UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

Form 10-Q

(Mark One)

þ QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2013

or

¨ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

FOR THE TRANSITION PERIOD FROM                 TO                 

Commission file number: 33-03094

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Connecticut	06-0566090
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)	(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
1300 Hall Boulevard, Bloomfield, Connecticut	06002
(Address of principal executive offices)	(Zip Code)

(860) 656-3000

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    Yes þ    No ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).    Yes þ    No ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Large accelerated filer  ¨	Accelerated filer  ¨
Non-accelerated filer    þ  (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)	Smaller reporting company  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).    Yes ¨    No þ

At November 13, 2013, 34,595,317 shares of the registrant’s common stock, $2.50 par value per share, were outstanding, of which 30,000,000 shares were owned directly by MetLife, Inc. and the remaining 4,595,317 shares were owned by MetLife Investors Group, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.

REDUCED DISCLOSURE FORMAT

The registrant meets the conditions set forth in General Instruction H(1)(a) and (b) of Form 10-Q and is, therefore, filing this Form 10-Q with the reduced disclosure format.

Table of Contents

		Page
Part I — Financial Information
Item 1.	Financial Statements (at September 30, 2013 (Unaudited) and December 31, 2012 and for the Three Months and Nine Months Ended September 30, 2013 and 2012 (Unaudited))	4
	Interim Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets	4
	Interim Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss)	5
	Interim Condensed Consolidated Statements of Stockholders’ Equity	6
	Interim Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows	7
	Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements:
	Note 1 — Business, Basis of Presentation and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies	8
	Note 2 — Segment Information	10
	Note 3 — Insurance	16
	Note 4 — Investments	18
	Note 5 — Derivatives	31
	Note 6 — Fair Value	44
	Note 7 — Goodwill	67
	Note 8 — Equity	68
	Note 9 — Other Expenses	69
	Note 10 — Contingencies, Commitments and Guarantees	70
	Note 11 — Related Party Transactions	72
	Note 12 — Subsequent Event	74
Item 2.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	75
Item 4.	Controls and Procedures	89
Part II — Other Information		89
Item 1.	Legal Proceedings	89
Item 1A.	Risk Factors	89
Item 6.	Exhibits	98
Signatures		99
Exhibit Index		E-1

As used in this Form 10-Q, “MICC,” the “Company,” “we,” “our” and “us” refer to MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut, a Connecticut corporation incorporated in 1863, and its subsidiaries, including MetLife Investors USA Insurance Company (“MLI-USA”). MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”).

Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, including Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, may contain or incorporate by reference information that includes or is based upon forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements give expectations or forecasts of future events. These statements can be identified by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts. They use words such as “anticipate,” “estimate,” “expect,” “project,” “intend,” “plan,” “believe” and other words and terms of similar meaning in connection with a discussion of future operating or financial performance. In particular, these include statements relating to future actions, prospective services or products, future performance or results of current and anticipated services or products, sales efforts, expenses, the outcome of contingencies such as legal proceedings, trends in operations and financial results.

Any or all forward-looking statements may turn out to be wrong. They can be affected by inaccurate assumptions or by known or unknown risks and uncertainties. Many such factors will be important in determining the actual future results of MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut and its subsidiaries. These statements are based on current expectations and the current economic environment. They involve a number of risks and uncertainties that are difficult to predict. These statements are not guarantees of future performance. Actual results could differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements. Risks, uncertainties, and other factors that might cause such differences include the risks, uncertainties and other factors identified in MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut’s filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). These factors include: (1) difficult conditions in the global capital markets; (2) increased volatility and disruption of the capital and credit markets, which may affect our ability to meet liquidity needs and access capital, generate fee income and market-related revenue and finance statutory reserve requirements and may require us to pledge collateral or make payments related to declines in value of specified assets, including assets supporting risks ceded to certain affiliated captive reinsurers or hedging arrangements associated with those risks; (3) exposure to financial and capital market risks, including as a result of the disruption in Europe and possible withdrawal of one or more countries from the Euro zone; (4) impact of comprehensive financial services regulation reform on us; (5) numerous rulemaking initiatives required or permitted by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act which may impact how we conduct our business, including those compelling the liquidation of certain financial institutions; (6) regulatory, legislative or tax changes relating to our insurance, international, or other operations that may affect the cost of, or demand for, our products or services, or increase the cost or administrative burdens of providing benefits to employees; (7) adverse results or other consequences from litigation, arbitration or regulatory investigations; (8) potential liquidity and other risks resulting from our participation in a securities lending program and other transactions; (9) investment losses and defaults, and changes to investment valuations; (10) changes in assumptions related to investment valuations, deferred policy acquisition costs, deferred sales inducements, value of business acquired or goodwill; (11) impairments of goodwill and realized losses or market value impairments to illiquid assets; (12) defaults on our mortgage loans; (13) the defaults or deteriorating credit of other financial institutions that could adversely affect us; (14) economic, political, legal, currency and other risks relating to our international operations, including with respect to fluctuations of exchange rates; (15) downgrades in our claims paying ability, financial strength ratings or those of MetLife’s other insurance subsidiaries, or MetLife’s credit ratings; (16) an inability of MetLife to access its credit facilities; (17) availability and effectiveness of reinsurance or indemnification arrangements, as well as any default or failure of counterparties to perform; (18) differences between actual claims experience and underwriting and reserving assumptions; (19) ineffectiveness of MetLife’s risk management policies and procedures; (20) catastrophe losses; (21) increasing cost and limited market capacity for statutory life insurance reserve financings; (22) heightened competition, including with respect to pricing, entry of new competitors, consolidation of distributors, the development of new products by new and existing competitors, and for personnel; (23) exposure to losses related to variable annuity guarantee benefits, including from significant and sustained downturns or extreme volatility in equity markets, reduced interest rates, unanticipated policyholder behavior, mortality or longevity, and the adjustment for nonperformance risk; (24) our ability to address difficulties, unforeseen liabilities, asset impairments, or rating agency actions arising from business acquisitions, and integrating and managing the growth of such acquired businesses, or arising from dispositions of businesses or legal entity reorganizations; (25) changes in accounting standards, practices and/or policies; (26) increased expenses relating to pension and postretirement benefit plans, as well as health care and other employee benefits; (27) inability to protect our intellectual property rights or claims of infringement of the intellectual property rights of others; (28) inability to attract and retain sales representatives; (29) the effects of business disruption or economic contraction due to disasters such as terrorist attacks, cyberattacks, other hostilities, or natural catastrophes, including any related impact on the value of our investment portfolio, our disaster recovery systems, cyber- or other information security systems and management continuity planning;

2

(30) the effectiveness of our programs and practices in avoiding giving our associates incentives to take excessive risks; and (31) other risks and uncertainties described from time to time in MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut’s filings with the SEC.

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut does not undertake any obligation to publicly correct or update any forward-looking statement if MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut later becomes aware that such statement is not likely to be achieved. Please consult any further disclosures MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut makes on related subjects in reports to the SEC.

Note Regarding Reliance on Statements in Our Contracts

See “Exhibit Index — Note Regarding Reliance on Statements in Our Contracts” for information regarding agreements included as exhibits to this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q.

