Contingencies and Commitments	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2015
Contingencies and Commitments [Abstract]
Contingencies and Commitments	8. Contingencies and Commitments Regulatory bodies, such as state insurance and securities departments, the SEC and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority regularly make inquiries and conduct examinations or investigations concerning our compliance with, among other things, insurance laws, securities laws, laws governing the activities of broker-dealers, registered investment advisors and unclaimed property laws. LNC and its subsidiaries are involved in various pending or threatened legal or regulatory proceedings, including purported class actions, arising from the conduct of business both in the ordinary course and otherwise. In some of the matters, very large and/or indeterminate amounts, including punitive and treble damages, are sought. Modern pleading practice in the U.S. permits considerable variation in the assertion of monetary damages or other relief. Jurisdictions may permit claimants not to specify the monetary damages sought or may permit claimants to state only that the amount sought is sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the trial court. In addition, jurisdictions may permit plaintiffs to allege monetary damages in amounts well exceeding reasonably possible verdicts in the jurisdiction for similar matters. This variability in pleadings, together with the actual experiences of LNC in litigating or resolving through settlement numerous claims over an extended period of time, demonstrates to management that the monetary relief which may be specified in a lawsuit or claim bears little relevance to its merits or disposition value. Due to the unpredictable nature of litigation, the outcome of a litigation matter and the amount or range of potential loss at particular points in time is normally difficult to ascertain. Uncertainties can include how fact finders will evaluate documentary evidence and the credibility and effectiveness of witness testimony, and how trial and appellate courts will apply the law in the context of the pleadings or evidence presented, whether by motion practice, or at trial or on appeal. Disposition valuations are also subject to the uncertainty of how opposing parties and their counsel will themselves view the relevant evidence and applicable law. We establish liabilities for litigation and regulatory loss contingencies when information related to the loss contingencies shows both that it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. It is possible that some matters could require us to pay damages or make other expenditures or establish accruals in amounts that could not be estimated as of June 30, 2015. While the potential future charges could be material in the particular quarterly or annual periods in which they are recorded, based on information currently known by management, management does not believe any such charges are likely to have a material adverse effect on LNC’s financial condition. On June 13, 2009, a single named plaintiff filed a putative national class action in the Circuit Court of Allen County (“Court”), Indiana, captioned Peter S. Bezich v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company (“LNL”), No. 02C01-0906-PL73, asserting he was charged a cost of insurance fee that exceeded the applicable mortality charge, and that this fee breached the terms of the insurance contract. Plaintiff petitioned the Court to certify a class action, on behalf of all persons who purchased or owned the relevant insurance product between 1999 and 2009, alleging that: (i) LNL breached the contract by including non-mortality factors in cost of insurance rates; (ii) LNL breached the contract when it charged administrative expenses in excess of set amount; and (iii) LNL breached the contract by failing to adjust cost of insurance rates to reflect improving mortality expectations. On June 12, 2014, the Court issued an Order denying certification on all of the Plaintiff’s counts and claims except with respect to a single legal issue: whether the contract was breached as alleged in Count III. However, any damages arising from this alleged breach would have to be tried on an individual case-by-case basis. The appellate court granted permission for our interlocutory appeal of the Court’s certification of the single issue class, and plaintiff cross-appealed. The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that a class could be certified on all three claims, on the legal issues only, and remanding for further proceedings. This ruling preserves the lower court’s denial of class certification on damages, and any damages arising from the alleged breaches would have to be tried on an individual case-by-case basis. We continue to vigorously defend the case and have petitioned to transfer it, on appeal, to the state supreme court. See Note 13 in our 2014 Form 10-K for additional discussion of commitments and contingencies, which information is incorporated herein by reference.

8. Contingencies and Commitments

Regulatory bodies, such as state insurance and securities departments, the SEC and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority regularly make inquiries and conduct examinations or investigations concerning our compliance with, among other things, insurance laws, securities laws, laws governing the activities of broker-dealers, registered investment advisors and unclaimed property laws.

LNC and its subsidiaries are involved in various pending or threatened legal or regulatory proceedings, including purported class actions, arising from the conduct of business both in the ordinary course and otherwise. In some of the matters, very large and/or indeterminate amounts, including punitive and treble damages, are sought. Modern pleading practice in the U.S. permits considerable variation in the assertion of monetary damages or other relief. Jurisdictions may permit claimants not to specify the monetary damages sought or may permit claimants to state only that the amount sought is sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the trial court. In addition, jurisdictions may permit plaintiffs to allege monetary damages in amounts well exceeding reasonably possible verdicts in the jurisdiction for similar matters. This variability in pleadings, together with the actual experiences of LNC in litigating or resolving through settlement numerous claims over an extended period of time, demonstrates to management that the monetary relief which may be specified in a lawsuit or claim bears little relevance to its merits or disposition value.

Due to the unpredictable nature of litigation, the outcome of a litigation matter and the amount or range of potential loss at particular points in time is normally difficult to ascertain. Uncertainties can include how fact finders will evaluate documentary evidence and the credibility and effectiveness of witness testimony, and how trial and appellate courts will apply the law in the context of the pleadings or evidence presented, whether by motion practice, or at trial or on appeal. Disposition valuations are also subject to the uncertainty of how opposing parties and their counsel will themselves view the relevant evidence and applicable law.

We establish liabilities for litigation and regulatory loss contingencies when information related to the loss contingencies shows both that it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. It is possible that some matters could require us to pay damages or make other expenditures or establish accruals in amounts that could not be estimated as of June 30, 2015. While the potential future charges could be material in the particular quarterly or annual periods in which they are recorded, based on information currently known by management, management does not believe any such charges are likely to have a material adverse effect on LNC’s financial condition.

On June 13, 2009, a single named plaintiff filed a putative national class action in the Circuit Court of Allen County (“Court”), Indiana, captioned Peter S. Bezich v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company (“LNL”), No. 02C01-0906-PL73, asserting he was charged a cost of insurance fee that exceeded the applicable mortality charge, and that this fee breached the terms of the insurance contract. Plaintiff petitioned the Court to certify a class action, on behalf of all persons who purchased or owned the relevant insurance product between 1999 and 2009, alleging that: (i) LNL breached the contract by including non-mortality factors in cost of insurance rates; (ii) LNL breached the contract when it charged administrative expenses in excess of set amount; and (iii) LNL breached the contract by failing to adjust cost of insurance rates to reflect improving mortality expectations. On June 12, 2014, the Court issued an Order denying certification on all of the Plaintiff’s counts and claims except with respect to a single legal issue: whether the contract was breached as alleged in Count III. However, any damages arising from this alleged breach would have to be tried on an individual case-by-case basis. The appellate court granted permission for our interlocutory appeal of the Court’s certification of the single issue class, and plaintiff cross-appealed. The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that a class could be certified on all three claims, on the legal issues only, and remanding for further proceedings. This ruling preserves the lower court’s denial of class certification on damages, and any damages arising from the alleged breaches would have to be tried on an individual case-by-case basis. We continue to vigorously defend the case and have petitioned to transfer it, on appeal, to the state supreme court.

See Note 13 in our 2014 Form 10-K for additional discussion of commitments and contingencies, which information is incorporated herein by reference.