Contingencies And Commitments	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2021
Contingencies And Commitments [Abstract]
Contingencies And Commitments	13. Contingencies and Commitments Contingencies Regulatory and Litigation Matters Regulatory bodies, such as state insurance departments, the SEC, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and other regulatory bodies 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 advisers and unclaimed property laws. LNC is 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 verdicts obtained 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 December 31, 2021. For some matters, the Company is able to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss. For such matters in which a loss is probable, an accrual has been made. For such matters where a loss is believed to be reasonably possible, but not probable, no accrual has been made. Accordingly, the estimate contained in this paragraph reflects two types of matters. For some matters included within this estimate, an accrual has been made, but there is a reasonable possibility that an exposure exists in excess of the amount accrued. In these cases, the estimate reflects the reasonably possible range of loss in excess of the accrued amount. For other matters included within this estimation, no accrual has been made because a loss, while potentially estimable, is believed to be reasonably possible but not probable. In these cases, the estimate reflects the reasonably possible loss or range of loss. As of December 31, 2021, we estimate the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses, including amounts in excess of amounts accrued for these matters as of such date, to be up to approximately $120 million, after-tax. Any estimate is not an indication of expected loss, if any, or of the Company’s maximum possible loss exposure on such matters. For other matters, we are not currently able to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss. We are often unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss until developments in such matters have provided sufficient information to support an assessment of the range of possible loss, such as quantification of a damage demand from plaintiffs, discovery from other parties and investigation of factual allegations, rulings by the court on motions or appeals, analysis by experts and the progress of settlement negotiations. On a quarterly and annual basis, we review relevant information with respect to litigation contingencies and update our accruals, disclosures and estimates of reasonably possible losses or ranges of loss based on such reviews. Among other matters, we are presently engaged in litigation, including relating to cost of insurance rates (“Cost of Insurance and Other Litigation”), as described below. No accrual has been made for several of these matters. Although a loss is believed to be reasonably possible for these matters, we are not able to estimate a reasonably possible amount or range of potential liability. An adverse outcome in one or more of these matters may have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements, but, based on information currently known, management does not believe those cases are likely to have such an impact. Reinsurance Disputes Certain reinsurers have sought rate increases on certain yearly renewable term agreements. We are disputing the requested rate increases under these agreements. We may initiate legal proceedings, as necessary, under these agreements in order to protect our contractual rights. Additionally, reinsurers have initiated, and may in the future initiate, legal proceedings against us. We believe it is unlikely the outcome of these disputes would have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements. For more information about reinsurance, see Note 8. Cost of Insurance and Other Litigation Cost of Insurance Litigation Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, No. 3:16-cv-00827, is a putative class action that was served on LNL on June 8, 2016. Plaintiff is the owner of a universal life insurance policy who alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance than permitted by the policy. Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life and variable universal life policyholders who owned policies containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those of Plaintiff’s policy and seeks damages on behalf of all such policyholders. On January 11, 2019, the court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety. In response, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint, which we have opposed. Hanks v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York (“LLANY”) and Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company (“Voya”), filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 1:16-cv-6399, is a putative class action that was served on LLANY on August 12, 2016. Plaintiff owns a universal life policy originally issued by Aetna (now Voya) and alleges that (i) Voya breached the terms of the policy when it increased non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates on Plaintiff’s policy; and (ii) LLANY, as reinsurer and administrator of Plaintiff’s policy, engaged in wrongful conduct related to the cost of insurance increase and was unjustly enriched as a result. Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of Aetna life insurance policies that were subject to non-guaranteed cost of insurance rate increases in 2016 and seeks damages on their behalf. On March 13, 2019, the court issued an order granting plaintiff’s motion for class certification for the breach of contract claim and denying such motion with respect to the unjust enrichment claim against LLANY, and, on September 12, 2019, the court issued an order approving the parties’ joint stipulation of dismissal with respect to the unjust enrichment claim and dismissed LLANY as a defendant in the case. In light of LLANY’s role as reinsurer and administrator under the 1998 coinsurance agreement with Aetna (now Voya), and of the parties’ rights and obligations thereunder, LLANY continues to be actively engaged in the defense of this case. On September 30, 2020, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted in part Voya’s motion for summary judgment. On October 22, 2021, the parties informed the presiding judge that they have reached a settlement of the action, subject to court approval. On January 19, 2022, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement. The settlement, subject to final approval by the court, consists of $92.5 million in pre-tax cash and a five-year cost of insurance rate freeze, among other terms. On February 3, 2022, the court preliminarily approved the class action settlement and set a final fairness hearing for June 9, 2022. EFG Bank AG, Cayman Branch, et al. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 2:17-cv-02592, is a civil action filed on February 1, 2017. Plaintiffs own Legend Series universal life insurance policies originally issued by Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL). Plaintiffs allege that LNL breached the terms of policyholders’ contracts when it increased non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates beginning in 2016. We are vigorously defending this matter. In re: Lincoln National COI Litigation, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Master File No. 2:16-cv-06605-GJP, is a consolidated litigation matter related to multiple putative class action filings that were consolidated by an order dated March 20, 2017. In addition to consolidating a number of existing matters, the order also covers any future cases filed in the same district related to the same subject matter. Plaintiffs own universal life insurance policies originally issued by Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL). Plaintiffs allege that LNL and LNC breached the terms of policyholders’ contracts by increasing non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates beginning in 2016. Plaintiffs seek to represent classes of policyowners and seek damages on their behalf. We are vigorously defending this matter. In re: Lincoln National 2017 COI Rate Litigation, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Master File No. 2:17-cv-04150 is a consolidated litigation matter related to multiple putative class action filings that were consolidated by an order of the court in March 2018. Plaintiffs own universal life insurance policies originally issued by former Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL). Plaintiffs allege that LNL and LNC breached the terms of policyholders’ contracts by increasing non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates beginning in 2017. Plaintiffs seek to represent classes of policyholders and seek damages on their behalf. We are vigorously defending this matter. Iwanski v. First Penn-Pacific Life Insurance Company (“FPP”), No. 2:18-cv-01573 filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is a putative class action that was filed on April 13, 2018. Plaintiff alleges that defendant FPP breached the terms of his life insurance policy by deducting non-guaranteed cost of insurance charges in excess of what is permitted by the policies. Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of universal life insurance policies issued by FPP containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those of Plaintiff’s policy and seeks damages on their behalf. Breach of contract is the only cause of action asserted. We are vigorously defending this matter. TVPX ARS INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 2:18-cv-02989, is a putative class action that was filed on July 17, 2018. Plaintiff alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance than permitted by the policy. Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life and variable universal life policyholders who own policies issued by LNL or its predecessors containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those of Plaintiff’s policy and seeks damages on behalf of all such policyholders. We are vigorously defending this matter. LSH Co. and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as securities intermediary for LSH Co. v. Lincoln National Corporation and The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 2:18-cv-05529, is a civil action filed on December 21, 2018. Plaintiffs own universal life insurance policies originally issued by Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL). Plaintiffs allege that LNL breached the terms of policyholders’ contracts when it increased non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates in 2016 and 2017. We are vigorously defending this matter. Vida Longevity Fund, LP v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 1:19-cv-06004, is a putative class action that was filed on June 27, 2019. Plaintiff alleges that LLANY charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance than was permitted by the policies. Plaintiff seeks to represent all current and former owners of universal life (including variable universal life) policies who own or owned policies issued by LLANY and its predecessors in interest that were in force at any time on or after June 27, 2013, and which contain non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those of Plaintiff’s policies. Plaintiff also seeks to represent a sub-class of such policyholders who own or owned “life insurance policies