial action. Liability under CERCLA may be joint and several with other responsible parties.
We have been, and continue to be, involved in litigation involving insurance coverage issues pertaining to environmental claims. We believe that some court decisions have interpreted the insurance coverage to be broader than the original intent of the insurers and policyholders. These decisions often pertain to insurance policies that were issued by us prior to the mid-1970s. These decisions continue to be inconsistent and vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Environmental claims when submitted rarely indicate the monetary amount being sought by the claimant from the policyholder, and we do not keep track of the monetary amount being sought in those few claims which indicate a monetary amount.
Asbestos and Environmental Claims. As a result of the processes and procedures described in Item 7Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, management believes that the reserves carried for asbestos and environmental claims at December 31, 2006 are appropriately established based upon known facts, current law and managements judgment. However, the uncertainties surrounding the final resolution of these claims continue, and it is difficult to determine the ultimate exposure for asbestos and environmental claims and related litigation. As a result, these reserves are subject to revision as new information becomes available and as claims develop. The continuing uncertainties include, without limitation, the risks and lack of predictability inherent in complex litigation, any impact from the bankruptcy protection sought by various asbestos producers and other asbestos defendants, a further increase or decrease in asbestos and environmental claims beyond that which is anticipated, the role of any umbrella or excess policies we have issued, the resolution or adjudication of some disputes pertaining to the amount of available coverage for asbestos and environmental claims in a manner inconsistent with our previous assessment of these claims, the number and outcome of direct actions against us and future developments pertaining to our ability to recover reinsurance for asbestos and environmental claims. In addition, our asbestos-related claims and claim adjustment expense experience has been impacted by the exhaustion or unavailability due to insolvency of other insurance sources potentially available to policyholders along with the insolvency or bankruptcy of other defendants, although we have noted a recent decrease in the number and volatility of asbestos-related bankruptcies. It is also not possible to predict changes in the legal and legislative environment and their impact on the future development of asbestos and environmental claims. This development will be affected by future court decisions and interpretations, as well as changes in applicable legislation, including legislation related to asbestos reform. It is also difficult to predict the ultimate outcome of large coverage disputes until settlement negotiations near completion and significant legal questions are resolved or, failing settlement, until the dispute is adjudicated. This is particularly the case with policyholders in bankruptcy where negotiations often involve a large number of claimants and other parties and require court approval to be effective. As part of its continuing analysis of asbestos reserves, which includes an annual review of asbestos policyholders, we continue to study the implications of these and other developments. We completed our most recent annual review during the third quarter of 2006. See the Asbestos Claims and Litigation and Environmental Claims and Litigation sections of Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations. Also see Item 3Legal Proceedings.
A portion of our loss reserves are for asbestos and environmental claims and related litigation which aggregated $4.47 billion at December 31, 2006. While the ongoing study of asbestos and environmental
49
claims and associated liabilities considers the inconsistencies of court decisions as to coverage, plaintiffs expanded theories of liability and the risks inherent in complex litigation and other uncertainties, in the opinion of our management, it is possible that the outcome of the continued uncertainties regarding these claims could result in liability in future periods that differs from current reserves by an amount that could be material to our operating results in future periods. See Item 7Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of OperationsAsbestos Claims and Litigation and Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of OperationsEnvironmental Claims and Litigation.
We are exposed to, and may face adverse developments involving, mass tort claims such as those relating to exposure to potentially harmful products or substances. In addition to asbestos and environmental pollution, we face exposure to other types of mass tort claims, including claims related to exposure to potentially harmful products or substances, including lead paint, silica and welding rod fumes. Establishing claim and claim adjustment expense reserves for mass tort claims is subject to uncertainties because of many factors, including expanded theories of liability, disputes concerning medical causation with respect to certain diseases, geographical concentration of the lawsuits asserting the claims and the potential for a large rise in the total number of claims without underlying epidemiological developments suggesting an increase in disease rates. Moreover, evolving judicial interpretations regarding the application of various tort theories and defenses, including application of various theories of joint and several liabilities, as well as the application of insurance coverage to these claims, impede our ability to estimate our ultimate liability for such claims.
Because of the uncertainties set forth above, additional liabilities may arise for amounts in excess of the current related reserves. In addition, our estimate of claims and claim adjustment expenses may change. These additional liabilities or increases in estimates, or a range of either, cannot now be reasonably estimated and could materially and adversely affect our results of operations in future periods.
The effects of emerging claim and coverage issues on our business are uncertain. As industry practices and legal, judicial, social and other environmental conditions change, unexpected and unintended issues related to claim and coverage may emerge. These issues may adversely affect our business by either extending coverage beyond our underwriting intent or by increasing the number or size of claims. Examples of emerging claims and coverage issues include:
· adverse changes in loss cost trends, including inflationary pressures in medical costs and auto and home repair costs;
· judicial expansion of policy coverage and the impact of new theories of liability;
· a growing trend of plaintiffs targeting property and casualty insurers, including us, in purported class action litigation relating to claim-handling and other practices;
· increases in the number and size of claims relating to construction defects, which often present complex coverage and damage valuation questions;
· increases in the number and size of claims related to expenses for testing and remediation of mold conditions; and
· claims from directors and officers insurance relating to possible accounting irregularities, corporate governance issues and stock option backdating, spring-loading and other option grant practices.