3

Part I — Financial Information

Item 1.  Financial Statements

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Interim Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets

September 30, 2013 (Unaudited) and December 31, 2012

(In millions, except share and per share data)

	September 30, 2013		December 31, 2012
Assets
Investments:
Fixed maturity securities available-for-sale, at estimated fair value (amortized cost: $43,660 and $46,005, respectively)	$	45,930	$	50,968
Equity securities available-for-sale, at estimated fair value (cost: $388 and $311, respectively)	397		317
Fair value option securities, at estimated fair value	9		9
Mortgage loans (net of valuation allowances of $34 and $35, respectively; includes $2,096 and $2,666, respectively, at estimated fair value, relating to variable interest entities)	8,549		9,157
Policy loans	1,216		1,216
Real estate and real estate joint ventures	733		708
Other limited partnership interests	2,096		1,848
Short-term investments, principally at estimated fair value	2,298		2,576
Other invested assets, principally at estimated fair value	2,224		2,961
Total investments	63,452		69,760
Cash and cash equivalents, principally at estimated fair value	1,211		895
Accrued investment income (includes $11 and $13, respectively, relating to variable interest entities)	603		575
Premiums, reinsurance and other receivables	21,497		22,143
Deferred policy acquisition costs and value of business acquired	4,475		3,793
Current income tax recoverable	193		135
Goodwill	493		559
Other assets	800		822
Separate account assets	94,020		86,114
Total assets	$	186,744	$	184,796
Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity
Liabilities
Future policy benefits	$	27,618	$	27,585
Policyholder account balances	34,350		36,976
Other policy-related balances	3,141		3,138
Payables for collateral under securities loaned and other transactions	7,496		8,399
Long-term debt (includes $1,969 and $2,559, respectively, at estimated fair value, relating to variable interest entities)	2,759		3,350
Deferred income tax liability	1,526		1,938
Other liabilities (includes $10 and $13, respectively, relating to variable interest entities)	6,238		6,547
Separate account liabilities	94,020		86,114
Total liabilities	177,148		174,047
Contingencies, Commitments and Guarantees (Note 10)
Stockholders’ Equity
Common stock, par value $2.50 per share; 40,000,000 shares authorized; 34,595,317 shares issued and outstanding at September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012	86		86
Additional paid-in capital	6,720		6,718
Retained earnings	1,555		1,545
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)	1,235		2,400
Total stockholders’ equity	9,596		10,749
Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity	$	186,744	$	184,796

See accompanying notes to the interim condensed consolidated financial statements.

4

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Interim Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss)

For the Three Months and Nine Months Ended September 30, 2013 and 2012 (Unaudited)

(In millions)

	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2013			2012			2013			2012
Revenues
Premiums	$	155		$	284		$	420		$	1,070
Universal life and investment-type product policy fees	624			572			1,744			1,691
Net investment income	678			675			2,132			2,223
Other revenues	152			137			447			385
Net investment gains (losses):
Other-than-temporary impairments on fixed maturity securities	(4		)	(19		)	(9		)	(50		)
Other-than-temporary impairments on fixed maturity securities transferred to other comprehensive income (loss)	(5		)	6			(11		)	8
Other net investment gains (losses)	(42		)	17			51			121
Total net investment gains (losses)	(51		)	4			31			79
Net derivative gains (losses)	(199		)	(98		)	(581		)	45
Total revenues	1,359			1,574			4,193			5,493
Expenses
Policyholder benefits and claims	465			550			1,238			1,775
Interest credited to policyholder account balances	256			276			779			882
Goodwill impairment	66			394			66			394
Other expenses	434			547			1,210			1,891
Total expenses	1,221			1,767			3,293			4,942
Income (loss) before provision for income tax	138			(193		)	900			551
Provision for income tax expense (benefit)	30			(189		)	266			38
Net income (loss)	$	108		$	(4	)	$	634		$	513
Comprehensive income (loss)	$	71		$	338		$	(531	)	$	1,210

See accompanying notes to the interim condensed consolidated financial statements.

5

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Interim Condensed Consolidated Statements of Stockholders’ Equity

For the Nine Months Ended September 30, 2013 and 2012 (Unaudited)

(In millions)

								Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)
	Common Stock		Additional Paid-in Capital		Retained Earnings			Net Unrealized Investment Gains (Losses)			Other-Than- Temporary Impairments			Foreign Currency Translation Adjustments			Total Stockholders’ Equity
Balance at December 31, 2012	$	86	$	6,718	$	1,545		$	2,487		$	(38	)	$	(49	)	$	10,749
Dividend paid to MetLife					(624		)										(624		)
Capital contribution			2														2
Net income (loss)					634												634
Other comprehensive income (loss), net of income tax								(1,173		)	10			(2		)	(1,165		)
Balance at September 30, 2013	$	86	$	6,720	$	1,555		$	1,314		$	(28	)	$	(51	)	$	9,596
								Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)
	Common Stock		Additional Paid-in Capital		Retained Earnings			Net Unrealized Investment Gains (Losses)			Other-Than- Temporary Impairments			Foreign Currency Translation Adjustments			Total Stockholders’ Equity
Balance at December 31, 2011	$	86	$	6,673	$	1,173		$	1,984		$	(74	)	$	(139	)	$	9,703
Dividend of subsidiary (1)					(347		)	(2		)				59			(290		)
Capital contribution			19														19
Net income (loss)					513												513
Other comprehensive income (loss), net of income tax								635			26			36			697
Balance at September 30, 2012	$	86	$	6,692	$	1,339		$	2,617		$	(48	)	$	(44	)	$	10,642

____________

(1) See Note 3 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in the 2012 Annual Report for a description of the dividend of the MetLife Europe Limited subsidiary.

See accompanying notes to the interim condensed consolidated financial statements.

6

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Interim Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

For the Nine Months Ended September 30, 2013 and 2012 (Unaudited)

(In millions)

	Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2013			2012
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities	$	1,738		$	1,457
Cash flows from investing activities
Sales, maturities and repayments of:
Fixed maturity securities	14,438			9,149
Equity securities	47			33
Mortgage loans	1,188			970
Real estate and real estate joint ventures	47			23
Other limited partnership interests	90			137
Purchases of:
Fixed maturity securities	(12,245		)	(12,085		)
Equity securities	(120		)	(30		)
Mortgage loans	(563		)	(524		)
Real estate and real estate joint ventures	(91		)	(67		)
Other limited partnership interests	(269		)	(238		)
Cash received in connection with freestanding derivatives	93			437
Cash paid in connection with freestanding derivatives	(561		)	(275		)
Dividend of subsidiary	—			(53		)
Net change in policy loans	—			(24		)
Net change in short-term investments	283			487
Net change in other invested assets	(57		)	(42		)
Other, net	3			—
Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities	2,283			(2,102		)
Cash flows from financing activities
Policyholder account balances:
Deposits	10,444			12,433
Withdrawals	(12,075		)	(12,397		)
Net change in payables for collateral under securities loaned and other transactions	(903		)	1,388
Long-term debt repaid	(520		)	(268		)
Financing element on certain derivative instruments	(17		)	54
Dividends on common stock	(624		)	—
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities	(3,695		)	1,210
Effect of change in foreign currency exchange rates on cash and cash equivalents balances	(10		)	6
Change in cash and cash equivalents	316			571
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of period	895			745
Cash and cash equivalents, end of period	$	1,211		$	1,316
Supplemental disclosures of cash flow information:
Net cash paid (received) for:
Interest	$	133		$	159
Income tax	$	94		$	69
Non-cash transactions:
Disposal of subsidiary (1):
Assets disposed	$	—		$	4,857
Liabilities disposed	—			(4,567		)
Net assets disposed	—			290
Cash disposed	—			(53		)
Dividend of interests in subsidiary	—			(237		)
(Gain) loss on dividend of interests in subsidiary	$	—		$	—
Capital contribution from MetLife, Inc.	$	2		$	19

____________

(1) See Note 3 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in the 2012 Annual Report.