issued in the State of New York.” Plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of the policyholder class and sub-class. We are vigorously defending this matter. Other Litigation Andrew Nitkewicz v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 1:20-cv-06805, is a putative class action that was filed on August 24, 2020. Plaintiff Andrew Nitkewicz, as trustee of the Joan C. Lupe Trust, seeks to represent all current and former owners of universal life (including variable universal life) policies who own or owned policies issued by LLANY and its predecessors in interest that were in force at any time on or after June 27, 2013, and for which planned annual, semi-annual, or quarterly premiums were paid for any period beyond the end of the policy month of the insured’s death. Plaintiff alleges LLANY failed to refund unearned premium in violation of New York Insurance Law Section 3203(a)(2) in connection with the payment of death benefit claims for certain insurance policies. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and pre-judgment interest on behalf of the various classes and sub-class. On July 2, 2021, the court granted, with prejudice, LLANY’s November 2020 motion to dismiss this matter. On July 28, 2021, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with respect to this ruling. Commitments Leases As of December 31, 2021 and 2020, we had operating lease ROU assets of $147 million and $182 million, respectively, and associated lease liabilities of $157 million and $194 million, respectively. The weighted-average discount rate was 2.6% and 3.2%, respectively, and the remaining lease term was five years and six years, respectively, as of December 31, 2021 and 2020. Operating lease expense for the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020 and 2019, was $49 million, $50 million and $54 million, respectively, and reported in commissions and other expenses on our Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss). As of December 31, 2021 and 2020, we had finance lease assets of $37 million and $75 million, respectively, and associated finance lease liabilities of $175 million and $234 million, respectively. The accumulated amortization associated with the finance lease assets was $436 million and $398 million as of December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively. These assets will continue to be amortized on a straight-line basis over the assets’ remaining lives. The weighted-average discount rate was 1.4% and 2.2%, respectively, and the remaining lease term was one year and two years, respectively, as of December 31, 2021 and 2020. Finance lease expense (in millions) was as follows: For the Years Ended December 31, 2021 2020 2019 Amortization of finance lease assets (1)$ 38 $ 53 $ 67 Interest on finance lease liabilities (2) 3 6 13 Total $ 41 $ 59 $ 80 (1)Amortization of finance lease assets is reported in commissions and other expenses on our Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss).(2)Interest on finance lease liabilities is reported in interest and debt expense on our Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss). The table below presents cash flow information (in millions) related to leases: For the Years Ended December 31, 2021 2020 2019 Supplemental Cash Flow Information Cash paid for amounts included in the measurement of lease liabilities: Operating cash flows from operating leases$ 47 $ 54 $ 56 Financing cash flows from finance leases 62 53 96 Supplemental Non-cash Information ROU assets obtained in exchange for new lease obligations: Operating leases$ 8 $ 10 $ 80 Our future minimum lease payments (in millions) under non-cancellable leases as of December 31, 2021, were as follows: Operating Finance Leases Leases 2022$ 46 $ 72 2023 43 79 2024 30 17 2025 23 7 2026 21 4 Thereafter 27 - Total future minimum lease payments 190 179 Less: Amount representing interest 33 4 Present value of minimum lease payments$ 157 $ 175 As of December 31, 2021, we had one lease that had not yet commenced. Certain Financing Arrangements We periodically enter into sale-leaseback arrangements that do not meet the criteria of a sale for accounting purposes. As such, we account for these transactions as financing arrangements. As of December 31, 2021 and 2020, we had $375 million and $216 million, respectively, of financing obligations reported within other liabilities on our Consolidated Balance Sheets. Future payments due on certain financing arrangements (in millions) as of December 31, 2021, were as follows: 2022$ 8 2023 26 2024 80 2025 114 2026 165 Thereafter 4 Total future minimum lease payments 397 Less: Amount representing interest 22 Present value of minimum lease payments$ 375 Vulnerability from Concentrations As of December 31, 2021, we did not have a concentration of: business transactions with a particular customer or lender; sources of supply of labor or services used in the business; or a market or geographic area in which business is conducted that makes us vulnerable to an event that is at least reasonably possible to occur in the near term and which could cause a severe impact to our financial condition. For information on our investment and reinsurance concentrations, see Notes 4 and 8, respectively. Other Contingency Matters State guaranty funds assess insurance companies to cover losses to contract holders of insolvent or rehabilitated companies. Mandatory assessments may be partially recovered through a reduction in future premium taxes in some states. We have accrued for expected assessments and the related reductions in future state premium taxes, which net to assessments (recoveries) of $(6) million and $(9) million as of December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively.

