Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (A) Legal Proceedings In the normal course of business, the Company is involved or may become involved in various legal actions in which claims for alleged economic and punitive damages have been or may be asserted, some for substantial amounts. In recent years, carriers offering life insurance and annuity products have faced litigation, including class action lawsuits, alleging improper product design, improper sales practices, and similar claims. As discussed below, the Company has been a defendant over the past several years in two such class action lawsuits. Given the uncertainty involved in these types of actions, the ability to make a reliable evaluation of the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or an estimate of the amount of or range of potential loss is endemic to the particular circumstances and evolving developments of each individual matter on its own merits. The Company is currently a defendant in a class action lawsuit pending as of June 12, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The case is titled In Re National Western Life Insurance Deferred Annuities Litigation. The complaint asserts claims for RICO violations, Financial Elder Abuse, Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200, et seq, Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17500, et seq, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Fraudulent Concealment, Cal. Civ. Code 1710, et seq, Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, and Unjust Enrichment and Imposition of Constructive Trust. On July 12, 2010 the Court certified a nationwide class of policyholders under the RICO allegation and a California class under all of the remaining causes of action except breach of fiduciary duty. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses in this cause and intends to vigorously defend itself against the asserted claims. In addition, given the speculative and vague damage theories presented by the plaintiffs in the matter, the inability to ascertain any financial harm to the class of policyholders, and the current status of the case before the Court, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate a possible range of loss for disclosure in the accompanying financial statements. Therefore, no amounts have been provided in the financial statements of the Company as of March 31, 2013 for this matter. The trial date has been vacated and a pretrial conference is scheduled for May 31, 2013. In addition to the class action lawsuit described above, the Company is the named defendant in the case of Sheila Newman vs. National Western Life Insurance Company, which alleged mishandling of policyholder funds by an agent. On February 3, 2010, the 415th Judicial District Court of Parker County in Weatherford, Texas, entered a Final Judgment against the Company of approximately $208,000 including actual damages of $113,000 and amounts for attorney's fees, and prejudgment interest on the actual damages. In addition, the Final Judgment included $150 million for exemplary damages. The Company vigorously defended this case and appealed the Final Judgment to the Court of Appeals Second District of Texas in Fort Worth. The Court of Appeals on August 11, 2011, reversed the trial court judgment in its entirety and rendered a take nothing verdict in favor of National Western. Plaintiffs (Appellees) filed a motion for a rehearing which the Court ruled on October 13, 2011, that the trial court's judgment was still reversed and judgment was still entered that Newman take nothing, all in favor of National Western. The Plaintiffs (Appellees) filed a Motion for Reconsideration En Banc which the Court of Appeals denied on October 27, 2011. The Plaintiffs (Appellees) then filed a Motion for Rehearing of the Court's amended decision, which the Court of Appeals denied on December 22, 2011. On March 21, 2012, Plaintiffs (Appellees) filed a petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court and the Company filed its response on April 20, 2012. The Supreme Court asked the parties for briefs on the issues before deciding on whether to hear the case and both parties submitted their briefs. On February 14, 2013, the Supreme Court denied the Plaintiffs petition for review. On April 3, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Rehearing. On October 26, 2011 the Brazilian Superintendence of Private Insurance (“SUSEP”) attempted to serve the Company with a subpoena regarding an administrative proceeding initiated by SUSEP in which it alleged that the Company was operating as an insurance company in Brazil without due authorization. The Company has been informed that SUSEP is attempting to impose a penal fine of approximately $6.0 billion on the Company. SUSEP has unsuccessfully attempted to serve the Company with notice regarding this matter. The Company does not transact business in Brazil and has no officers, employees, property, or assets in Brazil. The Company and its legal advisors believe that SUSEP has no jurisdiction over the Company, that SUSEP's attempts at service of process have been invalid, and that any penal fine would be unenforceable. For the reasons described above, the Company does not believe that this matter meets the definition of a material pending legal proceeding as such term is defined in Item 103 of Regulation S-K but has included the foregoing description solely due to the purported amount of the fine sought. Although there can be no assurances, at the present time, the Company does not anticipate that the ultimate liability arising from such other potential, pending, or threatened legal actions will have a material adverse effect on the financial condition or operating results of the Company. (B) Financial Instruments In order to meet the financing needs of its customers in the normal course of business, the Company is a party to financial instruments with off-balance sheet risk. These financial instruments are commitments to extend credit which involve elements of credit and interest rate risk in excess of the amounts recognized in the consolidated balance sheet. The Company's exposure to credit loss in the event of nonperformance by the other party to the financial instrument for commitments to extend credit is represented by the contractual amounts, assuming that the amounts are fully advanced and that collateral or other security is of no value. Commitments to extend credit are legally binding agreements to lend to a customer that generally have fixed expiration dates or other termination clauses and may require payment of a fee. Commitments do not necessarily represent future liquidity requirements, as some could expire without being drawn upon. The Company uses the same credit policies in making commitments and conditional obligations as it does for on-balance sheet instruments. The Company controls the credit risk of these transactions through credit approvals, limits, and monitoring procedures. The Company had $5.7 million of commitments to extend credit relating to mortgage loans at March 31, 2013. The Company evaluates each customer's creditworthiness on a case-by-case basis.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

(A) Legal Proceedings

In the normal course of business, the Company is involved or may become involved in various legal actions in which claims for alleged economic and punitive damages have been or may be asserted, some for substantial amounts. In recent years, carriers offering life insurance and annuity products have faced litigation, including class action lawsuits, alleging improper product design, improper sales practices, and similar claims. As discussed below, the Company has been a defendant over the past several years in two such class action lawsuits. Given the uncertainty involved in these types of actions, the ability to make a reliable evaluation of the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or an estimate of the amount of or range of potential loss is endemic to the particular circumstances and evolving developments of each individual matter on its own merits.

