Commitments and Contingent Liabilities	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2011
Notes to Financial Statements [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingent Liabilities	Commitments and Contingent Liabilities Contingent Liabilities We are a defendant in a number of litigation matters. In some of these matters, no specified amount is sought. In others, very large or indeterminate amounts, including punitive and treble damages, are asserted. There is a wide variation of pleading practice permitted in the United States courts with respect to requests for monetary damages, including some courts in which no specified amount is required and others which allow the plaintiff to state only that the amount sought is sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of that court. Further, some jurisdictions permit plaintiffs to allege damages well in excess of reasonably possible verdicts. Based on our extensive experience and that of others in the industry with respect to litigating or resolving claims through settlement over an extended period of time, we believe that the monetary damages asserted in a lawsuit or claim bear little relation to the merits of the case, or the likely disposition value. Therefore, the specific monetary relief sought is not stated. Unless indicated otherwise in the descriptions below, reserves have not been established for litigation and contingencies. An estimated loss is accrued when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Claims Handling Matters We and our insurance subsidiaries, as part of our normal operations in managing disability claims, are engaged in claim litigation where disputes arise as a result of a denial or termination of benefits. Most typically these lawsuits are filed on behalf of a single claimant or policyholder, and in some of these individual actions punitive damages are sought, such as claims alleging bad faith in the handling of insurance claims. For our general claim litigation, we maintain reserves based on experience to satisfy judgments and settlements in the normal course. We expect that the ultimate liability, if any, with respect to general claim litigation, after consideration of the reserves maintained, will not be material to our consolidated financial condition. Nevertheless, given the inherent unpredictability of litigation, it is possible that an adverse outcome in certain claim litigation involving punitive damages could, from time to time, have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations in a period, depending on the results of operations for the particular period. From time to time class action allegations are pursued where the claimant or policyholder purports to represent a larger number of individuals who are similarly situated. Since each insurance claim is evaluated based on its own merits, there is rarely a single act or series of actions, which can properly be addressed by a class action. Nevertheless, we monitor these cases closely and defend ourselves appropriately where these allegations are made. Broker Compensation, Quoting Process, and Other Matters Examinations and Investigations In November 2009, we were contacted by Florida state insurance regulators to discuss a resolution of their investigation of our compliance with state and federal laws with respect to producer compensation, solicitation activities, policies sold to state or municipal entities, and information regarding compensation arrangements with brokers. This investigation commenced in 2005, and, until the November 2009 contact, we had received no communications from the regulators regarding this matter since December 2007. Negotiations are ongoing. Broker-Related Litigation We and certain of our subsidiaries, along with many other insurance brokers and insurers, were named as defendants in a series of putative class actions that were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings as part of multidistrict litigation (MDL) No. 1663, In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation. The plaintiffs in MDL No. 1663 were ordered to file a consolidated amended complaint which alleged, among other things, that the defendants violated federal and state antitrust laws, the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), and various state common law requirements by engaging in alleged bid rigging and customer allocation and by paying undisclosed compensation to insurance brokers to steer business to defendant insurers. After several amendments to the complaint, all claims against us were dismissed, and the dismissal was affirmed on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The only remaining proceeding against us that is part of MDL No. 1663 is Palm Tree Computers Systems, Inc. v. ACE USA, et al., which was filed in the Florida state Circuit Court on February 16, 2005. The complaint contains allegations similar to those referred to above. The case was removed to federal court and, on October 20, 2005, the case was transferred to MDL No. 1663. Plaintiffs renewed a motion to remand the case to the state court in Florida, and that motion was denied without prejudice on October 16, 2009. There have been no further proceedings in this case subsequent to that date, while the Court considers motions to dismiss filed by other defendants in MDL No. 1663. Miscellaneous Matters In September 2008, we received service of a complaint, in an adversary proceeding in connection with the bankruptcy case In re Quebecor World (USA) Inc., et al. entitled Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Quebecor World (USA) Inc., et al., v. American United Life Insurance Company, et al., filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that we received preference payments relating to notes held by certain of our insurance subsidiaries and seeks to avoid and recover such payments plus interest and cost of the action. On July 27, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court ruled in our favor, granting a summary judgment motion to dismiss the case against us and the other defendants. This decision has been appealed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In July 2010, we received a subpoena from the Office of the New York Attorney General requesting documents and information relating to certain group life insurance policies wherein we paid life insurance proceeds by establishing interest-bearing retained asset accounts. We furnished the requested documents and information. Our last submission was made on October 6, 2010. Because we have received no further communications from the New York Attorney General following our response, we consider this investigation to be dormant. In October 2010, Denise Merrimon, Bobby S. Mowery, and all others similarly situated vs. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maine. This is a putative class action alleging that we breached fiduciary duties owed to certain beneficiaries under certain group life insurance policies when we paid life insurance proceeds by establishing interest-bearing retained asset accounts rather than by mailing checks. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of beneficiaries under group life insurance contracts that were employee welfare benefit plans under ERISA and under which we paid death benefits pursuant to a retained asset account. Plaintiffs seek to recover on behalf of the class the difference between the interest paid to them and amounts alleged to have been realized by us through our investment of the retained assets. We intend to vigorously defend the action. In March 2011, we received a request for information from an independent third party as part of an examination on behalf of 26 states and the District of Columbia to evaluate our compliance with the unclaimed property laws of the participating states. Industry-wide practices are currently under review concerning the identification and handling of unclaimed property by insurers, and numerous other insurers are under similar examination. We are cooperating fully with this examination. In July 2011, the New York State Insurance Department issued a special request to approximately 160 insurers, including Unum Group's New York licensed insurance subsidiaries, which requires the insurers to cross-check their life insurance policies, annuity contracts, and retained asset accounts with the latest version of the Social Security Master Death Index to identify any matches. Insurers are also requested to investigate the matches to determine if death benefits are due, to locate the beneficiaries, and to make payments where appropriate. We are cooperating fully with this request. It is possible other state jurisdictions may pursue similar investigations or inquiries or issue directives similar to the New York Insurance Department's letter. It is possible that the audits and related activity may result in additional payments to beneficiaries, the payment of abandoned funds under state law, and/or administrative penalties. We are currently unable to estimate the reasonably possible amount of any additional payments. Summary Various lawsuits against us, in addition to those discussed above, have arisen in the normal course of business. Further, state insurance regulatory authorities and other federal and state authorities regularly make inquiries and conduct investigations concerning our compliance with applicable insurance and other laws and regulations. Given the complexity and scope of our litigation and regulatory matters, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of all pending investigations or legal proceedings or provide reasonable estimates of potential losses, except where noted in connection with specific matters. It is possible that our results of operations or cash flows in a particular period could be materially affected by an ultimate unfavorable outcome of pending litigation or regulatory matters depending, in part, on our results of operations or cash flows for the particular period. We believe, however, that the ultimate outcome of all pending litigation and regulatory matters, after consideration of applicable reserves and rights to indemnification, should not have a material adverse effect on our financial position.

