Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies	(22) Commitments and Contingencies (a) Litigation and Regulatory Matters We face the risk of litigation and regulatory investigations and actions in the ordinary course of operating our businesses, including the risk of class action lawsuits. Our pending legal and regulatory actions include proceedings specific to us and others generally applicable to business practices in the industries in which we operate. In our insurance operations, we are, have been, or may become subject to class actions and individual suits alleging, among other things, issues relating to sales or underwriting practices, increases to in-force long-term care insurance premiums, payment of contingent or other sales commissions, claims payments and procedures, product design, product disclosure, administration, additional premium charges for premiums paid on a periodic basis, denial or delay of benefits, charging excessive or impermissible fees on products, recommending unsuitable products to customers, our pricing structures and business practices in our mortgage insurance businesses, such as captive reinsurance arrangements with lenders and contract underwriting services, violations of the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act of 1974 (“RESPA”) or related state anti-inducement laws, and mortgage insurance policy rescissions and curtailments, and breaching fiduciary or other duties to customers, including but not limited to breach of customer information. Plaintiffs in class action and other lawsuits against us may seek very large or indeterminate amounts which may remain unknown for substantial periods of time. In our investment-related operations, we are subject to litigation involving commercial disputes with counterparties. We are also subject to litigation arising out of our general business activities such as our contractual and employment relationships. In addition, we are also subject to various regulatory inquiries, such as information requests, subpoenas, books and record examinations and market conduct and financial examinations from state, federal and international regulators and other authorities. A substantial legal liability or a significant regulatory action against us could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Moreover, even if we ultimately prevail in the litigation, regulatory action or investigation, we could suffer significant reputational harm, which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. In early 2006 as part of an industry-wide review, one of our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiaries received an administrative subpoena from the Minnesota Department of Commerce, which has jurisdiction over insurance matters, with respect to our reinsurance arrangements, including captive reinsurance transactions with lender-affiliated reinsurers. Since 2006, the Minnesota Department of Commerce has periodically requested additional information. We are engaged in discussions with the Minnesota Department of Commerce to resolve the review and we will continue to cooperate as appropriate with respect to any follow-up requests or inquiries. Inquiries from other regulatory bodies with respect to the same subject matter have been resolved or dormant for a number of years. Beginning in December 2011 and continuing through January 2013, one of our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiaries was named along with several other mortgage insurance participants and mortgage lenders as a defendant in twelve putative class action lawsuits alleging that certain “captive reinsurance arrangements” were in violation of RESPA. Those cases are captioned as follows: Samp, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al., United States District Court for the Central District of California; White, et al., v. The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Menichino, et al. v. Citibank NA, et al., United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania; McCarn, et al. v. HSBC USA, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of California; Manners, et al., v. Fifth Third Bank, et al., United States District court for the Western District of Pennsylvania; Riddle, et al. v. Bank of America Corporation, et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Rulison et al. v. ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc. et al., United States District Court for the Southern District of New York; Barlee, et al. v. First Horizon National Corporation, et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Cunningham, et al. v. M&T Bank Corp., et al., United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania; Orange, et al. v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., et al., United States District Court for the Central District of California; Hill et al. v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; and Moriba BA, et al. v. HSBC USA, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs allege that “captive reinsurance arrangements” with providers of private mortgage insurance whereby a mortgage lender through captive reinsurance arrangements received a portion of the borrowers’ private mortgage insurance premiums were in violation of RESPA and unjustly enriched the defendants for which plaintiffs seek declaratory relief and unspecified monetary damages, including restitution. The McCarn case was dismissed by the Court with prejudice as to our subsidiary and certain other defendants on November 9, 2012. On July 3, 2012, the Rulison case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs. The Barlee case was dismissed by the Court with prejudice as to our subsidiary and certain other defendants on February 27, 2013. The Manners case was dismissed by voluntary stipulation in March 2013. In early May, 2013, the Samp and Orange cases were dismissed with prejudice as to our subsidiary. Plaintiffs appealed both of those dismissals, but have since withdrawn those appeals. The White case was dismissed by the court without prejudice on June 20, 2013, and on July 5, 2013 plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint again naming our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiary as a defendant. On July 22, 2013, we moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. In the Riddle, Hill, Ba and Cunningham cases, the defendants’ motions to dismiss were denied, but the Court in the Riddle, Hill and Cunningham cases limited discovery at this stage to issues surrounding whether the case should be dismissed on statute of limitations grounds. In the Hill case, on December 17, 2013 we moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In the Riddle case, in late November, 2013, the Court granted our motion for summary judgment dismissing the case. Plaintiffs have appealed that dismissal. The Menichino case was dismissed by the court without prejudice as to our subsidiary and certain other defendants on July 19, 2013. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint again naming our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiary as a defendant and we moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. We intend to vigorously defend the remaining actions. In December 2009, one of our non-insurance subsidiaries, one of the subsidiary’s officers and Genworth Financial, Inc. were named in a putative class action lawsuit captioned Michael J. Goodman and Linda Brown v. Genworth Financial Wealth Management, Inc., et al., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Plaintiffs allege securities law and other violations involving the selection of mutual funds by our subsidiary on behalf of certain of its Private Client Group clients. The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. In response to our motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, the Court granted the motion to dismiss the state law fiduciary duty claim and denied the motion to dismiss the remaining federal claims. Oral argument on plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class was conducted on January 30, 2013, but the Court has not yet issued a decision. We will continue to vigorously defend this action. As previously disclosed, in April 2012, two of our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiaries were named as respondents in two arbitrations, one brought by Bank of America, N.A. and one brought by Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. and Bank of America, N.A. as claimants. Claimants alleged breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and sought in excess of $834 million of damages, as well as interest, punitive damages and a declaratory judgment relating to our denial, curtailment and rescission of mortgage insurance coverage. Subject to GSE approval, we reached an agreement on December 31, 2013 to resolve a portion of both arbitrations with respect to rescission practices. Under the agreement, Genworth, Bank of America, N.A and Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. have agreed to a fixed number of loans for which Genworth will reinstate mortgage insurance coverage representing a portion of the loans with rescinded coverage. Going forward, as to the loans insured by Genworth that are the subject of the agreement, including those loans that were the subject of the arbitrations, Genworth has agreed to cease all future rescission activity and pay a percentage of the claim amount otherwise payable, with no obligation for the remaining percentage. Genworth’s net economic impact of the terms of settlement fall within its previously established reserve amounts for reinstatements and had no income statement impact in the fourth quarter of 2013. The agreement resolves substantially all outstanding claims related to the rescissions of coverage on loans originated or acquired by Bank of America, N.A and Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. prior to 2009. Genworth believes that the rescission settlement resolves approximately $800 million of alleged damages and that claimants’ remaining demand is in excess of $150 million relating to curtailment and denial practices; however, we are unable to estimate the precise remaining disputed amount, in part because we continue to curtail claims, and claimants’ demand includes unspecified punitive damages. In addition to GSE approval, consummation of the settlement is also conditioned upon the parties’ prior negotiation and execution of a definitive agreement requiring submission of curtailment and denial disputes to a binding alternative dispute proceeding (“Curtailment ADR Agreement”). Either party may terminate the agreement if the definitive Curtailment ADR Agreement is not executed by March 31, 2014. The parties continue to negotiate the terms of a Curtailment ADR Agreement. Genworth plans to continue to vigorously defend its practices. At this time, we cannot determine or predict the ultimate outcome of any of the pending legal and regulatory matters specifically identified above or the likelihood of potential future legal and regulatory matters against us. In light of the inherent uncertainties involved in these matters, no amounts have been accrued. We also are not able to provide an estimate or range of possible losses related to these matters. (b) Commitments As of December 31, 2013, we were committed to fund $65 million in limited partnership investments, $29 million in U.S. commercial mortgage loan investments and $109 million in private placement investments. In connection with the issuance of non-recourse funding obligations by Rivermont I, Genworth entered into a liquidity commitment agreement with the third-party trusts in which the floating rate notes have been deposited. The liquidity agreement may require that Genworth issue to the trusts either a loan or a letter of credit (“LOC”), at maturity of the notes (2050), in the amount equal to the then market value of the assets supporting the notes held in the trust. Any loan or LOC issued is an obligation of the trust and shall accrue interest at LIBOR plus a margin. In consideration for entering into this agreement, Genworth received, from Rivermont I, a one-time commitment fee of approximately $2 million. The maximum potential amount of future obligation under this agreement is approximately $95 million.