See accompanying notes to the interim condensed consolidated financial statements.

7

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited)

1. Business, Basis of Presentation and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Business

“MICC” or the “Company” refers to MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut, a Connecticut corporation incorporated in 1863, and its subsidiaries, including MetLife Investors USA Insurance Company (“MLI-USA”). MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”). The Company offers individual annuities, individual life insurance, and institutional protection and asset accumulation products.

The Company is organized into two segments: Retail and Corporate Benefit Funding.

Basis of Presentation

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) requires management to adopt accounting policies and make estimates and assumptions that affect amounts reported in the interim condensed consolidated financial statements. In applying these policies and estimates, management makes subjective and complex judgments that frequently require assumptions about matters that are inherently uncertain. Many of these policies, estimates and related judgments are common in the insurance and financial services industries; others are specific to the Company’s business and operations. Actual results could differ from estimates.

The accompanying interim condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts of MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut and its subsidiaries, as well as partnerships and joint ventures in which the Company has control, and variable interest entities (“VIEs”) for which the Company is the primary beneficiary. Intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated.

The Company uses the equity method of accounting for investments in equity securities when it has significant influence or at least a 20% interest and for investments in real estate joint ventures and other limited partnership interests (“investees”) when it has more than a minor ownership interest or more than minor influence over the investee’s operations, but does not have a controlling financial interest. The Company generally recognizes its share of the investee’s earnings on a three-month lag in instances where the investee’s financial information is not sufficiently timely or when the investee’s reporting period differs from the Company’s reporting period. The Company uses the cost method of accounting for investments in which it has virtually no influence over the investee’s operations.

Certain amounts in the prior year periods’ interim condensed consolidated financial statements and related footnotes thereto have been reclassified to conform with the 2013 presentation as discussed throughout the Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

Since the Company is a member of a controlled group of affiliated companies, its results may not be indicative of those of a stand-alone entity.

The accompanying interim condensed consolidated financial statements are unaudited and reflect all adjustments (including normal recurring adjustments) necessary to present fairly the financial position, results of operations and cash flows for the interim periods presented in conformity with GAAP. Interim results are not necessarily indicative of full year performance. The December 31, 2012 consolidated balance sheet data was derived from audited consolidated financial statements included in MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012 (the “2012 Annual Report”), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), which include all disclosures required by GAAP. Therefore, these interim condensed consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements of the Company included in the 2012 Annual Report.

8

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Adoption of New Accounting Pronouncements

Effective July 17, 2013, the Company adopted new guidance regarding derivatives that permits the Fed Funds Effective Swap Rate (or Overnight Index Swap Rate) to be used as a U.S. benchmark interest rate for hedge accounting purposes, in addition to the United States Treasury and London Interbank Offered Rate. Also, this new guidance removes the restriction on using different benchmark rates for similar hedges. The new guidance did not have a material impact on the consolidated financial statements upon adoption, but may impact the selection of benchmark interest rates for hedging relationships in the future.

Effective January 1, 2013, the Company adopted new guidance regarding comprehensive income that requires an entity to provide information about the amounts reclassified out of accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) (“AOCI”) by component. In addition, an entity is required to present, either on the face of the statement where net income is presented or in the notes, significant amounts reclassified out of AOCI by the respective line items of net income but only if the amount reclassified is required under GAAP to be reclassified to net income in its entirety in the same reporting period. For other amounts that are not required under GAAP to be reclassified in their entirety to net income, an entity is required to cross-reference to other disclosures required under GAAP that provide additional detail about those amounts. The adoption was prospectively applied and resulted in additional disclosures in Note 8.

Effective January 1, 2013, the Company adopted new guidance regarding balance sheet offsetting disclosures which requires an entity to disclose information about offsetting and related arrangements for derivatives, including bifurcated embedded derivatives, repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements, and securities borrowing and lending transactions, to enable users of its financial statements to understand the effects of those arrangements on its financial position. Entities are required to disclose both gross information and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the statement of financial position and instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting arrangement. The adoption was retrospectively applied and resulted in additional disclosures related to derivatives in Note 5.

Future Adoption of New Accounting Pronouncements

In March 2013, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued new guidance regarding foreign currency (Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2013-05, Foreign Currency Matters (Topic 830): Parent’s Accounting for the Cumulative Translation Adjustment upon Derecognition of Certain Subsidiaries or Groups of Assets within a Foreign Entity or of an Investment in a Foreign Entity), effective prospectively for fiscal years and interim reporting periods within those years beginning after December 15, 2013. The amendments require an entity that ceases to have a controlling financial interest in a subsidiary or group of assets within a foreign entity to apply the guidance in Subtopic 830-30, Foreign Currency Matters — Translation of Financial Statements, to release any related cumulative translation adjustment into net income. Accordingly, the cumulative translation adjustment should be released into net income only if the sale or transfer results in the complete or substantially complete liquidation of the foreign entity in which the subsidiary or group of assets had resided. For an equity method investment that is a foreign entity, the partial sale guidance in section 830-30-40, Derecognition, still applies. As such, a pro rata portion of the cumulative translation adjustment should be released into net income upon a partial sale of such an equity method investment. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of this guidance on its consolidated financial statements.

In February 2013, the FASB issued new guidance regarding liabilities (ASU 2013-04, Liabilities (Topic 405): Obligations Resulting from Joint and Several Liability Arrangements for Which the Total Amount of the Obligation Is Fixed at the Reporting Date), effective retrospectively for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2013 and interim periods within those years. The amendments require an entity to measure obligations resulting from joint and several liability arrangements for which the total amount of the obligation within the scope of the guidance is fixed at the reporting date, as the sum of the amount the reporting entity agreed to pay on the basis of its arrangement among its co-obligors and any additional amount the reporting entity expects to pay on behalf of its co-obligors. In addition, the amendments require an entity to disclose the nature and amount of the obligation, as well as other information about the obligation. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of this guidance on its consolidated financial statements.

9

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

2. Segment Information

The Company is organized into two segments: Retail and Corporate Benefit Funding. In addition, the Company reports certain of its results of operations in Corporate & Other.