The Company is currently a defendant in a class action lawsuit pending as of June 12, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The case is titled In Re National Western Life Insurance Deferred Annuities Litigation. The complaint asserts claims for RICO violations, Financial Elder Abuse, Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200, et seq, Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17500, et seq, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Fraudulent Concealment, Cal. Civ. Code 1710, et seq, Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, and Unjust Enrichment and Imposition of Constructive Trust. On July 12, 2010 the Court certified a nationwide class of policyholders under the RICO allegation and a California class under all of the remaining causes of action except breach of fiduciary duty. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses in this cause and intends to vigorously defend itself against the asserted claims. In addition, given the speculative and vague damage theories presented by the plaintiffs in the matter, the inability to ascertain any financial harm to the class of policyholders, and the current status of the case before the Court, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate a possible range of loss for disclosure in the accompanying financial statements. Therefore, no amounts have been provided in the financial statements of the Company as of March 31, 2013 for this matter. The trial date has been vacated and a pretrial conference is scheduled for May 31, 2013.

In addition to the class action lawsuit described above, the Company is the named defendant in the case of Sheila Newman vs. National Western Life Insurance Company, which alleged mishandling of policyholder funds by an agent. On February 3, 2010, the 415th Judicial District Court of Parker County in Weatherford, Texas, entered a Final Judgment against the Company of approximately $208,000 including actual damages of $113,000 and amounts for attorney's fees, and prejudgment interest on the actual damages. In addition, the Final Judgment included $150 million for exemplary damages. The Company vigorously defended this case and appealed the Final Judgment to the Court of Appeals Second District of Texas in Fort Worth. The Court of Appeals on August 11, 2011, reversed the trial court judgment in its entirety and rendered a take nothing verdict in favor of National Western. Plaintiffs (Appellees) filed a motion for a rehearing which the Court ruled on October 13, 2011, that the trial court's judgment was still reversed and judgment was still entered that Newman take nothing, all in favor of National Western. The Plaintiffs (Appellees) filed a Motion for Reconsideration En Banc which the Court of Appeals denied on October 27, 2011. The Plaintiffs (Appellees) then filed a Motion for Rehearing of the Court's amended decision, which the Court of Appeals denied on December 22, 2011. On March 21, 2012, Plaintiffs (Appellees) filed a petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court and the Company filed its response on April 20, 2012. The Supreme Court asked the parties for briefs on the issues before deciding on whether to hear the case and both parties submitted their briefs. On February 14, 2013, the Supreme Court denied the Plaintiffs petition for review. On April 3, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Rehearing.

On October 26, 2011 the Brazilian Superintendence of Private Insurance (“SUSEP”) attempted to serve the Company with a subpoena regarding an administrative proceeding initiated by SUSEP in which it alleged that the Company was operating as an insurance company in Brazil without due authorization. The Company has been informed that SUSEP is attempting to impose a penal fine of approximately $6.0 billion on the Company. SUSEP has unsuccessfully attempted to serve the Company with notice regarding this matter. The Company does not transact business in Brazil and has no officers, employees, property, or assets in Brazil. The Company and its legal advisors believe that SUSEP has no jurisdiction over the Company, that SUSEP's attempts at service of process have been invalid, and that any penal fine would be unenforceable. For the reasons described above, the Company does not believe that this matter meets the definition of a material pending legal proceeding as such term is defined in Item 103 of Regulation S-K but has included the foregoing description solely due to the purported amount of the fine sought.

Although there can be no assurances, at the present time, the Company does not anticipate that the ultimate liability arising from such other potential, pending, or threatened legal actions will have a material adverse effect on the financial condition or operating results of the Company.

(B) Financial Instruments

In order to meet the financing needs of its customers in the normal course of business, the Company is a party to financial instruments with off-balance sheet risk. These financial instruments are commitments to extend credit which involve elements of credit and interest rate risk in excess of the amounts recognized in the consolidated balance sheet.

The Company's exposure to credit loss in the event of nonperformance by the other party to the financial instrument for commitments to extend credit is represented by the contractual amounts, assuming that the amounts are fully advanced and that collateral or other security is of no value. Commitments to extend credit are legally binding agreements to lend to a customer that generally have fixed expiration dates or other termination clauses and may require payment of a fee. Commitments do not necessarily represent future liquidity requirements, as some could expire without being drawn upon. The Company uses the same credit policies in making commitments and conditional obligations as it does for on-balance sheet instruments. The Company controls the credit risk of these transactions through credit approvals, limits, and monitoring procedures.

The Company had $5.7 million of commitments to extend credit relating to mortgage loans at March 31, 2013. The Company evaluates each customer's creditworthiness on a case-by-case basis.