XML 41 R15.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.22.0.1
Commitments and Contingencies
 12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies Note 6—Commitments and Contingencies
Reinsurance: Insurance affiliates of Globe Life reinsure a portion of insurance risk that is in excess of their retention limits. Current retention limits for new business written on ordinary life insurance range up to $500 thousand per life. Life insurance ceded represented 0.3% of total life insurance in force at December 31, 2021 and 2020. Insurance ceded on life and accident and health products represented 0.2% of premium income for 2021 and 2020. The insurance affiliates of Globe Life would be liable for the reinsured risks ceded to other companies to the extent that such reinsuring companies are unable to meet their obligations.
 
Insurance affiliates also assume insurance risks of other external companies. Life reinsurance assumed represented 1.1% and 1.2% of life insurance in force at December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively, and reinsurance assumed on life and accident and health products represented 0.8% and 0.5% of premium income for 2021 and 2020, respectively.
Leases: Globe Life primarily leases office space, aviation equipment, and other equipment under a variety of operating lease arrangements.

Rental expense for the three years ended December 31, 2021 is as follows:
Year Ended December 31,
202120202019
Rental expense$4,674 $4,674 $3,831 

Future minimum rental commitments required under operating leases having remaining noncancelable lease terms in excess of one year at December 31, 2021 were as follows:
Year Ended December 31,
20222023202420252026Thereafter
Operating lease commitments$4,458 $3,384 $2,932 $1,955 $1,816 $9,206 

Purchase Commitments: Globe Life has various long-term noncancelable purchase commitments as well as commitments to provide capital for low-income housing tax credit interests. See further discussion related to tax credits in Note 1—Significant Accounting Policies.

Year Ended December 31,
20222023202420252026Thereafter
Purchase commitments$104,474 $61,535 $23,504 $13,170 $9,611 $221,689 

Investments: Globe Life is committed to invest under certain contracts related to investments in limited partnerships. See Note—4 Investments for unfunded commitment table.
Guarantees: At December 31, 2021, Globe Life had in place three guarantee agreements, of which were either Parent Company guarantees of subsidiary obligations to a third party, or Parent Company guarantees of obligations between wholly-owned subsidiaries. As of December 31, 2021, Globe Life had no liability with respect to these guarantees.
 
Letters of Credit: Globe Life has guaranteed letters of credit in connection with its credit facility with a group of banks as disclosed in Note 11—Debt. The letters of credit were issued by TMK Re, Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary, to secure TMK Re, Ltd.’s obligation for claims on certain policies reinsured by TMK Re, Ltd. that were sold by other Globe Life insurance companies. These letters of credit facilitate TMK Re, Ltd.’s ability to reinsure the business of Globe Life's insurance carriers. The agreement was amended on September 30, 2021 and now expires in 2026. The maximum amount of letters of credit available is $250 million. The
Parent Company would be liable to the extent that TMK Re, Ltd. does not pay the reinsured party. On October 26, 2021, the letters of credit were amended to reduce the current amount outstanding to $125 million from $135 million outstanding.

Equipment leases: Globe Life has guaranteed performance of certain of its subsidiaries as lessees under two aviation leasing arrangements. At December 31, 2021, total remaining undiscounted payments under the leases were approximately $3 million. The Parent Company would be responsible for any subsidiary obligation in the event the subsidiary did not make payments or otherwise perform under the terms of the lease.
Unclaimed Property Audits: Globe Life subsidiaries are currently the subject of audits regarding the identification, reporting and escheatment of unclaimed property arising from life insurance policies and a limited number of annuity contracts. These audits are being conducted by private entities that have contracted with forty-seven states through their respective Departments of Revenue, and have not resulted in any financial assessment from any state nor indicated any liability. The audits are wide-ranging and seek large amounts of data regarding claims handling, procedures, and payments of contract benefits arising from unreported death claims. No estimate of range can be made at this time for loss contingencies related to possible administrative penalties or amounts that could be payable to the states for the escheatment of abandoned property.
Litigation: Globe Life Inc. (formerly Torchmark Corporation) and its subsidiaries, in common with the insurance industry in general, are subject to litigation, including putative class action litigation, alleged breaches of contract, torts, including bad faith and fraud claims based on alleged wrongful or fraudulent acts of agents of the Parent Company's insurance subsidiaries, employment discrimination, and miscellaneous other causes of action. Based upon information presently available, and in light of legal and other factual defenses available to the Parent Company and its subsidiaries, management does not believe that it is reasonably possible that such litigation will have a material adverse effect on Globe Life's financial condition, future operating results or liquidity; however, assessing the eventual outcome of litigation necessarily involves forward-looking speculation as to judgments to be made by judges, juries and appellate courts in the future. This bespeaks caution, particularly in states with reputations for high punitive damage verdicts. Globe Life's management recognizes that large punitive damage awards bearing little or no relation to actual damages continue to be awarded by juries in jurisdictions in which the Company has substantial business, creating the potential for unpredictable material adverse judgments in any given punitive damage suit.