Retail

The Retail segment offers a broad range of protection products and a variety of annuities primarily to individuals, and is organized into two businesses: Annuities and Life & Other. Annuities includes a variety of variable and fixed annuities which provide for both asset accumulation and asset distribution needs. Life & Other insurance products and services include variable life, universal life, term life and whole life products, as well as individual disability income products. Additionally, through broker-dealer affiliates, the Company offers a full range of mutual funds and other securities products.

Corporate Benefit Funding

The Corporate Benefit Funding segment offers a broad range of annuity and investment products, including guaranteed interest products and other stable value products, income annuities, and separate account contracts for the investment management of defined benefit and defined contribution plan assets. This segment also includes certain products to fund company-, bank- or trust-owned life insurance used to finance non-qualified benefit programs for executives.

Corporate & Other

Corporate & Other contains the excess capital not allocated to the segments, various start-up and run-off businesses, the Company’s ancillary international operations, interest expense related to the majority of the Company’s outstanding debt, expenses associated with certain legal proceedings and income tax audit issues. Start-up business includes direct and digital marketing products. Corporate & Other also includes the elimination of intersegment amounts.

Financial Measures and Segment Accounting Policies

Operating earnings is the measure of segment profit or loss the Company uses to evaluate segment performance and allocate resources. Consistent with GAAP guidance for segment reporting, operating earnings is the Company’s measure of segment performance and is reported below. Operating earnings should not be viewed as a substitute for net income (loss). The Company believes the presentation of operating earnings as the Company measures it for management purposes enhances the understanding of its performance by highlighting the results of operations and the underlying profitability drivers of the business.

Operating earnings is defined as operating revenues less operating expenses, both net of income tax.

Operating revenues excludes net investment gains (losses) and net derivative gains (losses). Operating expenses excludes goodwill impairments.

The following additional adjustments are made to GAAP revenues, in the line items indicated, in calculating operating revenues:

• Universal life and investment-type product policy fees excludes the amortization of unearned revenue related to net investment gains (losses) and net derivative gains (losses) and certain variable annuity guaranteed minimum income benefits (“GMIBs”) fees (“GMIB Fees”); and

• Net investment income: (i) includes amounts for scheduled periodic settlement payments and amortization of premium on derivatives that are hedges of investments or that are used to replicate certain investments, but do not qualify for hedge accounting treatment, (ii) includes income from discontinued real estate operations, (iii) excludes post-tax operating earnings adjustments relating to insurance joint ventures accounted for under the equity method, (iv) excludes certain amounts related to contractholder-directed unit-linked investments, and (v) excludes certain amounts related to securitization entities that are VIEs consolidated under GAAP.

10

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

The following additional adjustments are made to GAAP expenses, in the line items indicated, in calculating operating expenses:

• Policyholder benefits and claims excludes: (i) amounts associated with periodic crediting rate adjustments based on the total return of a contractually referenced pool of assets, (ii) benefits and hedging costs related to GMIB (“GMIB Costs”), and (iii) market value adjustments associated with surrenders or terminations of contracts (“Market Value Adjustments”);

• Interest credited to policyholder account balances includes adjustments for scheduled periodic settlement payments and amortization of premium on derivatives that are hedges of policyholder account balances (“PABs”) but do not qualify for hedge accounting treatment and excludes amounts related to net investment income earned on contractholder-directed unit-linked investments;

• Amortization of deferred policy acquisition costs (“DAC”) and value of business acquired (“VOBA”) excludes amounts related to: (i) net investment gains (losses) and net derivative gains (losses), (ii) GMIB Fees and GMIB Costs, and (iii) Market Value Adjustments;

• Interest expense on debt excludes certain amounts related to securitization entities that are VIEs consolidated under GAAP; and

• Other expenses excludes costs related to implementation of new insurance regulatory requirements and acquisition and integration costs.

Set forth in the tables below is certain financial information with respect to the Company’s segments, as well as Corporate & Other, for the three months and nine months endedSeptember 30, 2013 and 2012. The segment accounting policies are the same as those used to prepare the Company’s consolidated financial statements, except for operating earnings adjustments as defined above. In addition, segment accounting policies include the method of capital allocation described below.

Economic capital is an internally developed risk capital model, the purpose of which is to measure the risk in the business and to provide a basis upon which capital is deployed. The economic capital model accounts for the unique and specific nature of the risks inherent in MetLife’s and the Company’s business.

MetLife’s economic capital model aligns segment allocated equity with emerging standards and consistent risk principles. The model applies statistical based risk evaluation principles to the material risks to which the Company is exposed. These consistent risk principles include calibrating required economic capital shock factors to a specific confidence level and time horizon and applying an industry standard method for the inclusion of diversification benefits among risk types.

Segment net investment income is credited or charged based on the level of allocated equity; however, changes in allocated equity do not impact the Company’s consolidated net investment income, operating earnings or net income (loss).

Net investment income is based upon the actual results of each segment’s specifically identifiable investment portfolio adjusted for allocated equity. Other costs are allocated to each of the segments based upon: (i) a review of the nature of such costs; (ii) time studies analyzing the amount of employee compensation costs incurred by each segment; and (iii) cost estimates included in the Company’s product pricing.

11

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

	Operating Earnings
Three Months Ended September 30, 2013	Retail			Corporate Benefit Funding		Corporate & Other			Total			Adjustments			Total Consolidated
	(In millions)
Revenues
Premiums	$	85		$	65	$	5		$	155		$	—		$	155
Universal life and investment-type product policy fees	575			9		—			584			40			624
Net investment income	388			276		20			684			(6		)	678
Other revenues	151			1		—			152			—			152
Net investment gains (losses)	—			—		—			—			(51		)	(51		)
Net derivative gains (losses)	—			—		—			—			(199		)	(199		)
Total revenues	1,199			351		25			1,575			(216		)	1,359
Expenses
Policyholder benefits and claims	183			215		(7		)	391			74			465
Interest credited to policyholder account balances	225			33		—			258			(2		)	256
Goodwill impairment	—			—		—			—			66			66
Capitalization of DAC	(108		)	—		(4		)	(112		)	—			(112		)
Amortization of DAC and VOBA	115			1		1			117			(75		)	42
Interest expense on debt	—			—		17			17			30			47
Other expenses	408			9		40			457			—			457
Total expenses	823			258		47			1,128			93			1,221
Provision for income tax expense (benefit)	129			32		(38		)	123			(93		)	30
Operating earnings	$	247		$	61	$	16		324
Adjustments to:
Total revenues									(216		)
Total expenses									(93		)
Provision for income tax (expense) benefit									93
Net income (loss)									$	108					$	108