Commitments and Contingent Liabilities

Contingent Liabilities

We are a defendant in a number of litigation matters. In some of these matters, no specified amount is sought. In others, very large or indeterminate amounts, including punitive and treble damages, are asserted. There is a wide variation of pleading practice permitted in the United States courts with respect to requests for monetary damages, including some courts in which no specified amount is required and others which allow the plaintiff to state only that the amount sought is sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of that court. Further, some jurisdictions permit plaintiffs to allege damages well in excess of reasonably

possible verdicts. Based on our extensive experience and that of others in the industry with respect to litigating or resolving claims through settlement over an extended period of time, we believe that the monetary damages asserted in a lawsuit or claim bear little relation to the merits of the case, or the likely disposition value. Therefore, the specific monetary relief sought is not stated.

Unless indicated otherwise in the descriptions below, reserves have not been established for litigation and contingencies. An estimated loss is accrued when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated.

Claims Handling Matters

We and our insurance subsidiaries, as part of our normal operations in managing disability claims, are engaged in claim litigation where disputes arise as a result of a denial or termination of benefits. Most typically these lawsuits are filed on behalf of a single claimant or policyholder, and in some of these individual actions punitive damages are sought, such as claims alleging bad faith in the handling of insurance claims. For our general claim litigation, we maintain reserves based on experience to satisfy judgments and settlements in the normal course. We expect that the ultimate liability, if any, with respect to general claim litigation, after consideration of the reserves maintained, will not be material to our consolidated financial condition. Nevertheless, given the inherent unpredictability of litigation, it is possible that an adverse outcome in certain claim litigation involving punitive damages could, from time to time, have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations in a period, depending on the results of operations for the particular period.

From time to time class action allegations are pursued where the claimant or policyholder purports to represent a larger number of individuals who are similarly situated. Since each insurance claim is evaluated based on its own merits, there is rarely a single act or series of actions, which can properly be addressed by a class action. Nevertheless, we monitor these cases closely and defend ourselves appropriately where these allegations are made.

Broker Compensation, Quoting Process, and Other Matters

Examinations and Investigations

In November 2009, we were contacted by Florida state insurance regulators to discuss a resolution of their investigation of our compliance with state and federal laws with respect to producer compensation, solicitation activities, policies sold to state or municipal entities, and information regarding compensation arrangements with brokers. This investigation commenced in 2005, and, until the November 2009 contact, we had received no communications from the regulators regarding this matter since December 2007. Negotiations are ongoing.

Broker-Related Litigation

We and certain of our subsidiaries, along with many other insurance brokers and insurers, were named as defendants in a series of putative class actions that were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings as part of multidistrict litigation (MDL) No. 1663, In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation. The plaintiffs in MDL No. 1663 were ordered to file a consolidated amended complaint which alleged, among other things, that the defendants violated federal and state antitrust laws, the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), and various state common law requirements by engaging in alleged bid rigging and customer allocation and by paying undisclosed compensation to insurance brokers to steer business to defendant insurers. After several amendments to the complaint, all claims against us were dismissed, and the dismissal was affirmed on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

The only remaining proceeding against us that is part of MDL No. 1663 is Palm Tree Computers Systems, Inc. v. ACE USA, et al., which was filed in the Florida state Circuit Court on February 16, 2005. The complaint contains allegations similar to those referred to above. The case was removed to federal court and, on October 20, 2005, the case was transferred to MDL No. 1663. Plaintiffs renewed a motion to remand the case to the state court in Florida, and that motion was denied without prejudice on October 16, 2009. There have been no further proceedings in this case subsequent to that date, while the Court considers motions to dismiss filed by other defendants in MDL No. 1663.

Miscellaneous Matters

In September 2008, we received service of a complaint, in an adversary proceeding in connection with the bankruptcy case In

re Quebecor World (USA) Inc., et al. entitled Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Quebecor World (USA) Inc., et al., v. American United Life Insurance Company, et al., filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that we received preference payments relating to notes held by certain of our insurance subsidiaries and seeks to avoid and recover such payments plus interest and cost of the action. On July 27, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court ruled in our favor, granting a summary judgment motion to dismiss the case against us and the other defendants. This decision has been appealed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In July 2010, we received a subpoena from the Office of the New York Attorney General requesting documents and information relating to certain group life insurance policies wherein we paid life insurance proceeds by establishing interest-bearing retained asset accounts. We furnished the requested documents and information. Our last submission was made on October 6, 2010. Because we have received no further communications from the New York Attorney General following our response, we consider this investigation to be dormant.

In October 2010, Denise Merrimon, Bobby S. Mowery, and all others similarly situated vs. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maine. This is a putative class action alleging that we breached fiduciary duties owed to certain beneficiaries under certain group life insurance policies when we paid life insurance proceeds by establishing interest-bearing retained asset accounts rather than by mailing checks. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of beneficiaries under group life insurance contracts that were employee welfare benefit plans under ERISA and under which we paid death benefits pursuant to a retained asset account. Plaintiffs seek to recover on behalf of the class the difference between the interest paid to them and amounts alleged to have been realized by us through our investment of the retained assets. We intend to vigorously defend the action.

In March 2011, we received a request for information from an independent third party as part of an examination on behalf of 26 states and the District of Columbia to evaluate our compliance with the unclaimed property laws of the participating states. Industry-wide practices are currently under review concerning the identification and handling of unclaimed property by insurers, and numerous other insurers are under similar examination. We are cooperating fully with this examination. In July 2011, the New York State Insurance Department issued a special request to approximately 160 insurers, including Unum Group's New York licensed insurance subsidiaries, which requires the insurers to cross-check their life insurance policies, annuity contracts, and retained asset accounts with the latest version of the Social Security Master Death Index to identify any matches. Insurers are also requested to investigate the matches to determine if death benefits are due, to locate the beneficiaries, and to make payments where appropriate. We are cooperating fully with this request. It is possible other state jurisdictions may pursue similar investigations or inquiries or issue directives similar to the New York Insurance Department's letter. It is possible that the audits and related activity may result in additional payments to beneficiaries, the payment of abandoned funds under state law, and/or administrative penalties. We are currently unable to estimate the reasonably possible amount of any additional payments.

Summary

Various lawsuits against us, in addition to those discussed above, have arisen in the normal course of business. Further, state insurance regulatory authorities and other federal and state authorities regularly make inquiries and conduct investigations concerning our compliance with applicable insurance and other laws and regulations.

Given the complexity and scope of our litigation and regulatory matters, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of all pending investigations or legal proceedings or provide reasonable estimates of potential losses, except where noted in connection with specific matters. It is possible that our results of operations or cash flows in a particular period could be materially affected by an ultimate unfavorable outcome of pending litigation or regulatory matters depending, in part, on our results of operations or cash flows for the particular period. We believe, however, that the ultimate outcome of all pending litigation and regulatory matters, after consideration of applicable reserves and rights to indemnification, should not have a material adverse effect on our financial position.