COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Company leases administrative and marketing office space in approximately 17 cities (excluding the home office building), with most leases being for periods less than one year to nine years. The Company had rental expense of $11.3 million, and $11.7 million, and $11.4 million for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017, and 2016, respectively. The aggregate annualized rent was approximately $11.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2018. The following is a schedule by year of future minimum rental payments required under these leases:



Year	Amount
	(Dollars In Thousands)
2019	$	5,454
2020	3,707
2021	3,393
2022	3,129
2023	3,171
Thereafter	5,418

Additionally, the Company previously leased a building contiguous to its home office. The lease was renewed in December 2013 and was extended to December 2018. At the end of the lease term in December 2018, the Company purchased the building for approximately $75 million. The building is recorded in property and equipment on the consolidated balance sheet.

As of December 31, 2018 and 2017, the Company had outstanding mortgage loan commitments of $685.3 million at an average rate of 4.42% and $572.3 million at an average rate of 4.14%, respectively.

Under the insurance guaranty fund laws in most states, insurance companies doing business therein can be assessed up to prescribed limits for policyholder losses incurred by insolvent companies. From time to time, companies may be asked to contribute amounts beyond prescribed limits. It is possible that the Company could be assessed with respect to product lines not offered by the Company. In addition, legislation may be introduced in various states with respect to guaranty fund assessment laws related to insurance products, including long term care insurance and other specialty products, that increases the cost of future assessments or alters future premium tax offsets received in connection with guaranty fund assessments. The Company cannot predict the amount, nature or timing of any future assessments or legislation, any of which could have a material and adverse impact on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.

A number of civil jury verdicts have been returned against insurers, broker dealers and other providers of financial services involving sales, refund or claims practices, alleged agent misconduct, failure to properly supervise representatives, relationships with agents or persons with whom the insurer does business, and other matters. Often these lawsuits have resulted in the award of substantial judgments that are disproportionate to the actual damages, including material amounts of punitive and non-economic compensatory damages. In some states, juries, judges, and arbitrators have substantial discretion in awarding punitive and non-economic compensatory damages which creates the potential for unpredictable material adverse judgments or awards in any given lawsuit or arbitration. Arbitration awards are subject to very limited appellate review. In addition, in some class action and other lawsuits, companies have made material settlement payments. The financial services and insurance industries in particular are also sometimes the target of law enforcement and regulatory investigations relating to the numerous laws and regulations that govern such companies. Some companies have been the subject of law enforcement or regulatory actions or other actions resulting from such investigations. The Company, in the ordinary course of business, is involved in such matters.

The Company establishes liabilities for litigation and regulatory actions when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. For matters where a loss is believed to be reasonably possible, but not probable, no liability is established. For such matters, the Company may provide an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss or a statement that such an estimate cannot be made. The Company reviews relevant information with respect to litigation and regulatory matters on a quarterly and annual basis and updates its established liabilities, disclosures and estimates of reasonably possible losses or range of loss based on such reviews.

The Company and certain of its insurance subsidiaries, as well as certain other insurance companies for which the Company has coinsured blocks of life insurance and annuity policies, are under audit for compliance with the unclaimed property laws of a number of states. The audits are being conducted on behalf of the treasury departments or unclaimed property administrators in such states. The focus of the audits is on whether there have been unreported deaths, maturities, or policies that have exceeded limiting age with respect to which death benefits or other payments under life insurance or annuity policies should be treated as unclaimed property that should be escheated to the state. The Company is presently unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from the audits due to a number of factors, including uncertainty as to the legal theory or theories that may give rise to liability, the early stages of the audits being conducted, and uncertainty as to whether the Company or other companies are responsible for the liabilities, if any, arising in connection with certain co-insured policies. The Company will continue to monitor the matter for any developments that would make the loss contingency associated with the audits reasonably estimable.

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries are under a targeted multi-state examination with respect to their claims paying practices and their use of the U.S. Social Security Administration’s Death Master File or similar databases (a “Death Database”) to identify unreported deaths in their life insurance policies, annuity contracts and retained asset accounts. There is no clear basis in previously existing law for requiring a life insurer to search for unreported deaths in order to determine whether a benefit is owed, and substantial legal authority exists to support the position that the prevailing industry practice was lawful. A number of life insurers, however, have entered into settlement or consent agreements with state insurance regulators under which the life insurers agreed to implement procedures for periodically comparing their life insurance and annuity contracts and retained asset accounts against a Death Database, treating confirmed deaths as giving rise to a death benefit under their policies, locating beneficiaries and paying them the benefits and interest, escheating the benefits and interest to the state if the beneficiary could not be found, and paying penalties to the state, if required. It has been publicly reported that the life insurers have paid administrative and/or examination fees to the insurance regulators in connection with the settlement or consent agreements. The Company believes that insurance regulators could demand from the Company administrative and/or examination fees relating to the targeted multi-state examination. Based on publicly reported payments by other life insurers, the Company does not believe such fees, if assessed, would have a material effect on its financial statements.

Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA, as Securities Intermediary of Life Partners Position Holder Trust v. Protective Life Insurance Company, Case No. 2:18-CV-01290, is a putative class action that was filed on August 13, 2018 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Plaintiff alleges that the Company required policyholders to pay unlawful and excessive cost of insurance charges. Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of universal life and variable universal life policies issued or administered by the Company or its predecessors that provide that cost of insurance rates are to be determined based on expectations of future mortality experience. The plaintiff seeks class certification, compensatory damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs, and other unspecified relief. The Company is vigorously defending this matter and cannot predict the outcome of or reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that might result from this litigation.