Commitments and Contingencies

Operating Leases

The Company is obligated under various non-cancellable lease agreements providing for office space, automobiles, and office equipment that expire at various dates through the year 2022. For leases that contain predetermined escalations of the minimum rentals, the Company recognizes the related rent expense on a straight-line basis and records the difference between the recognized rental expense and amounts payable under the leases as deferred rent in other liabilities. This liability amounted to $2.4 million and $3.6 million at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. Total rent expense under these lease agreements was $19.7 million, $16.0 million, and $14.6 million for 2016, 2015, and 2014, respectively.

The following table presents future minimum commitments for operating leases as of December 31, 2016:



Year Ending December 31,	Operating Leases
	(Amounts in thousands)
2017	$	14,647
2018	6,784
2019	2,713
2020	1,945
2021	861
Thereafter	148

California Earthquake Authority ("CEA")

The CEA is a quasi-governmental organization that was established to provide a market for earthquake coverage to California homeowners. The Company places all new and renewal earthquake coverage offered with its homeowners policies directly with the CEA. The Company receives a small fee for placing business with the CEA, which is recorded as other income in the consolidated statements of operations. Upon the occurrence of a major seismic event, the CEA has the ability to assess participating companies for losses. These assessments are made after CEA capital has been expended and are based upon each company’s participation percentage multiplied by the amount of the total assessment. Based upon the most recent information provided by the CEA, the Company’s maximum total exposure to CEA assessments at April 1, 2016, the most recent date at which information was available, was approximately $60.2 million. There was no assessment made in 2016.

Regulatory Matters

In March 2006, the California DOI issued an Amended Notice of Non-Compliance to a Notice of Non-Compliance originally issued in February 2004 (as amended, “2004 NNC”) alleging that the Company charged rates in violation of the California Insurance Code, willfully permitted its agents to charge broker fees in violation of California law, and willfully misrepresented the actual price insurance consumers could expect to pay for insurance by the amount of a fee charged by the consumer's insurance broker. The California DOI sought to impose a fine for each policy on which the Company allegedly permitted an agent to charge a broker fee, to impose a penalty for each policy on which the Company allegedly used a misleading advertisement, and to suspend certificates of authority for a period of one year. In January 2012, the administrative law judge bifurcated the 2004 NNC between (a) the California DOI’s order to show cause (the “OSC”), in which the California DOI asserts the false advertising allegations and accusation, and (b) the California DOI’s notice of noncompliance (the “NNC”), in which the California DOI asserts the unlawful rate allegations. In February 2012, the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) submitted a proposed decision dismissing the NNC, but the Commissioner rejected the ALJ’s proposed decision. The Company challenged the rejection in Los Angeles Superior Court in April 2012, and the Commissioner responded with a demurrer. Following a hearing, the Superior Court sustained the Commissioner’s demurrer, based on the Company’s failure to exhaust its administrative remedies, and the Company appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed the Superior Court's ruling that the Company was required to exhaust its administrative remedies, but expressly preserved for later appeal the legal basis for the ALJ’s dismissal: violation of the Company’s due process rights. Following an evidentiary hearing in April 2013, post-hearing briefs, and an unsuccessful mediation, the ALJ closed the evidentiary record on April 30, 2014. Although a proposed decision was to be submitted to the Commissioner on or before June 30, 2014, after which the Commissioner would have 100 days to accept, reject or modify the proposed decision, the proposed decision was not submitted until December 8, 2014. On January 7, 2015, the Commissioner adopted the ALJ’s proposed decision, which became the Commissioner’s adopted order (the "Order"). The decision and Order found that from the period July 1, 1996, through 2006, the Company’s "brokers" were actually operating as "de facto agents" and that the charging of "broker fees" by these producers constituted the charging of "premium" in excess of the Company's approved rates, and assessed a civil penalty in the amount of $27.6 million against the Company. On February 9, 2015, the Company filed a Writ of Administrative Mandamus and Complaint for Declaratory Relief (the “Writ”) in the Orange County Superior Court seeking, among other things, to require the Commissioner to vacate the Order, to stay the Order while the Superior Court action is pending, and to judicially declare as invalid the Commissioner’s interpretation of certain provisions of the California Insurance Code. Subsequent to the filing of the Writ, a consumer group petitioned and was granted the right to intervene in the Superior Court action. The Court did not order a stay, and the $27.6 million assessed penalty was paid in March 2015. The Company filed an amended Writ on September 11, 2015, adding an explicit request for a refund of the penalty, with interest.

On August 12, 2016, the Superior Court issued its ruling on the Writ, for the most part granting the relief sought by the Company. The Superior Court found that the Commissioner and the California DOI did commit due process violations, but declined to dismiss the case on those grounds. The Superior Court also agreed with the Company that the broker fees at issue were not premium, and that the penalties imposed by the Commissioner were improper, and therefore vacated the Order imposing the penalty. The Superior Court entered final judgment on November 17, 2016, issuing a writ requiring the Commissioner to refund the entire penalty amount within 120 days, plus prejudgment interest at the statutory rate of 7%. The Company has filed a motion with the ALJ to dismiss the false advertising OSC portion of the NNC based on the Superior Court's findings and legal reasoning. On January 12, 2017, the Commissioner filed a notice of appeal of the Superior Court's judgment entered on November 17, 2016. Since the matter has been appealed, the Company has not yet recognized in the consolidated financial statements the vacation of the Commissioner’s Order or established a receivable for the refund of the $27.6 million penalty plus any related interest owed.

The Company has also accrued a liability for the estimated cost to continue to defend itself in the false advertising OSC. Based upon its understanding of the facts and the California Insurance Code, the Company does not expect that the ultimate resolution of the false advertising OSC will be material to its financial position.

Litigation

The Company is, from time to time, named as a defendant in various lawsuits or regulatory actions incidental to its insurance business. The majority of lawsuits brought against the Company relate to insurance claims that arise in the normal course of business and are reserved for through the reserving process. For a discussion of the Company’s reserving methods, see Note 1. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies.

The Company also establishes reserves for non-insurance claims related lawsuits, regulatory actions, and other contingencies when the Company believes a loss is probable and is able to estimate its potential exposure. For loss contingencies believed to be reasonably possible, the Company also discloses the nature of the loss contingency and an estimate of the possible loss, range of loss, or a statement that such an estimate cannot be made. While actual losses may differ from the amounts recorded and the ultimate outcome of the Company’s pending actions is generally not yet determinable, the Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of currently pending legal or regulatory proceedings, either individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

In all cases, the Company vigorously defends itself unless a reasonable settlement appears appropriate.

The Company is also involved in proceedings relating to assessments and rulings made by the FTB. See Note 10. Income Taxes.

There are no environmental proceedings arising under federal, state, or local laws or regulations to be discussed.