Summary of Reserve for Title Claim Losses

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2023

Summary of Reserve for Title Claim Losses

A summary of the reserve for title claim losses follows:


	Three months ended March 31,
	2023			2022
	(In millions)
Beginning balance	$	1,810		$	1,883

Change in insurance recoverable	—			(1)
Claim loss provision related to:
Current year	43			84

Total title claim loss provision	43			84
Claims paid, net of recoupments related to:
Current year	(1)			(1)
Prior years	(61)			(53)
Total title claims paid, net of recoupments	(62)			(54)
Ending balance of claim loss reserve for title insurance	$	1,791		$	1,912
Provision for title insurance claim losses as a percentage of title insurance premiums	4.5		%	4.5		%

Several lawsuits have been filed by various parties against Chicago Title Company and Chicago Title Insurance Company as its principal (collectively, the “Named Companies”). Generally, plaintiffs claim they are investors who were solicited by Gina Champion-Cain through her former company, ANI Development LLC (“ANI”), or other affiliates to provide funds that purportedly were to be used for high-interest, short-term loans to parties seeking to acquire California alcoholic beverage licenses. Plaintiffs contend they were told that under California state law, alcoholic beverage license applicants are required to deposit into escrow an amount equal to the license purchase price while their applications remain pending with the State. Plaintiffs further alleged that employees of Chicago Title Company participated with Ms. Champion-Cain and her entities in a fraud scheme involving an escrow account maintained by Chicago Title Company into which some of the plaintiffs’ funds were deposited.

In connection with the alcoholic beverage license scheme, a lawsuit styled, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Gina Champion-Cain and ANI Development, LLC, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California asserting claims for securities fraud against Ms. Champion-Cain and certain of her affiliated entities. A receiver was appointed by the court to preserve the assets of the defendant affiliated entities (the “receivership entities”), pay their debts, operate the businesses and pursue any claims they may have against third-parties. Pursuant to the authority granted to her by the federal court, on January 7, 2022, a lawsuit styled, Krista Freitag v. Chicago Title Co. and Chicago Title Ins. Co., was filed in San Diego County Superior Court by the receiver on behalf of the receivership entities against the Named Companies. The receiver seeks compensatory, incidental, consequential, and punitive damages, and seeks the recovery of attorneys’ fees. In turn, the Named Companies petitioned the Federal Court to sue ANI, via the receiver, to pursue indemnity and other claims against the receivership entities as joint tortfeasors, which was granted.

On April 26, 2022, the Named Companies reached a global settlement with the receiver and several other investor claimants. As a condition of the settlement, the Named Companies and the receiver jointly sought court approval of the global settlement and entry of an order barring any claims against the Named Companies related to the alcoholic beverage license scheme. On November 23, 2022, the federal court overruled any objections by non-joining investors and entered an order approving the global settlement and barring further claims against the Named Companies (“Settlement and Bar Order”). The receiver is in receipt of the settlement payment from Chicago Title Company and will distribute the amount designated for each non-joining investor at the conclusion of any such investor’s appeal of the Settlement and Bar Order (or back to Chicago Title Company if an appeal is successful). Some of the investor claimants who objected to entry of the Settlement and Bar Order appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by (Cases 22-56206, 22-56208, and 23-55083). Appellate briefing is expected to take place over the next several months. After filing its appeal, one of the appellants, CalPrivate Bank (Case 23-55083), entered into a settlement with the receiver that was approved by the federal court. This settlement resolves CalPrivate Bank’s objections to the Settlement and Bar Order, and its appeal has been dismissed.

The following lawsuits remain pending in the Superior Court of San Diego County for the State of California, all of which involve investor claimants who have claims against the Named Companies, objected to the settlement with the receiver, and have appealed the Settlement and Bar Order. Since any pending and future claims against the Named Companies are barred, the state court cases where plaintiffs have served a notice of appeal have been stayed pending the outcome of the appeals, and the claims against the Named Companies by non-appealing plaintiffs have been dismissed with prejudice. While they have not been consolidated into one action, they have been deemed by the court to be related and are assigned to the same judge for purposes of judicial economy.

On December 13, 2019, a lawsuit styled, Kim Funding, LLC, Kim H. Peterson, Joseph J. Cohen, and ABC Funding Strategies, LLC v. Chicago Title Co., Chicago Title Ins. Co., Thomas Schwiebert, Adelle Ducharme, and Betty Elixman, was filed in San Diego County Superior Court. Plaintiffs claim losses of more than $250 million as a result of the alleged fraud scheme, and also seek statutory, treble, and punitive damages, as well as the recovery of attorneys' fees. The Named Companies have filed a cross-complaint against Ms. Champion-Cain, and others. The Named Companies have reached a conditional settlement with the members of ABC Funding Strategies, LLC plaintiffs under confidential terms.

On July 7, 2020, a cross-claim styled, Laurie Peterson v. Chicago Title Co., Chicago Title Ins. Co., Thomas Schwiebert, Adelle Ducharme, and Betty Elixman, was filed in an existing lawsuit styled, Banc of California, National Association v. Laurie Peterson, which is pending in San Diego County Superior Court. Cross-complaint plaintiff was sued by a bank to recover in excess of $35 million that she allegedly guaranteed to repay for certain investments made by the Banc of California in the alcoholic beverage license scheme. Cross-complaint plaintiff has, in turn, sued the Named Companies in that action seeking in excess of $250 million in monetary losses as well as exemplary damages and attorneys’ fees. The Named Companies have filed a cross-complaint against Ms. Champion-Cain and others, and the Named Companies were substituted in as the Plaintiff following a settlement with the bank.