(22) Commitments and Contingencies

(a) Litigation and Regulatory Matters

We face the risk of litigation and regulatory investigations and actions in the ordinary course of operating our businesses, including the risk of class action lawsuits. Our pending legal and regulatory actions include proceedings specific to us and others generally applicable to business practices in the industries in which we operate. In our insurance operations, we are, have been, or may become subject to class actions and individual suits alleging, among other things, issues relating to sales or underwriting practices, increases to in-force long-term care insurance premiums, payment of contingent or other sales commissions, claims payments and procedures, product design, product disclosure, administration, additional premium charges for premiums paid on a periodic basis, denial or delay of benefits, charging excessive or impermissible fees on products, recommending unsuitable products to customers, our pricing structures and business practices in our mortgage insurance businesses, such as captive reinsurance arrangements with lenders and contract underwriting services, violations of the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act of 1974 (“RESPA”) or related state anti-inducement laws, and mortgage insurance policy rescissions and curtailments, and breaching fiduciary or other duties to customers, including but not limited to breach of customer information. Plaintiffs in class action and other lawsuits against us may seek very large or indeterminate amounts which may remain unknown for substantial periods of time. In our investment-related operations, we are subject to litigation involving commercial disputes with counterparties. We are also subject to litigation arising out of our general business activities such as our contractual and employment relationships. In addition, we are also subject to various regulatory inquiries, such as information requests, subpoenas, books and record examinations and market conduct and financial examinations from state, federal and international regulators and other authorities. A substantial legal liability or a significant regulatory action against us could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Moreover, even if we ultimately prevail in the litigation, regulatory action or investigation, we could suffer significant reputational harm, which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

In early 2006 as part of an industry-wide review, one of our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiaries received an administrative subpoena from the Minnesota Department of Commerce, which has jurisdiction over insurance matters, with respect to our reinsurance arrangements, including captive reinsurance transactions with lender-affiliated reinsurers. Since 2006, the Minnesota Department of Commerce has periodically requested additional information. We are engaged in discussions with the Minnesota Department of Commerce to resolve the review and we will continue to cooperate as appropriate with respect to any follow-up requests or inquiries. Inquiries from other regulatory bodies with respect to the same subject matter have been resolved or dormant for a number of years.

Beginning in December 2011 and continuing through January 2013, one of our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiaries was named along with several other mortgage insurance participants and mortgage lenders as a defendant in twelve putative class action lawsuits alleging that certain “captive reinsurance arrangements” were in violation of RESPA. Those cases are captioned as follows: Samp, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al., United States District Court for the Central District of California; White, et al., v. The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Menichino, et al. v. Citibank NA, et al., United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania; McCarn, et al. v. HSBC USA, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of California; Manners, et al., v. Fifth Third Bank, et al., United States District court for the Western District of Pennsylvania; Riddle, et al. v. Bank of America Corporation, et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Rulison et al. v. ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc. et al., United States District Court for the Southern District of New York; Barlee, et al. v. First Horizon National Corporation, et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Cunningham, et al. v. M&T Bank Corp., et al., United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania; Orange, et al. v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., et al., United States District Court for the Central District of California; Hill et al. v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; and Moriba BA, et al. v. HSBC USA, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs allege that “captive reinsurance arrangements” with providers of private mortgage insurance whereby a mortgage lender through captive reinsurance arrangements received a portion of the borrowers’ private mortgage insurance premiums were in violation of RESPA and unjustly enriched the defendants for which plaintiffs seek declaratory relief and unspecified monetary damages, including restitution. The McCarn case was dismissed by the Court with prejudice as to our subsidiary and certain other defendants on November 9, 2012. On July 3, 2012, the Rulison case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs. The Barlee case was dismissed by the Court with prejudice as to our subsidiary and certain other defendants on February 27, 2013. The Manners case was dismissed by voluntary stipulation in March 2013. In early May, 2013, the Samp and Orange cases were dismissed with prejudice as to our subsidiary. Plaintiffs appealed both of those dismissals, but have since withdrawn those appeals. The White case was dismissed by the court without prejudice on June 20, 2013, and on July 5, 2013 plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint again naming our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiary as a defendant. On July 22, 2013, we moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. In the Riddle, Hill, Ba and Cunningham cases, the defendants’ motions to dismiss were denied, but the Court in the Riddle, Hill and Cunningham cases limited discovery at this stage to issues surrounding whether the case should be dismissed on statute of limitations grounds. In the Hill case, on December 17, 2013 we moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In the Riddle case, in late November, 2013, the Court granted our motion for summary judgment dismissing the case. Plaintiffs have appealed that dismissal. The Menichino case was dismissed by the court without prejudice as to our subsidiary and certain other defendants on July 19, 2013. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint again naming our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiary as a defendant and we moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. We intend to vigorously defend the remaining actions.