Contingencies And Commitments

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2021

Contingencies And Commitments [Abstract]

13. Contingencies and Commitments Contingencies Regulatory and Litigation Matters Regulatory bodies, such as state insurance departments, the SEC, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and other regulatory bodies 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 advisers and unclaimed property laws. LNC is 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 verdicts obtained 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 December 31, 2021. For some matters, the Company is able to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss. For such matters in which a loss is probable, an accrual has been made. For such matters where a loss is believed to be reasonably possible, but not probable, no accrual has been made. Accordingly, the estimate contained in this paragraph reflects two types of matters. For some matters included within this estimate, an accrual has been made, but there is a reasonable possibility that an exposure exists in excess of the amount accrued. In these cases, the estimate reflects the reasonably possible range of loss in excess of the accrued amount. For other matters included within this estimation, no accrual has been made because a loss, while potentially estimable, is believed to be reasonably possible but not probable. In these cases, the estimate reflects the reasonably possible loss or range of loss. As of December 31, 2021, we estimate the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses, including amounts in excess of amounts accrued for these matters as of such date, to be up to approximately $120 million, after-tax. Any estimate is not an indication of expected loss, if any, or of the Company’s maximum possible loss exposure on such matters. For other matters, we are not currently able to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss. We are often unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss until developments in such matters have provided sufficient information to support an assessment of the range of possible loss, such as quantification of a damage demand from plaintiffs, discovery from other parties and investigation of factual allegations, rulings by the court on motions or appeals, analysis by experts and the progress of settlement negotiations. On a quarterly and annual basis, we review relevant information with respect to litigation contingencies and update our accruals, disclosures and estimates of reasonably possible losses or ranges of loss based on such reviews. Among other matters, we are presently engaged in litigation, including relating to cost of insurance rates (“Cost of Insurance and Other Litigation”), as described below. No accrual has been made for several of these matters. Although a loss is believed to be reasonably possible for these matters, we are not able to estimate a reasonably possible amount or range of potential liability. An adverse outcome in one or more of these matters may have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements, but, based on information currently known, management does not believe those cases are likely to have such an impact. Reinsurance Disputes Certain reinsurers have sought rate increases on certain yearly renewable term agreements. We are disputing the requested rate increases under these agreements. We may initiate legal proceedings, as necessary, under these agreements in order to protect our contractual rights. Additionally, reinsurers have initiated, and may in the future initiate, legal proceedings against us. We believe it is unlikely the outcome of these disputes would have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements. For more information about reinsurance, see Note 8. Cost of Insurance and Other Litigation Cost of Insurance Litigation Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, No. 3:16-cv-00827, is a putative class action that was served on LNL on June 8, 2016. Plaintiff is the owner of a universal life insurance policy who alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance than permitted by the policy. Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life and variable universal life policyholders who owned policies containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those of Plaintiff’s policy and seeks damages on behalf of all such policyholders. On January 11, 2019, the court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety. In response, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint, which we have opposed. Hanks v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York (“LLANY”) and Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company (“Voya”), filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 1:16-cv-6399, is a putative class action that was served on LLANY on August 12, 2016. Plaintiff owns a universal life policy originally issued by Aetna (now Voya) and alleges that (i) Voya breached the terms of the policy when it increased non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates on Plaintiff’s policy; and (ii) LLANY, as reinsurer and administrator of Plaintiff’s policy, engaged in wrongful conduct related to the cost of insurance increase and was unjustly enriched as a result. Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of Aetna life insurance policies that were subject to non-guaranteed cost of insurance rate increases in 2016 and seeks damages on their behalf. On March 13, 2019, the court issued an order granting plaintiff’s motion for class certification for the breach of contract claim and denying such motion with respect to the unjust enrichment claim against LLANY, and, on September 12, 2019, the court issued an order approving the parties’ joint stipulation of dismissal with respect to the unjust enrichment claim and dismissed LLANY as a defendant in the case. In light of LLANY’s role as reinsurer and administrator under the 1998 coinsurance agreement with Aetna (now Voya), and of the parties’ rights and obligations thereunder, LLANY continues to be actively engaged in the defense of this case. On September 30, 2020, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted in part Voya’s motion for summary judgment. On October 22, 2021, the parties informed the presiding judge that they have reached a settlement of the action, subject to court approval. On January 19, 2022, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement. The settlement, subject to final approval by the court, consists of $92.5 million in pre-tax cash and a five-year cost of insurance rate freeze, among other terms. On February 3, 2022, the court preliminarily approved the class action settlement and set a final fairness hearing for June 9, 2022. EFG Bank AG, Cayman Branch, et al. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 2:17-cv-02592, is a civil action filed on February 1, 2017. Plaintiffs own Legend Series universal life insurance policies originally issued by Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL). Plaintiffs allege that LNL breached the terms of policyholders’ contracts when it increased non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates beginning in 2016. We are vigorously defending this matter. In re: Lincoln National COI Litigation, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Master File No. 2:16-cv-06605-GJP, is a consolidated litigation matter related to multiple putative class action filings that were consolidated by an order dated March 20, 2017. In addition to consolidating a number of existing matters, the order also covers any future cases filed in the same district related to the same subject matter. Plaintiffs own universal life insurance policies originally issued by Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL). Plaintiffs allege that LNL and LNC breached the terms of policyholders’ contracts by increasing non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates beginning in 2016. Plaintiffs seek to represent classes of policyowners and seek damages on their behalf. We are vigorously defending this matter. In re: Lincoln National 2017 COI Rate Litigation, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Master File No. 2:17-cv-04150 is a consolidated litigation matter related to multiple putative class action filings that were consolidated by an order of the court in March 2018. Plaintiffs own universal life insurance policies originally issued by former Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL). Plaintiffs allege that LNL and LNC breached the terms of policyholders’ contracts by increasing non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates beginning in 2017. Plaintiffs seek to represent classes of policyholders and seek damages on their behalf. We are vigorously defending this matter. Iwanski v. First Penn-Pacific Life Insurance Company (“FPP”), No. 2:18-cv-01573 filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is a putative class action that was filed on April 13, 2018. Plaintiff alleges that defendant FPP breached the terms of his life insurance policy by deducting non-guaranteed cost of insurance charges in excess of what is permitted by the policies. Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of universal life insurance policies issued by FPP containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those of Plaintiff’s policy and seeks damages on their behalf. Breach of contract is the only cause of action asserted. We are vigorously defending this matter. TVPX ARS INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 2:18-cv-02989, is a putative class action that was filed on July 17, 2018. Plaintiff alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance than permitted by the policy. Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life and variable universal life policyholders who own policies issued by LNL or its predecessors containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those of Plaintiff’s policy and seeks damages on behalf of all such policyholders. We are vigorously defending this matter. LSH Co. and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as securities intermediary for LSH Co. v. Lincoln National Corporation and The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 2:18-cv-05529, is a civil action filed on December 21, 2018. Plaintiffs own universal life insurance policies originally issued by Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL). Plaintiffs allege that LNL breached the terms of policyholders’ contracts when it increased non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates in 2016 and 2017. We are vigorously defending this matter. Vida Longevity Fund, LP v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 1:19-cv-06004, is a putative class action that was filed on June 27, 2019. Plaintiff alleges that LLANY charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance than was permitted by the policies. Plaintiff seeks to represent all current and former owners of universal life (including variable universal life) policies who own or owned policies issued by LLANY and its predecessors in interest that were in force at any time on or after June 27, 2013, and which contain non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those of Plaintiff’s policies. Plaintiff also seeks to represent a sub-class of such policyholders who own or owned “life insurance policies issued