12

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

	Operating Earnings
Three Months Ended September 30, 2012	Retail			Corporate Benefit Funding			Corporate & Other			Total			Adjustments			Total Consolidated
	(In millions)
Revenues
Premiums	$	106		$	178		$	—		$	284		$	—		$	284
Universal life and investment-type product policy fees	527			8			—			535			37			572
Net investment income	369			267			35			671			4			675
Other revenues	136			1			—			137			—			137
Net investment gains (losses)	—			—			—			—			4			4
Net derivative gains (losses)	—			—			—			—			(98		)	(98		)
Total revenues	1,138			454			35			1,627			(53		)	1,574
Expenses
Policyholder benefits and claims	185			311			—			496			54			550
Interest credited to policyholder account balances	240			37			—			277			(1		)	276
Goodwill impairment	—			—			—			—			394			394
Capitalization of DAC	(195		)	(2		)	—			(197		)	—			(197		)
Amortization of DAC and VOBA	173			1			—			174			11			185
Interest expense on debt	—			—			17			17			40			57
Other expenses	492			10			(1		)	501			1			502
Total expenses	895			357			16			1,268			499			1,767
Provision for income tax expense (benefit)	85			34			(18		)	101			(290		)	(189		)
Operating earnings	$	158		$	63		$	37		258
Adjustments to:
Total revenues										(53		)
Total expenses										(499		)
Provision for income tax (expense) benefit										290
Net income (loss)										$	(4	)				$	(4	)

13

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

	Operating Earnings
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2013	Retail			Corporate Benefit Funding			Corporate & Other			Total			Adjustments			Total Consolidated
	(In millions)
Revenues
Premiums	$	233		$	162		$	25		$	420		$	—		$	420
Universal life and investment-type product policy fees	1,612			26			—			1,638			106			1,744
Net investment income	1,203			865			88			2,156			(24		)	2,132
Other revenues	443			4			—			447			—			447
Net investment gains (losses)	—			—			—			—			31			31
Net derivative gains (losses)	—			—			—			—			(581		)	(581		)
Total revenues	3,491			1,057			113			4,661			(468		)	4,193
Expenses
Policyholder benefits and claims	494			587			10			1,091			147			1,238
Interest credited to policyholder account balances	681			103			—			784			(5		)	779
Goodwill impairment	—			—			—			—			66			66
Capitalization of DAC	(384		)	(2		)	(13		)	(399		)	—			(399		)
Amortization of DAC and VOBA	387			4			1			392			(320		)	72
Interest expense on debt	—			—			51			51			96			147
Other expenses	1,306			27			57			1,390			—			1,390
Total expenses	2,484			719			106			3,309			(16		)	3,293
Provision for income tax expense (benefit)	349			118			(60		)	407			(141		)	266
Operating earnings	$	658		$	220		$	67		945
Adjustments to:
Total revenues										(468		)
Total expenses										16
Provision for income tax (expense) benefit										141
Net income (loss)										$	634					$	634

14

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

	Operating Earnings
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2012	Retail			Corporate Benefit Funding			Corporate & Other			Total			Adjustments			Total Consolidated
	(In millions)
Revenues
Premiums	$	406		$	531		$	133		$	1,070		$	—		$	1,070
Universal life and investment-type product policy fees	1,555			23			14			1,592			99			1,691
Net investment income	1,127			867			145			2,139			84			2,223
Other revenues	381			4			—			385			—			385
Net investment gains (losses)	—			—			—			—			79			79
Net derivative gains (losses)	—			—			—			—			45			45
Total revenues	3,469			1,425			292			5,186			307			5,493
Expenses
Policyholder benefits and claims	588			917			127			1,632			143			1,775
Interest credited to policyholder account balances	715			123			—			838			44			882
Goodwill impairment	—			—			—			—			394			394
Capitalization of DAC	(652		)	(5		)	(34		)	(691		)	—			(691		)
Amortization of DAC and VOBA	550			9			3			562			77			639
Interest expense on debt	—			—			51			51			125			176
Other expenses	1,652			29			81			1,762			5			1,767
Total expenses	2,853			1,073			228			4,154			788			4,942
Provision for income tax expense (benefit)	216			123			(45		)	294			(256		)	38
Operating earnings	$	400		$	229		$	109		738
Adjustments to:
Total revenues										307
Total expenses										(788		)
Provision for income tax (expense) benefit										256
Net income (loss)										$	513					$	513

15

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

The following table presents total assets with respect to the Company’s segments, as well as Corporate & Other, at:

	September 30, 2013		December 31, 2012
	(In millions)
Retail	$	143,426	$	136,333
Corporate Benefit Funding	31,576		33,140
Corporate & Other	11,742		15,323
Total	$	186,744	$	184,796

3.  Insurance

Guarantees

As discussed in Notes 1 and 4 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in the 2012 Annual Report, the Company issues variable annuity products with guaranteed minimum benefits. The non-life contingent portion of guaranteed minimum withdrawal benefits (“GMWBs”) and the portion of certain GMIBs that does not require annuitization are accounted for as embedded derivatives in PABs and are further discussed in Note 5.

Based on the type of guarantee, the Company defines net amount at risk (“NAR”) as listed below.

Variable Annuity Guarantees

In the Event of Death

Defined as the guaranteed minimum death benefit less the total contract account value, as of the balance sheet date. It represents the amount of the claim that the Company would incur if death claims were filed on all contracts on the balance sheet date and includes any additional contractual claims associated with riders purchased to assist with covering income taxes payable upon death.

At Annuitization

Defined as the amount (if any) that would be required to be added to the total contract account value to purchase a lifetime income stream, based on current annuity rates, equal to the minimum amount provided under the guaranteed benefit. This amount represents the Company’s potential economic exposure to such guarantees in the event all contractholders were to annuitize on the balance sheet date, even though the contracts contain terms that allow annuitization of the guaranteed amount only after the 10th anniversary of the contract, which not all contractholders have achieved.

Universal and Variable Life Contracts

Defined as the guarantee amount less the account value, as of the balance sheet date. It represents the amount of the claim that the Company would incur if death claims were filed on all contracts on the balance sheet date.

The amounts in the table below include direct business, but exclude offsets from hedging or reinsurance, if any. As discussed in Note 6 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in the 2012 Annual Report, the Company has reinsured substantially all of the living and death benefit guarantees associated with variable annuities issued since 2006 to an affiliated reinsurer, and certain portions of living and death benefit guarantees associated with variable annuities issued prior to 2006 to affiliated and unaffiliated reinsurers. Therefore, the NARs presented below reflect the economic exposures of living and death benefit guarantees associated with variable annuities, but not necessarily their impact on the Company.

16

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Information regarding the types of guarantees relating to annuity contracts and universal and variable life contracts was as follows at: 

	September 30, 2013				December 31, 2012
	In the Event of Death		At Annuitization		In the Event of Death		At Annuitization
	(In millions)
Annuity Contracts (1)
Variable Annuity Guarantees
Total contract account value	$	96,933	$	55,325	$	89,671	$	51,411
Separate account value	$	92,001	$	54,009	$	84,106	$	49,778
Net amount at risk	$	2,598	$	622	$	3,117	$	2,316
Average attained age of contractholders	64 years		64 years		63 years		63 years

	September 30, 2013		December 31, 2012
	Secondary Guarantees
	(In millions)
Universal and Variable Life Contracts (1)
Account value (general and separate account)	$	6,198	$	5,812
Net amount at risk	$	91,124	$	86,468
Average attained age of policyholders	58 years		58 years

____________

(1) The Company’s annuity and life contracts with guarantees may offer more than one type of guarantee in each contract. Therefore, the amounts listed above may not be mutually exclusive.