On August 5, 2020, putative class and collective action litigation was filed against American Income Life Insurance Company (“American Income”) and National Income Life Insurance Company (“National Income”) in United States District Court for the Central District of California (Natalie Bell, Gisele Mobley, Ashly Rai, and John Turner v. American Income Life Insurance Company and National Income Life Insurance Company, Case No. 2:20-cv-07046). On December 18, 2020, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Mr. Turner’s claims and all claims against defendant National Income. Following the dismissal, the complaint alleges that insurance agent trainees should have been classified as employees, and after contracting should have been classified as employees instead of independent contractors. Plaintiff Bell is a former California trainee and plaintiff Rai is a former California agent. They assert claims under California law on behalf of a putative California class for the four years prior to February 13, 2020 through case conclusion. They make claims under (a) the California Labor Code for alleged meal and rest break violations, overtime, minimum wage, alleged failure to pay wages at the time of termination, expense reimbursement, and alleged failure to provide accurate wage statements; and (b) the California Business and Professions Code for alleged unfair business practices. They also seek liquidated damages, penalties and attorney’s fees under California law. Plaintiff Mobley is a former Florida agent who asserts a claim under Florida law on behalf of a putative Florida class for the five years prior to February 13, 2020 through case conclusion. She makes a claim under the Florida General Labor Regulations, including the Florida Minimum Wage Act, for alleged failure to pay all wages owed. The plaintiffs also assert a national collective action on behalf of all “similarly situated” individuals for minimum wage, overtime, liquidated damages, penalties, an accounting and attorney’s fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act for the three years prior to February 13, 2020 through case conclusion. American Income responded to the complaint with a motion to compel the named plaintiffs to arbitrate their individual claims and other procedural challenges. On April 6, 2021, the court granted American Income’s motion to
compel arbitration as to plaintiffs Mobley and Rai, and denied the motion without prejudice as to plaintiff Bell. American Income subsequently renewed its motion to compel arbitration as to plaintiff Bell. On November 30, 2021, the court granted American Income’s motion to compel arbitration as to plaintiff Bell.On March 27, 2020, Combined Insurance Company of America (“Combined”) filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida against Family Heritage Life Insurance Company of America (“Family Heritage”) and two former Combined employees who became appointed as insurance sales agents with Family Heritage (Combined Insurance Company of America v. Reineldo Urgelles, Antonio Pineda, and Family Heritage Life Insurance Company of America, Case No. 2020-007330-CA-01). On May 8, 2020, Combined filed a lawsuit in the 67th District Court of Tarrant County, Texas against Family Heritage and two different former Combined employees who became appointed as insurance sales agents with Family Heritage (Combined Insurance Company of America v. Stephen Hernandez, Francisco Azuero, and Family Heritage Life Insurance Company of America, Case No. 067-316824-20). The lawsuits allege that the individual insurance sales agents, in violation of their restrictive covenants with Combined, conspired with Family Heritage to improperly solicit Combined policyholders to purchase Family Heritage products, and recruit Combined employees to contract as Family Heritage insurance sales agents. As to Family Heritage, the lawsuits allege claims for conspiracy and tortious interference with business relations, and seek compensatory damages, as well as injunctive and equitable relief. On July 8, 2020 and July 10, 2020, the Texas and Florida courts, respectively, granted Combined’s requests for a temporary injunction. The Texas temporary injunction was subsequently vacated on appeal as to Family Heritage. Combined’s non-equitable claims in both lawsuits were referred to confidential arbitration. On November 12, 2021, Family Heritage filed a motion for summary judgment and Combined filed motions for partial summary judgment. On December 31, 2021, the arbitrator denied Family Heritage’s motion for summary judgment, and on January 2, 2022, the arbitrator granted Combined’s partial motions for summary judgment. Combined’s request for compensatory and exemplary damages, as well as attorney’s fees, is under review by the arbitrator.