The effects of these and other unforeseen emerging claim and coverage issues are extremely hard to predict and could harm our business and materially adversely affect our results of operations in future periods.
50
Reinsurance may not protect us against losses. We use reinsurance to help manage our exposure to property and casualty risks. The availability and cost of reinsurance are subject to prevailing market conditions, both in terms of price and available capacity, which can affect our business volume and profitability. Although the reinsurer is liable to us to the extent of the ceded reinsurance, we remain liable as the direct insurer on all risks reinsured. As a result, ceded reinsurance arrangements do not eliminate our obligation to pay claims. Accordingly, we are subject to credit risk with respect to our ability to recover amounts due from reinsurers. In addition, some of our reinsurance claims may be disputed by the reinsurers, and we may ultimately receive partial or no payment. This is a particular risk in the case of claims that relate to insurance policies written many years ago, including those relating to asbestos and environmental claims. Reinsurance may not protect us against losses and may not be available to us in the future at commercially reasonable rates or at all.
The insurance industry is the subject of a number of investigations by state and federal authorities in the United States. We cannot predict the outcome of these investigations or the impact on our business or financial results. As part of ongoing, industry-wide investigations, we and our affiliates have received subpoenas and written requests for information from government agencies and authorities, including from the Attorneys General of numerous states, various states insurance and business regulators and the Securities and Exchange Commission. The areas of pending inquiry addressed to us include our relationship with brokers and agents and our involvement with non-traditional insurance and reinsurance products. We and our affiliates may receive additional subpoenas and requests for information with respect to these or other areas from government agencies or authorities. We are cooperating with these subpoenas and requests for information. For further information, see Item 3Legal Proceedings.
It would be premature to reach any conclusions as to the likely outcome of these matters or the impact on our business or financial results. Potential outcomes could include enforcement proceedings or settlements resulting in fines, penalties and/or changes in business practices that could adversely affect our results of operations. In addition, these investigations may result in changes in laws and regulations affecting the industry in general which could, in turn, also adversely affect our results of operations.
Our businesses are heavily regulated and changes in regulation may reduce our profitability and limit our growth. We are extensively regulated and supervised in the jurisdictions in which we conduct business, including licensing and supervision by government regulatory agencies in such jurisdictions. This regulatory system is generally designed to protect the interests of policyholders, and not necessarily the interests of insurers, their shareholders and other investors. This regulatory system also addresses authorization for lines of business, capital and surplus requirements, limitations on the types and amounts of certain investments, underwriting limitations, transactions with affiliates, dividend limitations, changes in control, premium rates and a variety of other financial and non-financial components of an insurers business.
In recent years, the state insurance regulatory framework has come under increased federal scrutiny, and some state legislatures have considered or enacted laws that may alter or increase state authority to regulate insurance companies and insurance holding companies. Further, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) and state insurance regulators continually reexamine existing laws and regulations, specifically focusing on modifications to holding company regulations, interpretations of existing laws and the development of new laws and regulations. In addition, Congress and some federal agencies from time to time investigate the current condition of insurance regulation in the United States to determine whether to impose federal or national regulation or to allow an optional federal charter, similar to the option available to most banks. We cannot predict with certainty the effect any proposed or future legislation or NAIC initiatives may have on the conduct of our business. Insurance laws or regulations that are adopted or amended may be more restrictive than current requirements or may result in higher costs.
Although the United States federal government does not directly regulate the insurance business, changes in federal legislation, regulation and/or administrative policies in several areas, including changes
51
in financial services regulation (e.g. the repeal of the McCarran-Ferguson Act) and federal taxation, can significantly harm the insurance industry, including us.
A downgrade in our claims-paying and financial strength ratings could significantly reduce our business volumes, adversely impact our ability to access the capital markets and increase our borrowing costs. Claims-paying and financial strength ratings have become increasingly important to an insurers competitive position. Rating agencies review their ratings periodically, and our current ratings may not be maintained in the future. A downgrade in one or more of our ratings could negatively impact our business volumes, because demand for certain of our products in certain markets may be reduced or our ratings could fall below minimum levels required to maintain existing business. Additionally, we may find it more difficult to access the capital markets and higher borrowing costs may be incurred. If our capital position were to deteriorate or one or more rating agencies were to substantially increase their capital requirements, we may need to raise equity capital in the future in order to maintain our ratings or limit the extent of a downgrade. For example, the frequency or severity of weather-related catastrophes in the last two years may lead rating agencies to substantially increase their capital requirements. The ratings are not in any way a measure of protection offered to investors in our securities and should not be relied upon with respect to making an investment in our securities. For further discussion about our ratings, see, Item 1BusinessRatings.