17

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

4.  Investments

Fixed Maturity and Equity Securities Available-for-Sale

Fixed Maturity and Equity Securities Available-for-Sale by Sector

The following table presents the fixed maturity and equity securities available-for-sale (“AFS”) by sector. The unrealized loss amounts presented below include the noncredit loss component of other-than-temporary impairments (“OTTI”) losses. Redeemable preferred stock is reported within U.S. corporate and foreign corporate fixed maturity securities and non-redeemable preferred stock is reported within equity securities. Included within fixed maturity securities are structured securities including residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”), asset-backed securities (“ABS”) and commercial mortgage-backed securities (“CMBS”).

	September 30, 2013										December 31, 2012
	Cost or Amortized Cost		Gross Unrealized						Estimated Fair Value		Cost or Amortized Cost		Gross Unrealized						Estimated Fair Value
			Gains		Temporary Losses		OTTI Losses						Gains		Temporary Losses		OTTI Losses
	(In millions)
Fixed maturity securities:
U.S. corporate	$	16,405	$	1,258	$	215	$	—	$	17,448	$	16,914	$	2,063	$	82	$	—	$	18,895
U.S. Treasury and agency	7,425		484		153		—		7,756		7,678		1,186		—		—		8,864
Foreign corporate	8,332		531		68		—		8,795		8,618		853		26		—		9,445
RMBS	4,971		237		60		44		5,104		5,492		360		50		64		5,738
ABS	1,924		35		11		—		1,948		2,204		67		18		—		2,253
State and political subdivision	2,014		153		45		—		2,122		2,002		354		27		—		2,329
CMBS	1,597		70		4		—		1,663		2,221		141		6		—		2,356
Foreign government	992		117		15		—		1,094		876		214		2		—		1,088
Total fixed maturity securities	$	43,660	$	2,885	$	571	$	44	$	45,930	$	46,005	$	5,238	$	211	$	64	$	50,968
Equity securities:
Non-redeemable preferred stock	$	229	$	6	$	27	$	—	$	208	$	151	$	11	$	22	$	—	$	140
Common stock	159		33		3		—		189		160		18		1		—		177
Total equity securities	$	388	$	39	$	30	$	—	$	397	$	311	$	29	$	23	$	—	$	317

The Company held non-income producing fixed maturity securities with an estimated fair value of $22 million at both September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, with unrealized gains (losses) of $4 million and $3 million at September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively.

Maturities of Fixed Maturity Securities

The amortized cost and estimated fair value of fixed maturity securities, by contractual maturity date, were as follows at:

	September 30, 2013				December 31, 2012
	Amortized Cost		Estimated Fair Value		Amortized Cost		Estimated Fair Value
	(In millions)
Due in one year or less	$	1,828	$	1,869	$	4,831	$	4,875
Due after one year through five years	10,242		10,681		8,646		9,192
Due after five years through ten years	7,435		8,008		7,967		8,960
Due after ten years	15,663		16,657		14,644		17,594
Subtotal	35,168		37,215		36,088		40,621
Structured securities (RMBS, ABS and CMBS)	8,492		8,715		9,917		10,347
Total fixed maturity securities	$	43,660	$	45,930	$	46,005	$	50,968

Actual maturities may differ from contractual maturities due to the exercise of call or prepayment options. Fixed maturity securities not due at a single maturity date have been presented in the year of final contractual maturity. RMBS, ABS and CMBS are shown separately, as they are not due at a single maturity.

18

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Continuous Gross Unrealized Losses for Fixed Maturity and Equity Securities AFS by Sector

The following table presents the estimated fair value and gross unrealized losses of fixed maturity and equity securities AFS in an unrealized loss position, aggregated by sector and by length of time that the securities have been in a continuous unrealized loss position. The unrealized loss amounts include the noncredit component of OTTI loss.

	September 30, 2013								December 31, 2012
	Less than 12 Months				Equal to or Greater than 12 Months				Less than 12 Months				Equal to or Greater than 12 Months
	Estimated Fair Value		Gross Unrealized Losses		Estimated Fair Value		Gross Unrealized Losses		Estimated Fair Value		Gross Unrealized Losses		Estimated Fair Value		Gross Unrealized Losses
	(In millions, except number of securities)
Fixed maturity securities:
U.S. corporate	$	2,665	$	159	$	456	$	56	$	784	$	16	$	621	$	66
U.S. Treasury and agency	2,520		153		—		—		200		—		—		—
Foreign corporate	1,494		58		136		10		494		8		203		18
RMBS	1,141		32		469		72		62		6		781		108
ABS	495		2		153		9		208		1		266		17
State and political subdivision	407		30		57		15		44		2		55		25
CMBS	149		4		37		—		59		1		101		5
Foreign government	182		15		—		—		116		2		—		—
Total fixed maturity securities	$	9,053	$	453	$	1,308	$	162	$	1,967	$	36	$	2,027	$	239
Equity securities:
Non-redeemable preferred stock	$	103	$	18	$	34	$	9	$	—	$	—	$	50	$	22
Common stock	2		3		7		—		10		1		7		—
Total equity securities	$	105	$	21	$	41	$	9	$	10	$	1	$	57	$	22
Total number of securities in an unrealized loss position	1,076				302				327				420

Evaluation of AFS Securities for OTTI and Evaluating Temporarily Impaired AFS Securities

As described more fully in Notes 1 and 7 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in the 2012 Annual Report, the Company performs a regular evaluation of all investment classes for impairment, including fixed maturity securities, equity securities and perpetual hybrid securities, in accordance with its impairment policy, in order to evaluate whether such investments are other-than-temporarily impaired.

Current Period Evaluation

Based on the Company’s current evaluation of its AFS securities in an unrealized loss position in accordance with its impairment policy, and the Company’s current intentions and assessments (as applicable to the type of security) about holding, selling and any requirements to sell these securities, the Company has concluded that these securities are not other-than-temporarily impaired at September 30, 2013. Future OTTI will depend primarily on economic fundamentals, issuer performance (including changes in the present value of future cash flows expected to be collected), and changes in credit ratings, collateral valuation, interest rates and credit spreads. If economic fundamentals deteriorate or if there are adverse changes in the above factors, OTTI may be incurred in upcoming periods.

Gross unrealized losses on fixed maturity securities in an unrealized loss position increased $340 million during the nine months endedSeptember 30, 2013 from $275 million to $615 million. The increase in gross unrealized losses for the nine months endedSeptember 30, 2013 was primarily attributable to an increase in interest rates.

At September 30, 2013, $59 million of the total $615 million of gross unrealized losses was from 16 fixed maturity securities with an unrealized loss position of 20% or more of amortized cost for six months or greater.

Investment Grade Fixed Maturity Securities

Of the $59 million of gross unrealized losses on fixed maturity securities with an unrealized loss of 20% or more of amortized cost for six months or greater, $33 million, or 56%, is related to gross unrealized losses on nine investment grade fixed maturity securities. Unrealized losses on investment grade fixed maturity securities are principally related to widening credit spreads and, with respect to fixed rate fixed maturity securities, rising interest rates since purchase.