In December 2009, one of our non-insurance subsidiaries, one of the subsidiary’s officers and Genworth Financial, Inc. were named in a putative class action lawsuit captioned Michael J. Goodman and Linda Brown v. Genworth Financial Wealth Management, Inc., et al., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Plaintiffs allege securities law and other violations involving the selection of mutual funds by our subsidiary on behalf of certain of its Private Client Group clients. The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. In response to our motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, the Court granted the motion to dismiss the state law fiduciary duty claim and denied the motion to dismiss the remaining federal claims. Oral argument on plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class was conducted on January 30, 2013, but the Court has not yet issued a decision. We will continue to vigorously defend this action.

As previously disclosed, in April 2012, two of our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiaries were named as respondents in two arbitrations, one brought by Bank of America, N.A. and one brought by Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. and Bank of America, N.A. as claimants. Claimants alleged breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and sought in excess of $834 million of damages, as well as interest, punitive damages and a declaratory judgment relating to our denial, curtailment and rescission of mortgage insurance coverage. Subject to GSE approval, we reached an agreement on December 31, 2013 to resolve a portion of both arbitrations with respect to rescission practices. Under the agreement, Genworth, Bank of America, N.A and Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. have agreed to a fixed number of loans for which Genworth will reinstate mortgage insurance coverage representing a portion of the loans with rescinded coverage. Going forward, as to the loans insured by Genworth that are the subject of the agreement, including those loans that were the subject of the arbitrations, Genworth has agreed to cease all future rescission activity and pay a percentage of the claim amount otherwise payable, with no obligation for the remaining percentage. Genworth’s net economic impact of the terms of settlement fall within its previously established reserve amounts for reinstatements and had no income statement impact in the fourth quarter of 2013. The agreement resolves substantially all outstanding claims related to the rescissions of coverage on loans originated or acquired by Bank of America, N.A and Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. prior to 2009. Genworth believes that the rescission settlement resolves approximately $800 million of alleged damages and that claimants’ remaining demand is in excess of $150 million relating to curtailment and denial practices; however, we are unable to estimate the precise remaining disputed amount, in part because we continue to curtail claims, and claimants’ demand includes unspecified punitive damages. In addition to GSE approval, consummation of the settlement is also conditioned upon the parties’ prior negotiation and execution of a definitive agreement requiring submission of curtailment and denial disputes to a binding alternative dispute proceeding (“Curtailment ADR Agreement”). Either party may terminate the agreement if the definitive Curtailment ADR Agreement is not executed by March 31, 2014. The parties continue to negotiate the terms of a Curtailment ADR Agreement. Genworth plans to continue to vigorously defend its practices.

At this time, we cannot determine or predict the ultimate outcome of any of the pending legal and regulatory matters specifically identified above or the likelihood of potential future legal and regulatory matters against us. In light of the inherent uncertainties involved in these matters, no amounts have been accrued. We also are not able to provide an estimate or range of possible losses related to these matters.

(b) Commitments

As of December 31, 2013, we were committed to fund $65 million in limited partnership investments, $29 million in U.S. commercial mortgage loan investments and $109 million in private placement investments.

In connection with the issuance of non-recourse funding obligations by Rivermont I, Genworth entered into a liquidity commitment agreement with the third-party trusts in which the floating rate notes have been deposited. The liquidity agreement may require that Genworth issue to the trusts either a loan or a letter of credit (“LOC”), at maturity of the notes (2050), in the amount equal to the then market value of the assets supporting the notes held in the trust. Any loan or LOC issued is an obligation of the trust and shall accrue interest at LIBOR plus a margin. In consideration for entering into this agreement, Genworth received, from Rivermont I, a one-time commitment fee of approximately $2 million. The maximum potential amount of future obligation under this agreement is approximately $95 million.