Our investment portfolio may suffer reduced returns or losses which could reduce our profitability. Investment returns are an important part of our overall profitability. Accordingly, fluctuations in the fixed income or equity markets could impair our profitability.
Fluctuations in interest rates affect our returns on, and the market value of, fixed income and short-term investments, which comprised approximately 94% of the market value of our investment portfolio as of December 31, 2006. In addition, defaults by third parties, primarily from investments in liquid corporate and municipal bonds, who fail to pay or perform on their obligations could reduce our net investment income and net realized investment gains or result in investment losses.
We invest a portion of our assets in equity and real estate related investments, which are subject to greater volatility than fixed income investments. General economic conditions, stock market conditions and many other factors beyond our control can adversely affect the value of our equity and real estate related investments and the realization of net investment income. As a result of these factors, we may not realize an adequate return on our investments, may incur losses on sales of our investments and may be required to write down the value of our investments, which would adversely affect our profitability.
The intense competition that we face could harm our ability to maintain or increase our profitability and premium volume. The property and casualty insurance industry is highly competitive, and we believe that it will remain highly competitive in the foreseeable future. We compete with both domestic and foreign insurers, some of which have greater financial resources than we do. In addition, several property and casualty insurers writing commercial lines of business now offer products for alternative forms of risk protection, including large deductible programs and various forms of self-insurance that utilize captive insurance companies and risk retention groups. Continued growth in alternative forms of risk protection could reduce our premium volume. Following the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001 and again following the hurricane activity in 2004 and 2005, a number of new insurers and reinsurers were formed to compete in the industry, and a number of existing market participants have raised new capital which may enhance their ability to compete.
Our competitive position is based on many factors, including:
· our perceived overall financial strength,
· ratings assigned by independent rating agencies,
· geographic scope of business,
52
· agent, broker and client relationships,
· premiums charged, contract terms and conditions, products and services offered (including the ability to design customized programs),
· speed of claims payment,
· reputation, experience and qualifications of employees,
· local presence and
· our ability to keep pace relative to competitors with changes in technology and information systems.
We may have difficulty in continuing to compete successfully on any of these bases in the future. If competition limits our ability to write new business at adequate rates, our results of operations will be adversely affected. See Item 1BusinessCompetition.
The inability of our insurance subsidiaries to pay dividends to us in sufficient amounts would harm our ability to meet our obligations and to pay future dividends. We are a holding company and rely in part on dividends from our insurance subsidiaries to meet our obligations for payment of interest and principal on outstanding debt obligations and to pay dividends to shareholders and corporate expenses. The ability of our insurance subsidiaries to pay dividends to us in the future will depend on their statutory surplus, earnings and regulatory restrictions.
We and our insurance subsidiaries are subject to regulation by some states as an insurance holding company system. This regulation generally provides that transactions among companies within the holding company system must be fair and reasonable. Transfers of assets among affiliated companies, certain dividend payments from insurance subsidiaries and certain material transactions between companies within the system may require prior notice to, or prior approval by, state regulatory authorities. Our insurance subsidiaries are subject to various regulatory restrictions that limit the maximum amount of dividends available to be paid to their parent without prior approval of insurance regulatory authorities. The ability of our insurance subsidiaries to pay dividends to us also is restricted by regulations that set standards of solvency that must be met and maintained, the nature of and limitation on investments, the nature of and limitations on dividends to policyholders and shareholders, the nature and extent of required participation in insurance guaranty funds and the involuntary assumption of hard-to-place or high-risk insurance business, primarily in workers compensation insurance lines. The inability of our insurance subsidiaries to pay dividends to us in an amount sufficient to meet our debt service obligations and other cash requirements could harm our ability to meet our obligations and to pay future dividends.
Assessments and other surcharges for guaranty funds, second-injury funds, catastrophe funds and other mandatory pooling arrangements may reduce our profitability. Virtually all states require insurers licensed to do business in their state to bear a portion of the loss suffered by some insureds as the result of impaired or insolvent insurance companies. Guaranty fund assessments have leveled off in the recent year and, in certain states, have begun to decrease. These assessments may, however, increase in the future if additional insolvencies occur. Many states also have laws that established second-injury funds to provide compensation to injured employees for aggravation of a prior condition or injury which are funded by either assessments based on paid losses or premium surcharge mechanisms. In addition, as a condition to the ability to conduct business in various states, our insurance subsidiaries must participate in mandatory property and casualty shared-market mechanisms or pooling arrangements, which provide various types of insurance coverage to individuals or other entities that otherwise are unable to purchase that coverage from private insurers. The effect of these assessments and mandatory shared-market mechanisms or changes in them could adversely affect profitability or limit our ability to grow our business.