in the State of New York.” Plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of the policyholder class and sub-class. We are vigorously defending this matter. Other Litigation Andrew Nitkewicz v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 1:20-cv-06805, is a putative class action that was filed on August 24, 2020. Plaintiff Andrew Nitkewicz, as trustee of the Joan C. Lupe Trust, seeks to represent all current and former owners of universal life (including variable universal life) policies who own or owned policies issued by LLANY and its predecessors in interest that were in force at any time on or after June 27, 2013, and for which planned annual, semi-annual, or quarterly premiums were paid for any period beyond the end of the policy month of the insured’s death. Plaintiff alleges LLANY failed to refund unearned premium in violation of New York Insurance Law Section 3203(a)(2) in connection with the payment of death benefit claims for certain insurance policies. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and pre-judgment interest on behalf of the various classes and sub-class. On July 2, 2021, the court granted, with prejudice, LLANY’s November 2020 motion to dismiss this matter. On July 28, 2021, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with respect to this ruling. Commitments Leases As of December 31, 2021 and 2020, we had operating lease ROU assets of $147 million and $182 million, respectively, and associated lease liabilities of $157 million and $194 million, respectively. The weighted-average discount rate was 2.6% and 3.2%, respectively, and the remaining lease term was five years and six years, respectively, as of December 31, 2021 and 2020. Operating lease expense for the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020 and 2019, was $49 million, $50 million and $54 million, respectively, and reported in commissions and other expenses on our Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss). As of December 31, 2021 and 2020, we had finance lease assets of $37 million and $75 million, respectively, and associated finance lease liabilities of $175 million and $234 million, respectively. The accumulated amortization associated with the finance lease assets was $436 million and $398 million as of December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively. These assets will continue to be amortized on a straight-line basis over the assets’ remaining lives. The weighted-average discount rate was 1.4% and 2.2%, respectively, and the remaining lease term was one year and two years, respectively, as of December 31, 2021 and 2020. Finance lease expense (in millions) was as follows: For the Years Ended December 31, 2021 2020 2019 Amortization of finance lease assets (1)$ 38 $ 53 $ 67 Interest on finance lease liabilities (2) 3 6 13 Total $ 41 $ 59 $ 80 (1)Amortization of finance lease assets is reported in commissions and other expenses on our Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss).(2)Interest on finance lease liabilities is reported in interest and debt expense on our Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss). The table below presents cash flow information (in millions) related to leases: For the Years Ended December 31, 2021 2020 2019 Supplemental Cash Flow Information Cash paid for amounts included in the measurement of lease liabilities: Operating cash flows from operating leases$ 47 $ 54 $ 56 Financing cash flows from finance leases 62 53 96 Supplemental Non-cash Information ROU assets obtained in exchange for new lease obligations: Operating leases$ 8 $ 10 $ 80 Our future minimum lease payments (in millions) under non-cancellable leases as of December 31, 2021, were as follows: Operating Finance Leases Leases 2022$ 46 $ 72 2023 43 79 2024 30 17 2025 23 7 2026 21 4 Thereafter 27 - Total future minimum lease payments 190 179 Less: Amount representing interest 33 4 Present value of minimum lease payments$ 157 $ 175 As of December 31, 2021, we had one lease that had not yet commenced. Certain Financing Arrangements We periodically enter into sale-leaseback arrangements that do not meet the criteria of a sale for accounting purposes. As such, we account for these transactions as financing arrangements. As of December 31, 2021 and 2020, we had $375 million and $216 million, respectively, of financing obligations reported within other liabilities on our Consolidated Balance Sheets. Future payments due on certain financing arrangements (in millions) as of December 31, 2021, were as follows: 2022$ 8 2023 26 2024 80 2025 114 2026 165 Thereafter 4 Total future minimum lease payments 397 Less: Amount representing interest 22 Present value of minimum lease payments$ 375 Vulnerability from Concentrations As of December 31, 2021, we did not have a concentration of: business transactions with a particular customer or lender; sources of supply of labor or services used in the business; or a market or geographic area in which business is conducted that makes us vulnerable to an event that is at least reasonably possible to occur in the near term and which could cause a severe impact to our financial condition. For information on our investment and reinsurance concentrations, see Notes 4 and 8, respectively. Other Contingency Matters State guaranty funds assess insurance companies to cover losses to contract holders of insolvent or rehabilitated companies. Mandatory assessments may be partially recovered through a reduction in future premium taxes in some states. We have accrued for expected assessments and the related reductions in future state premium taxes, which net to assessments (recoveries) of $(6) million and $(9) million as of December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively.