COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2021

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Company has entered into indemnity agreements with each of its current directors other than those that are employees of Dai-ichi Life that provide, among other things and subject to certain limitations, a contractual right to indemnification to the fullest extent permissible under the law. The Company has agreements with certain of its officers providing up to $10 million in indemnification. These obligations are in addition to the customary obligation to indemnify officers and directors contained in the Company’s governance documents.

The Company leases administrative and marketing office space as well as various office equipment. Most leases have terms ranging from two years to twenty-five years. Leases with an initial term of 12 months or less are not recorded on the consolidated condensed balance sheet. The Company accounts for lease components separately from non-lease components (e.g., common area maintenance). Certain of the Company’s lease agreements include options to renew at the Company’s discretion. Management has concluded that the Company is not reasonably certain to elect any of these renewal options. The Company will use the interest rates received on its funding agreement backed notes as the collateralized discount rate when calculating the present value of remaining lease payments when the rate implicit in the lease is unavailable.

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.

Certain of the Company’s 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 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.

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.

Scottish Re (U.S.), Inc. ("SRUS") was placed in rehabilitation on March 6, 2019 by the State of Delaware. Under the related order, the Insurance Commissioner of the State of Delaware has been appointed the receiver of SRUS and provided with authority to conduct and continue the business of SRUS in the interest of its cedents, creditors, and stockholder. The order was accompanied by an injunction requiring the continued payment of reinsurance premiums to SRUS and temporarily prohibiting cedents, including the Company, from offsetting premiums payable against receivables from SRUS. On June 20, 2019, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered an order approving a Revised Offset Plan, which allows cedents, including the Company, to offset premiums under certain circumstances.

A proposed Rehabilitation Plan (“Rehabilitation Plan”) was filed by the Receiver on June 30, 2020. The Rehabilitation Plan presents the following two options to each cedent: (1) remain in business with SRUS and be governed by the Rehabilitation Plan, or (2) recapture business ceded to SRUS. Due to SRUS’s financial status, neither option would pay 100% of outstanding claims. Certain financial terms and conditions will be imposed on the cedents based on the election made, the type of business ceded, the manner in which the business is collateralized, and the amount of losses sustained by a cedent. On October 9, 2020, the Receiver filed a proposed order setting forth a schedule to present the Rehabilitation Plan for Court approval, which order contemplated possible modifications to the Rehabilitation Plan to be filed with the Court by March 16, 2021. On January 15, 2021, the Receiver circulated a draft Amended Rehabilitation Plan (“Amended Plan”) with interested parties. The majority of the substance and form of the original Rehabilitation Plan, including its two option structure described above, remained in place. On March 16, 2021, the Receiver filed a draft Amended Plan, which contains the same proposed revisions as the draft he previously circulated on January 15, 2021. Later on March 19, 2021, the Receiver filed a proposed order asking the Court to revise the schedule to push back dates, including the deadline that the Receiver must file any modifications to the Amended Plan to May 3, 2021. A group of interested parties separately filed a Motion to Appoint a Special Master, and at the hearing on the Motion, held on March 26, 2021, the Court suspended all deadlines in the case to allow the Receiver and interested parties to meet and confer on a number of topics for 30 days. A joint status report was filed with the Court on May 7, 2021. It is anticipated that a new scheduling order will be entered in the near future.

The Company continues to monitor SRUS and the actions of the receiver through discussions with legal counsel and review of publicly available information. An allowance for credit losses related to SRUS is included in the overall reinsurance allowance for credit losses. As of March 31, 2021, management does not believe that the ultimate outcome of the rehabilitation process will have a material impact on our financial position or results of operations.