Loss or significant restriction of the use of credit scoring in the pricing and underwriting of Personal Insurance products could reduce our future profitability. In Personal Insurance, we use credit scoring as a factor in pricing decisions where allowed by state law. Some consumer groups and regulators have
53
questioned whether the use of credit scoring unfairly discriminates against people with low incomes, minority groups and the elderly and are calling for the prohibition or restriction on the use of credit scoring in underwriting and pricing. Laws or regulations that significantly curtail the use of credit scoring, if enacted in a large number of states, could adversely affect our future profitability.
Disruptions to our relationships with our distributors, independent agents and brokers could adversely affect us. We market our insurance products primarily through independent agents and brokers. An important part of our business is written through fewer than a dozen such intermediaries. Loss of all or a substantial portion of the business provided through such agents and brokers could adversely affect our future business volume and profitability.
We discontinued paying contingent commissions on excess casualty and umbrella business effective September 30, 2006. In addition, we discontinued paying contingent commissions for homeowners multi-peril, private passenger automobile physical damage, private passenger automobile no-fault, other private passenger automobile liability, boiler and machinery and financial guaranty insurance lines effective January 1, 2007. We have developed alternative compensation arrangements for these lines of business that compensate our brokers and agents in a manner that differentiates for business performance and is consistent with all applicable laws. Should these alternative compensation arrangements not be accepted in the marketplace, the resulting loss of business could adversely affect our future business volume and profitability.
We increasingly rely on internet applications for the marketing and sale of certain of its products through independent agents and brokers. In addition, in some instances, those agents and brokers are required to access separate business platforms to execute the sale of our respective personal insurance or commercial insurance products. Should internet disruptions occur, or frustration with our business platforms develop among our independent agents and brokers, the loss of business could adversely affect our future business volume and profitability.
If we experience difficulties with outsourcing relationships, technology and/or data security our ability to conduct our business might be negatively impacted. We outsource certain technology functions to third parties and may do so increasingly in the future. If we do not effectively develop and implement our outsourcing strategy, third party providers do not perform as anticipated or we experience technological or other problems with a transition, we may not realize productivity improvements or cost efficiencies and may experience operational difficulties, increased costs and a loss of business. In addition, our ability to receive services from third party providers outside of the United States might be impacted by cultural differences, political instability, unanticipated regulatory requirements or policies inside or outside of the United States. As a result, our ability to conduct our business might be adversely affected.
While technology can streamline many business processes and ultimately reduce the cost of operations, technology initiatives present certain risks. Our business is highly dependent upon our employees ability to perform, in an efficient and uninterrupted fashion, necessary business functions, such as Internet support and 24-hour call centers, processing new and renewal business, and processing and paying claims. A shut-down of, or inability to, access one or more of our facilities, a power outage, or a failure of one or more of our information technology, telecommunications or other systems could significantly impair our ability to perform such functions on a timely basis. In addition, because our information technology and telecommunications systems interface with and depend on third-party systems, we could experience service denials if demand for such service exceeds capacity or a third-party system fails or experiences an interruption. If sustained or repeated, such a business interruption, system failure or service denial could result in a deterioration of our ability to write and process new and renewal business, provide customer service, pay claims in a timely manner or perform other necessary business functions. Computer viruses, hackers and other external hazards could expose our data systems to security breaches. These increased risks and expanding regulatory requirements could expose us to data loss, damages and
54
significant increases in compliance costs. As a result, our ability to conduct our business might be adversely affected.
Item 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS
On July 23, 2004, the Company announced that it was seeking guidance from the staff of the Division of Corporation Finance of the SEC with respect to the appropriate purchase accounting treatment for certain second quarter 2004 adjustments totaling $1.63 billion ($1.07 billion after-tax). The Company recorded these adjustments as charges in its consolidated statement of income in the second quarter of 2004. Through an informal comment process, the staff of the Division of Corporation Finance has subsequently asked for further information, which the Company has provided. Specifically, the staff has asked for information concerning the Companys adjustments to certain of SPCs insurance reserves and reserves for reinsurance recoverables and premiums due from policyholders, and how those adjustments may relate to SPCs reserves for periods prior to the merger of SPC and TPC. After reviewing the staffs questions and comments and discussions with the Companys independent auditors, the Company continues to believe that its accounting treatment for these adjustments is appropriate. If, however, the staff disagrees, some or all of the adjustments being discussed may not be recorded as charges in the Companys consolidated statement of income, thereby increasing net income for the second quarter and full year 2004 and increasing shareholders equity at December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004, in each case by the approximate after-tax amount of the change. The effect on tangible shareholders equity (adjusted for the effects of deferred taxes associated with goodwill and intangible assets) at December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004 would not be material.
Increases to goodwill and deferred tax liabilities would be reflected on the Companys balance sheet as of April 1, 2004, either due to purchase accounting or adjustment of SPCs reserves prior to the merger of SPC and TPC. On May 3, 2006, the Company received a letter from the Division of Enforcement of the SEC (the Division) advising the Company that it is conducting an inquiry relating to the second quarter 2004 adjustments and the April 1, 2004 merger between SPC and TPC. The Company is cooperating with the Divisions requests for information.
The Company owns its corporate headquarters buildings located at 385 Washington Street and 130 West Sixth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota. These buildings are adjacent to one another and consist of approximately 1.1 million square feet of gross floor space.
The Company also owns six buildings in Hartford, Connecticut. The Company currently occupies approximately 1.8 million square feet of office space in these buildings. The Company also owns other real property, which includes office buildings in Denver, Colorado, Fall River, Massachusetts and Irving, Texas, and a data center located in Norcross, Georgia. In January 2007, the Company acquired a building and adjacent land in Windsor, Connecticut. The Company leases 196 field and claim offices totaling approximately 5.1 million square feet throughout the United States under leases or subleases with third parties.
The Company owns a building in London, England, which houses a portion of its operations in the United Kingdom.
55
The Company, through its subsidiaries, owns an investment portfolio of income-producing properties and real estate funds. Included in this portfolio are four office buildings in which the Company holds a 50% ownership interest located in New York, New York, which collectively accounted for approximately 15% of the carrying value of the property portfolio at December 31, 2006.
In the opinion of the Companys management, the Companys properties are adequate and suitable for its business as presently conducted and are adequately maintained.
This section describes the major pending legal proceedings, other than ordinary routine litigation incidental to the business, to which the Company or any of its subsidiaries is a party or to which any of the Companys property is subject.
Asbestos- and Environmental-Related Proceedings
In the ordinary course of its insurance business, the Company receives claims for insurance arising under policies issued by the Company asserting alleged injuries and damages from asbestos, hazardous waste and other toxic substances that are the subject of related coverage litigation, including, among others, the litigation described below. The Company continues to be subject to aggressive asbestos-related litigation. The conditions surrounding the final resolution of these claims and the related litigation continue to change.
Travelers Property Casualty Corp. (TPC) is involved in three significant proceedings (including a bankruptcy proceeding) relating to ACandS, Inc. (ACandS), formerly a national distributor and installer of products containing asbestos. The proceedings involve disputes as to whether and to what extent any of ACandS potential liabilities for current or future bodily injury asbestos claims are covered by insurance policies issued by TPC. The status of the various proceedings is described below.
ACandS filed for bankruptcy in September 2002 (In re: ACandS, Inc., pending in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware). In its proposed plan of reorganization, ACandS sought to establish a trust to pay asbestos bodily injury claims against it and sought to assign to the trust its rights under the insurance policies issued by TPC. The proposed plan and disclosure statement filed by ACandS claimed that ACandS had settled the vast majority of asbestos-related bodily injury claims currently pending against it for approximately $2.80 billion. ACandS asserts that, based on a prior agreement between TPC and ACandS and ACandS interpretation of the July 31, 2003 arbitration panel ruling described below, TPC is liable for 45% of the $2.80 billion. On January 26, 2004, the bankruptcy court issued a decision rejecting confirmation of ACandS proposed plan of reorganization. The bankruptcy court found, consistent with TPCs objections to ACandS proposed plan, that the proposed plan was not fundamentally fair, was not proposed in good faith and did not comply with Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code. ACandS has filed a notice of appeal of the bankruptcy courts decision and has filed objections to the bankruptcy courts findings of fact and conclusions of law in the United States District Court. TPC has moved to dismiss the appeal and objections and has also filed an opposition to ACandS objections.
An arbitration was commenced in January 2001 to determine whether and to what extent ACandS financial obligations for bodily injury asbestos claims are subject to insurance policy aggregate limits. On July 31, 2003, the arbitration panel ruled in favor of TPC that asbestos bodily injury claims against ACandS are subject to the aggregate limits of the policies issued to ACandS, which have been exhausted. In October 2003, ACandS commenced a lawsuit seeking to vacate the arbitration award as beyond the panels scope of authority (ACandS, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co., U.S.D.Ct. E.D. Pa.). On September 16, 2004, the district court entered an order denying ACandS motion to vacate the arbitration award. On January 19, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the district courts decision and declared the arbitration award void on procedural grounds. On May 22, 2006, the
56
United States Supreme Court denied TPCs petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the Third Circuits decision. As a result, the matter has been remanded to district court and TPC has asked the district court to remand the arbitration to the panel that initially ruled in favor of TPC for further proceedings consistent with the Third Circuits decision. ACandS has opposed that request.
In the other proceeding, a related case pending before the same court and commenced in September 2000 (ACandS v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co., U.S.D.Ct., E.D. Pa.), ACandS sought a declaration of the extent to which the asbestos bodily injury claims against ACandS are subject to occurrence limits under insurance policies issued by TPC. TPC filed a motion to dismiss this action based upon the July 31, 2003 arbitration decision described above. The district court found the dispute was moot as a result of the arbitration panels decision and dismissed the case. As a result of the January 19, 2006 ruling by the Third Circuit and the Supreme Courts denial of certiorari, described in the paragraph above, this case has been reinstated.
The Company continues to believe it has meritorious positions in these ACandS-related proceedings and intends to litigate vigorously.
In October 2001 and April 2002, two purported class action suits (Wise v. Travelers and Meninger v. Travelers) were filed against TPC and other insurers (not including SPC) in state court in West Virginia. These cases were subsequently consolidated into a single proceeding in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia. Plaintiffs allege that the insurer defendants engaged in unfair trade practices by inappropriately handling and settling asbestos claims. The plaintiffs seek to reopen large numbers of settled asbestos claims and to impose liability for damages, including punitive damages, directly on insurers. Lawsuits similar to Wise were filed in Massachusetts and Hawaii (these suits are collectively referred to as the Statutory and Hawaii Actions). Also, in November 2001, plaintiffs in consolidated asbestos actions pending before a mass tort panel of judges in West Virginia state court moved to amend their complaint to name TPC as a defendant, alleging that TPC and other insurers breached alleged duties to certain users of asbestos products. In March 2002, the court granted the motion to amend. Plaintiffs seek damages, including punitive damages. Lawsuits seeking similar relief and raising allegations similar to those presented in the West Virginia amended complaint are also pending in Texas state court against TPC and SPC, and in Louisiana state court against TPC (the claims asserted in these suits, together with the West Virginia suit, are collectively referred to as the Common Law Claims). Lawsuits seeking similar relief in Ohio have been dismissed.
All of the actions against TPC described in the preceding paragraph, other than the Hawaii Actions, had been subject to a temporary restraining order entered by the federal bankruptcy court in New York that had previously presided over and approved the reorganization in bankruptcy of TPCs former policyholder Johns-Manville Corporation and affiliated entities. In August 2002, the bankruptcy court held a hearing on TPCs motion for a preliminary injunction prohibiting further prosecution of the lawsuits pursuant to the reorganization plan and related orders. At the conclusion of this hearing, the court ordered the parties to mediation, appointed a mediator and continued the temporary restraining order. During 2003, the same bankruptcy court extended the existing injunction to apply to an additional set of cases filed in various state courts in Texas and Ohio as well as to the attorneys who are prosecuting these cases. The order also enjoined these attorneys and their respective law firms from commencing any further lawsuits against TPC based upon these allegations without the prior approval of the court. Notwithstanding the injunction, additional Common Law Claims were filed and served on TPC.
On November 19, 2003, the parties advised the bankruptcy court that a settlement of the Statutory and Hawaii Actions had been reached. This settlement includes a lump-sum payment of up to $412 million by TPC, subject to a number of significant contingencies. After continued meetings with the mediator, the parties advised the bankruptcy court on May 25, 2004 that a settlement resolving substantially all pending and similar future Common Law Claims against TPC had also been reached. This settlement requires a
57
payment of up to $90 million by TPC, subject to a number of significant contingencies. Each of these settlements is contingent upon, among other things, an order of the bankruptcy court clarifying that all of these claims, and similar future asbestos-related claims against TPC, are barred by prior orders entered by the bankruptcy court in connection with the original Johns-Manville bankruptcy proceedings.
On August 17, 2004, the bankruptcy court entered an order approving the settlements and clarifying its prior orders that all of the pending Statutory and Hawaii Actions and substantially all Common Law Claims pending against TPC are barred. The order also applies to similar direct action claims that may be filed in the future.
Four appeals were taken from the August 17, 2004 ruling. On March 29, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York substantially affirmed the bankruptcy courts orders while vacating that portion of the bankruptcy courts orders that required all future direct actions against TPC to first be approved by the bankruptcy court before proceeding in state or federal court. Judgment was entered on March 31, 2006.
Five appeals from the March 29, 2006 ruling were filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and TPC filed a cross-appeal. Two appellants voluntarily dismissed their appeals and a motion to dismiss the cross-appeal was filed. Additionally, TPC appealed from a procedural order of the district court relating to the timeliness of the cross-appeal. On January 17, 2007, the Second Circuit dismissed TPCs cross-appeal and denied TPCs appeal from the procedural order. The three remaining principal appeals have been consolidated for disposition and remain pending. It is not possible to predict how the appellate court will rule on the pending appeals. The Company has no obligation to pay any of the settlement amounts unless and until the orders and relief become final and are not subject to any further appellate review.
SPC, which is not covered by the bankruptcy court rulings or the settlements described above, has numerous defenses in all of the direct action cases asserting Common Law Claims that are pending against it. SPCs defenses include the fact that these novel theories have no basis in law; that they are directly at odds with the well-established law pertaining to the insured/insurer relationship; that there is no generalized duty to warn as alleged by the plaintiffs; and that the applicable statute of limitations as to many of these claims has long since expired. Many of these defenses have been raised in initial motions to dismiss filed by SPC and other insurers. There have been favorable rulings during 2003 and 2004 in Texas and during 2004 and 2005 in Ohio on some of these motions filed by SPC and other insurers that dealt with statute of limitations and the validity of the alleged causes of actions. On May 26, 2005, the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, affirmed the earliest of these favorable rulings. In Texas, only one court, in June of 2005, has denied the insurers initial challenges to the pleadings. That ruling was contrary to the rulings by other courts in similar cases, and SPC and the other insurer defendants have filed a mandamus petition with the Texas Court of Appeals.
The Company is defending its asbestos- and environmental-related litigation vigorously and believes that it has meritorious defenses; however, the outcome of these disputes is uncertain. In this regard, the Company employs dedicated specialists and aggressive resolution strategies to manage asbestos and environmental loss exposure, including settling litigation under appropriate circumstances. For a discussion of other information regarding the Companys asbestos and environmental exposure, see Item 7Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of OperationsAsbestos Claims and Litigation, Environmental Claims and Litigation and Uncertainty Regarding Adequacy of Asbestos and Environmental Reserves.
Currently, it is not possible to predict legal outcomes and their impact on the future development of claims and litigation relating to asbestos and environmental claims. Any such development will be affected by future court decisions and interpretations, as well as changes in applicable legislation. Because of these uncertainties, additional liabilities may arise for amounts in excess of the current related reserves. In
58
addition, the Companys estimate of ultimate claims and claim adjustment expenses may change. These additional liabilities or increases in estimates, or a range of either, cannot now be reasonably estimated and could result in income statement charges that could be material to the Companys results of operations in future periods.
Shareholder Litigation and Related Proceedings
Three actions against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors are pending in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Two of these actions, which were originally captioned Kahn v. The St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc., et al. (Nov. 2, 2004) and Michael A. Bernstein Profit Sharing Plan v. The St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc., et al. (Nov. 10, 2004), are putative class actions brought by certain shareholders of the Company against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. These actions have been consolidated as In re St. Paul Travelers Securities Litigation II, and a lead plaintiff and lead counsel have been appointed. On July 11, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint. The amended consolidated complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws in connection with the Companys alleged failure to make disclosure relating to the practice of paying brokers commissions on a contingent basis, the Companys alleged involvement in a conspiracy to rig bids and the Companys allegedly improper use of finite reinsurance products. On September 26, 2005, the Company and the other defendants in In re St. Paul Travelers Securities Litigation II moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint for failure to state a claim. Oral argument on the Companys motion to dismiss was presented on June 15, 2006. By order dated September 25, 2006, the Court denied the Companys motion to dismiss. Discovery has commenced. On November 3, 2006, the Company and the other defendants in In re St. Paul Travelers Securities Litigation II moved for partial judgment on the pleadings seeking dismissal of the allegations relating to the allegedly improper use of finite reinsurance products. That motion remains pending. In the third action, an alleged beneficiary of the Companys 401(k) savings plan commenced a putative class action against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors captioned Spiziri v. The St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc., et al. (Dec. 28, 2004). The complaint alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act based on the theory that defendants were allegedly aware of issues concerning the value of SPCs loss reserves yet failed to protect plan participants from continued investment in Company stock. On June 1, 2005, the Company and the other defendants in Spiziri moved to dismiss the complaint. On January 4, 2006, the parties in Spiziri entered into a stipulation of settlement. The settlement remains subject to court approval.
In addition, two derivative actions have been brought in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota against all of the Companys current directors and certain of the Companys former Directors, naming the Company as a nominal defendant: Rowe v. Fishman, et al. (Oct. 22, 2004) and Clark v. Fishman, et al. (Nov. 18, 2004). The derivative actions have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings as Rowe, et al. v. Fishman, et al. and a consolidated derivative complaint has been filed. The consolidated derivative complaint asserts state law claims, including breach of fiduciary duty, based on allegations similar to those alleged in In re St. Paul Travelers Securities Litigation II and Spiziri described above. On March 23, 2006, the Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice and, on March 30, 2006, entered judgment in favor of the Company and the other defendants. On June 5, 2006, plaintiffs in Rowe moved to alter or amend the judgment for leave to file an amended complaint. The Company and the other defendants opposed that motion. On November 1, 2006, the parties in Rowe entered into a stipulation of settlement whereby plaintiffs released the Company and other defendants from liability in exchange for an agreement by defendants to adopt certain corporate governance measures for the benefit of the Company. The settlement remains subject to court approval.