On September 3, 2020, a cross-claim styled, Kim H. Peterson Trustee of the Peterson Family Trust dated April 14 1992 v. Chicago Title Co., Chicago Title Ins. Co., Thomas Schwiebert, Adelle Ducharme, and Betty Elixman, was filed in an existing lawsuit styled, CalPrivate Bank v. Kim H. Peterson Trustee of the Peterson Family Trust dated April 14 1992, which is pending in Superior Court of San Diego County for the State of California. Cross-complaint plaintiff was sued by a bank to recover in excess of $12 million that the trustee allegedly guaranteed to repay for certain investments made by CalPrivate Bank in the alcoholic beverage license scheme. Cross-complaint plaintiff has, in turn, sued the Named Companies in that action seeking in excess of $250 million in monetary losses as well as exemplary damages and attorneys’ fees.

On November 2, 2020, a lawsuit styled, CalPrivate Bank v. Chicago Title Co. and Chicago Title Ins. Co., was also filed in the Superior Court of San Diego County for the State of California. Plaintiff claims losses in excess of $12 million based upon business loan advances made in the alcoholic beverage license scheme and seeks punitive damages and the recovery of attorneys’ fees. The Named Companies have filed a cross-complaint against Ms. Champion-Cain, and others. Given CalPrivate Bank's settlement with the receiver, this action against the Named Companies will be dismissed.

Chicago Title Company has also resolved a number of other pre-suit claims and previously-disclosed lawsuits from both individual and groups of alleged investors under confidential terms. Based on the facts and circumstances of the remaining claims, including the settlements already reached, we have recorded reserves included in our reserve for title claim losses, which we believe are adequate to cover losses related to this matter, and believe that our reserves for title claim losses are adequate.

We continually update loss reserve estimates as new information becomes known, new loss patterns emerge or as other contributing factors are considered and incorporated into the analysis of reserve for claim losses. Estimating future title loss payments is difficult because of the complex nature of title claims, the long periods of time over which claims are paid, significantly varying dollar amounts of individual claims and other factors.

Due to the uncertainty inherent in the process and to the judgment used by management, the ultimate liability may be greater or less than our current reserves. If actual claims loss development varies from what is currently expected and is not offset by other factors, it is possible that additional reserve adjustments may be required in future periods in order to maintain our recorded reserve within a reasonable range of our actuary's central estimate.

F&G Insurance Subsidiary Financial Information and Regulatory Matters

Our U.S. insurance subsidiaries, Fidelity & Guaranty Life Insurance Company ("FGL Insurance"), Fidelity & Guaranty Life Insurance Company of New York ("FGL NY Insurance"), and Raven Reinsurance Company ("Raven Re"), file financial statements with state insurance regulatory authorities and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (“NAIC”) that are prepared in accordance with Statutory Accounting Principles (“SAP”) prescribed or permitted by such authorities, which may vary materially from GAAP. Prescribed SAP includes the Accounting Practices and Procedures Manual of the NAIC as well as state laws, regulations and administrative rules. Permitted SAP encompasses all accounting practices not so prescribed. The principal differences between SAP financial statements and financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP are that SAP financial statements do not reflect VOBA, DAC, and DSI, some bond portfolios may be carried at amortized cost, assets and liabilities are presented net of reinsurance, contractholder liabilities are generally valued using more conservative assumptions and certain assets are non-admitted. Accordingly, SAP operating results and SAP capital and surplus may differ substantially from amounts reported in the GAAP basis financial statements for comparable items.

F&G Cayman Re Ltd and F&G Life Re Ltd (Bermuda) file financial statements with their respective regulators that are based on U.S. GAAP.

FGL Insurance applies Iowa-prescribed accounting practices that permit Iowa-domiciled insurers to report equity call options used to economically hedge FIA index credits at amortized cost for statutory accounting purposes and to calculate FIA statutory reserves such that index credit returns will be included in the reserve only after crediting to the annuity contract. This resulted in a $3 million and $152 million decrease to statutory capital and surplus at March 31, 2023 and December 31, 2022, respectively.

FGL Insurance’s statutory carrying value of Raven Re reflects the effect of permitted practices Raven Re received to treat the available amount of a letter of credit as an admitted asset, which increased Raven Re’s statutory capital and surplus by $200 million and $200 million at March 31, 2023 and December 31, 2022, respectively.

Raven Re is also permitted to follow Iowa prescribed statutory accounting practice for its reserves on reinsurance assumed from FGL Insurance. Without such permitted statutory accounting practices, Raven Re’s statutory capital and surplus (deficit) and its risk-based capital would fall below the minimum regulatory requirements. The letter of credit facility is collateralized by NAIC 1 rated debt securities. If the permitted practice was revoked, the letter of credit could be replaced by the collateral assets with Nomura’s consent. FGL Insurance’s statutory carrying value of Raven Re was $93 million and $121 million at March 31, 2023 and December 31, 2022, respectively.

As of March 31, 2023, FGL NY Insurance did not follow any prescribed or permitted statutory accounting practices that differ from the NAIC's statutory accounting practices.

The prescribed and permitted statutory accounting practices have no impact on our unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, which are prepared in accordance with GAAP.