The Company believes that the pending lawsuits have no merit and intends to defend vigorously; however, the Company is not able to provide any assurance that the financial impact of one or more of these proceedings will not be material to the Companys results of operations in a future period. The
59
Company is obligated to indemnify its officers and directors to the extent provided under Minnesota law. As part of that obligation, the Company will advance officers and directors attorneys fees and other expenses they incur in defending these lawsuits.
From time to time, the Company is involved in proceedings addressing disputes with its reinsurers regarding the collection of amounts due under the Companys reinsurance agreements. These proceedings may be initiated by the Company or the reinsurers and may involve the terms of the reinsurance agreements, the coverage of particular claims, exclusions under the agreements, as well as counterclaims for rescission of the agreements. One of these disputes is the action described in the following paragraphs.
The Companys Gulf operation brought an action on May 22, 2003, as amended on May 12, 2004, in the Supreme Court of New York, County of New York (Gulf Insurance Company v. Transatlantic Reinsurance Company, et al.), against Transatlantic Reinsurance Company (Transatlantic), XL Reinsurance America, Inc. (XL), Odyssey America Reinsurance Corporation (Odyssey), Employers Reinsurance Company (Employers) and Gerling Global Reinsurance Corporation of America (Gerling), to recover amounts due under reinsurance contracts issued to Gulf and related to Gulfs February 2003 settlement of a coverage dispute under a vehicle residual value protection insurance policy. The reinsurers have asserted counterclaims seeking rescission of the vehicle residual value reinsurance contracts issued to Gulf and unspecified damages for breach of contract. Separate actions filed by Transatlantic and Gerling have been consolidated with the original Gulf action for pre-trial purposes.
On October 1, 2003, Gulf entered into a final settlement agreement with Employers, and all claims and counterclaims with respect to Employers have been dismissed. On May 26, 2004, the Court denied Gulfs motion to dismiss certain claims asserted by Transatlantic and denied a joint motion by Transatlantic, XL and Odyssey for summary judgment against Gulf. On December 22, 2006, Gulf and XL entered into a final settlement agreement which resolves all claims between Gulf and XL under the reinsurance agreements at issue in the litigation. Fact and expert discovery are complete with respect to the remaining parties: Transatlantic, Odyssey and Gerling. Gulf, Transatlantic and Gerling have filed motions for partial summary judgment. The Court has not yet set a trial date. Gulf denies the reinsurers allegations, believes that it has a strong legal basis to collect the amounts due under the reinsurance contracts and intends to vigorously pursue the actions.
Based on the Companys beliefs about its legal positions in its various reinsurance recovery proceedings, the Company does not expect any of these matters will have a material adverse effect on its results of operations in a future period.
The Company is a defendant in three consolidated lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana arising out of disputes with certain policyholders over whether insurance coverage is available for flood losses arising from Hurricane Katrina: Chehardy, et al. v. State Farm, et al., C.A. No. 06-1672, 06-1673 and 06-1674, Vanderbrook, et al. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., et al. C.A. No. 05-6323; and Xavier University of Louisiana v. Travelers Property Ca. Co. of America, C.A. No. 06-516. Chehardy and Vanderbrook are proposed class actions in which the Company is one of several insurer defendants. Xavier is an individual suit involving a property insurance policy brought by one of the Companys insureds. The losses involved in all of these suits allegedly were caused by the failure of the New Orleans levees. On November 27, 2006, the Court issued a ruling in the three consolidated cases denying the motions of the Company and certain other insurers for a summary disposition of the cases. The Courts ruling does not determine that any additional amounts are owed under any of the Companys policies or otherwise reach the merits of the policyholders claims. The Company disagrees with the ruling and, along with certain other insurers named in the consolidated lawsuits, filed a motion with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, seeking to have the Court of Appeals accept an immediate appeal from the District Courts ruling. On February 1, 2007, the Fifth Circuit accepted the appeal.
60
As part of ongoing, industry-wide investigations, the Company and its affiliates have received subpoenas and written requests for information from government agencies and authorities. The areas of pending inquiry addressed to the Company include its relationship with brokers and agents, and the Companys involvement with non-traditional insurance and reinsurance products. The Company or its affiliates have received subpoenas or requests for information, in each case with respect to one or both of the areas described above, from: (i) State of California Office of the Attorney General; (ii) State of California Department of Insurance; (iii) Licensing and Market Conduct Compliance Division, Financial Services Commission of Ontario, Canada; (iv) State of Connecticut Insurance Department; (v) State of Connecticut Office of the Attorney General; (vi) State of Delaware Department of Insurance; (vii) State of Florida Department of Financial Services; (viii) State of Florida Office of Insurance Regulation; (ix) State of Florida Department of Legal Affairs Office of the Attorney General; (x) State of Georgia Office of the Commissioner of Insurance; (xi) State of Hawaii Office of the Attorney General; (xii) State of Illinois Office of the Attorney General; (xiii) State of Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation; (xiv) State of Iowa Insurance