19

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Below Investment Grade Fixed Maturity Securities

Of the $59 million of gross unrealized losses on fixed maturity securities with an unrealized loss of 20% or more of amortized cost for six months or greater, $26 million, or 44%, is related to gross unrealized losses on seven below investment grade fixed maturity securities. Unrealized losses on below investment grade fixed maturity securities are principally related to non-agency RMBS (primarily alternative residential mortgage loans) and are the result of significantly wider credit spreads resulting from higher risk premiums since purchase, largely due to economic and market uncertainties including concerns over the financial services industry sector, unemployment levels and valuations of residential real estate supporting non-agency RMBS. Management evaluates these non-agency RMBS based on actual and projected cash flows after considering the quality of underlying collateral, expected prepayment speeds, current and forecasted loss severity, consideration of the payment terms of the underlying assets backing a particular security, and the payment priority within the tranche structure of the security.

Equity Securities

Equity securities in an unrealized loss position increased $7 million during the nine months endedSeptember 30, 2013 from $23 million to $30 million. Of the $30 million, $6 million was from two equity securities with gross unrealized losses of 20% or more of cost for 12 months or greater, all of which were financial services industry investment grade non-redeemable preferred stock, of which 38% were rated A or better.

Fair Value Option Securities

See Note 6 for tables that present fair value option (“FVO”) securities. See “— Net Investment Income” and “— Net Investment Gains (Losses)” for the net investment income recognized on FVO securities and the related changes in estimated fair value subsequent to purchase included in net investment income and net investment gains (losses) for securities still held as of the end of the respective periods, as applicable.

Mortgage Loans

Mortgage Loans Held-for-Investment and Held-for-Sale by Portfolio Segment

Mortgage loans are summarized as follows at:

	September 30, 2013					December 31, 2012
	Carrying Value			% of Total		Carrying Value			% of Total
	(In millions)					(In millions)
Mortgage loans held-for-investment:
Commercial	$	5,114		59.9	%	$	5,266		57.5	%
Agricultural	1,310			15.3		1,260			13.8
Subtotal (1)	6,424			75.2		6,526			71.3
Valuation allowances	(34		)	(0.4	)	(35		)	(0.4	)
Subtotal mortgage loans held-for-investment, net	6,390			74.8		6,491			70.9
Commercial mortgage loans held by CSEs	2,096			24.5		2,666			29.1
Total mortgage loans held-for-investment, net	8,486			99.3		9,157			100.0
Mortgage loans held-for-sale	63			0.7		—			—
Total mortgage loans, net	$	8,549		100.0	%	$	9,157		100.0	%

____________

(1) There were no mortgage loan purchases for the three months ended September 30, 2013. Purchases of mortgage loans were $5 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2013 and $27 million for both the three months and nine months endedSeptember 30, 2012.

See “— Variable Interest Entities” for discussion of consolidated securitization entities (“CSEs”).

See “— Related Party Investment Transactions” for discussion of related party mortgage loans.

20

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Mortgage Loans and Valuation Allowance by Portfolio Segment

The carrying value prior to valuation allowance (“recorded investment”) in mortgage loans held-for-investment, by portfolio segment, by method of evaluation of credit loss, and the related valuation allowances, by type of credit loss, were as follows at:

	September 30, 2013						December 31, 2012
	Commercial		Agricultural		Total		Commercial		Agricultural		Total
	(In millions)
Mortgage loans:
Evaluated individually for credit losses	$	72	$	4	$	76	$	76	$	—	$	76
Evaluated collectively for credit losses	5,042		1,306		6,348		5,190		1,260		6,450
Total mortgage loans	5,114		1,310		6,424		5,266		1,260		6,526
Valuation allowances:
Specific credit losses	7		—		7		11		—		11
Non-specifically identified credit losses	23		4		27		21		3		24
Total valuation allowances	30		4		34		32		3		35
Mortgage loans, net of valuation allowances	$	5,084	$	1,306	$	6,390	$	5,234	$	1,257	$	6,491

Valuation Allowance Rollforward by Portfolio Segment

The changes in the valuation allowance, by portfolio segment, were as follows:

	Three Months Ended September 30,
	2013								2012
	Commercial			Agricultural		Total			Commercial			Agricultural		Total
	(In millions)
Balance, beginning of period	$	30		$	4	$	34		$	39		$	3	$	42
Provision (release)	—			—		—			(1		)	—		(1		)
Balance, end of period	$	30		$	4	$	34		$	38		$	3	$	41
	Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2013								2012
	Commercial			Agricultural		Total			Commercial			Agricultural		Total
	(In millions)
Balance, beginning of period	$	32		$	3	$	35		$	58		$	3	$	61
Provision (release)	(2		)	1		(1		)	(20		)	—		(20		)
Balance, end of period	$	30		$	4	$	34		$	38		$	3	$	41

21

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Credit Quality of Commercial Mortgage Loans

Information about the credit quality of commercial mortgage loans held-for-investment is presented below at:

	Recorded Investment
	Debt Service Coverage Ratios								% of Total		Estimated Fair Value		% of Total
	> 1.20x		1.00x - 1.20x		< 1.00x		Total
	(In millions)										(In millions)
September 30, 2013:
Loan-to-value ratios:
Less than 65%	$	3,868	$	142	$	57	$	4,067	79.5	%	$	4,337	80.5	%
65% to 75%	898		10		27		935		18.3		951		17.6
76% to 80%	13		12		—		25		0.5		25		0.5
Greater than 80%	39		26		22		87		1.7		76		1.4
Total	$	4,818	$	190	$	106	$	5,114	100.0	%	$	5,389	100.0	%
December 31, 2012:
Loan-to-value ratios:
Less than 65%	$	3,888	$	106	$	89	$	4,083	77.5	%	$	4,459	78.5	%
65% to 75%	626		32		27		685		13.0		711		12.5
76% to 80%	343		8		57		408		7.8		428		7.6
Greater than 80%	39		28		23		90		1.7		81		1.4
Total	$	4,896	$	174	$	196	$	5,266	100.0	%	$	5,679	100.0	%

Credit Quality of Agricultural Mortgage Loans

Information about the credit quality of agricultural mortgage loans held-for-investment is presented below at:

	September 30, 2013				December 31, 2012
	Recorded Investment		% of Total		Recorded Investment		% of Total
	(In millions)				(In millions)
Loan-to-value ratios:
Less than 65%	$	1,253	95.6	%	$	1,184	94.0	%
65% to 75%	57		4.4		76		6.0
Total	$	1,310	100.0	%	$	1,260	100.0	%

The estimated fair value of agricultural mortgage loans held-for-investment was $1.4 billion and $1.3 billion at September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively.

Past Due and Interest Accrual Status of Mortgage Loans

The Company has a high quality, well performing mortgage loan portfolio, with 99% of mortgage loans classified as performing at September 30, 2013 and all mortgage loans classified as performing at December 31, 2012. The Company defines delinquency consistent with industry practice, when the mortgage loan is past due as follows: commercial mortgage loans — 60 days and agricultural mortgage loans — 90 days. The Company had no mortgage loans past due and one commercial mortgage loan in nonaccrual status with a recorded investment of $22 million at September 30, 2013. The Company had no mortgage loans past due and no loans in nonaccrual status at December 31, 2012.

22

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Impaired Mortgage Loans

Information regarding impaired mortgage loans held-for-investment including those modified in a troubled debt restructuring, by portfolio segment, was as follows at:

	Loans with a Valuation Allowance								Loans without a  Valuation Allowance				All Impaired Loans
	Unpaid Principal Balance		Recorded Investment		Valuation Allowances		Carrying Value		Unpaid Principal Balance		Recorded Investment		Unpaid Principal Balance		Carrying Value
	(In millions)
September 30, 2013:
Commercial	$	22	$	22	$	7	$	15	$	53	$	50	$	75	$	65
Agricultural (1)	4		4		—		4		—		—		4		4
Total	$	26	$	26	$	7	$	19	$	53	$	50	$	79	$	69
December 31, 2012:
Commercial	$	76	$	76	$	11	$	65	$	—	$	—	$	76	$	65
Agricultural	—		—		—		—		—		—		—		—
Total	$	76	$	76	$	11	$	65	$	—	$	—	$	76	$	65

____________

(1) Valuation allowance on impaired agricultural mortgage loans was less than $1 million.

Unpaid principal balance is generally prior to any charge-offs.

The average recorded investment in impaired mortgage loans held-for-investment, including those modified in a troubled debt restructuring, and the related interest income, which is primarily recognized on a cash basis, by portfolio segment, was:

	Impaired Mortgage Loans
	Three Months Ended September 30,								Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2013				2012				2013				2012
	Average Recorded Investment		Interest Income		Average Recorded Investment		Interest Income		Average Recorded Investment		Interest Income		Average Recorded Investment		Interest Income
	(In millions)
Commercial	$	72	$	—	$	47	$	—	$	73	$	2	$	39	$	1
Agricultural	4		—		—		—		2		—		—		—
Total	$	76	$	—	$	47	$	—	$	75	$	2	$	39	$	1

Mortgage Loans Modified in a Troubled Debt Restructuring

There were no mortgage loans modified in a troubled debt restructuring during the three months ended September 30, 2013. There was one agricultural mortgage loan modified in a troubled debt restructuring with a pre-modification and post-modification carrying value of $4 million during the nine months ended September 30, 2013. There were no mortgage loans modified in a troubled debt restructuring during the three months and nine months endedSeptember 30, 2012.

During the three months and nine months endedSeptember 30, 2013 and 2012, the Company had no mortgage loans with subsequent payment defaults that were modified in a troubled debt restructuring during the previous 12 months. Payment default is determined in the same manner as delinquency status as described above.

Cash Equivalents

The carrying value of cash equivalents, which includes securities and other investments with an original or remaining maturity of three months or less at the time of purchase, was $939 million and $654 million at September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively.

23

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Net Unrealized Investment Gains (Losses)

The components of net unrealized investment gains (losses), included in AOCI, were as follows at:

	September 30, 2013			December 31, 2012
	(In millions)
Fixed maturity securities	$	2,315		$	5,019
Fixed maturity securities with noncredit OTTI losses in AOCI	(44		)	(64		)
Total fixed maturity securities	2,271			4,955
Equity securities	5			12
Derivatives	79			243
Short-term investments	—			(2		)
Other	(41		)	(17		)
Subtotal	2,314			5,191
Amounts allocated from:
Insurance liability loss recognition	1			(739		)
DAC and VOBA related to noncredit OTTI losses recognized in AOCI	—			4
DAC and VOBA	(309		)	(671		)
Subtotal	(308		)	(1,406		)
Deferred income tax benefit (expense) related to noncredit OTTI losses recognized in AOCI	16			22
Deferred income tax benefit (expense)	(736		)	(1,358		)
Net unrealized investment gains (losses)	$	1,286		$	2,449

The changes in fixed maturity securities with noncredit OTTI losses included in AOCI were as follows:

	Nine Months   Ended   September 30, 2013			Year   Ended   December 31, 2012
	(In millions)
Balance, beginning of period	$	(64	)	$	(125	)
Noncredit OTTI losses and subsequent changes recognized (1)	11			(3		)
Securities sold with previous noncredit OTTI loss	18			35
Subsequent changes in estimated fair value	(9		)	29
Balance, end of period	$	(44	)	$	(64	)

____________

(1) Noncredit OTTI losses and subsequent changes recognized, net of DAC, were $9 million and $5 million for the nine months endedSeptember 30, 2013 and the year ended December 31, 2012, respectively.

The changes in net unrealized investment gains (losses) were as follows:

	Nine Months   Ended   September 30, 2013
	(In millions)
Balance, beginning of period	$	2,449
Fixed maturity securities on which noncredit OTTI losses have been recognized	20
Unrealized investment gains (losses) during the period	(2,897		)
Unrealized investment gains (losses) relating to:
Insurance liability gain (loss) recognition	740
DAC and VOBA related to noncredit OTTI losses recognized in AOCI	(4		)
DAC and VOBA	362
Deferred income tax benefit (expense) related to noncredit OTTI losses recognized in AOCI	(6		)
Deferred income tax benefit (expense)	622
Balance, end of period	$	1,286
Change in net unrealized investment gains (losses)	$	(1,163	)

24

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Concentrations of Credit Risk

There were no investments in any counterparty that were greater than 10% of the Company’s stockholders’ equity, other than the U.S. government and its agencies, at both September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012.

Securities Lending

The Company participates in a securities lending program. Elements of the securities lending program are presented below at:

	September 30, 2013		December 31, 2012
	(In millions)
Securities on loan: (1)
Amortized cost	$	6,695	$	6,154
Estimated fair value	$	6,959	$	7,339
Cash collateral on deposit from counterparties (2)	$	7,108	$	7,502
Security collateral on deposit from counterparties (3)	$	5	$	51
Reinvestment portfolio — estimated fair value	$	7,123	$	7,533

____________

(1) Included within fixed maturity securities, short-term investments, cash and cash equivalents and equity securities.

(2) Included within payables for collateral under securities loaned and other transactions.

(3) Security collateral on deposit from counterparties may not be sold or repledged, unless the counterparty is in default, and is not reflected in the consolidated financial statements.

Invested Assets on Deposit and Pledged as Collateral

Invested assets on deposit and pledged as collateral are presented below at estimated fair value for cash and cash equivalents, short-term investments and fixed maturity securities and at carrying value for mortgage loans.

	September 30, 2013		December 31, 2012
	(In millions)
Invested assets on deposit (regulatory deposits)	$	57	$	58
Invested assets pledged as collateral (1)	1,432		1,569
Total invested assets on deposit and pledged as collateral	$	1,489	$	1,627

____________

(1) The Company has pledged fixed maturity securities, mortgage loans and cash and cash equivalents in connection with various agreements and transactions, including funding agreements (see Note 4 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in the 2012 Annual Report) and derivative transactions (see Note 5).

Variable Interest Entities

The Company has invested in certain structured transactions that are VIEs. In certain instances, the Company holds both the power to direct the most significant activities of the entity, as well as an economic interest in the entity and, as such, is deemed to be the primary beneficiary or consolidator of the entity.

The determination of the VIE’s primary beneficiary requires an evaluation of the contractual and implied rights and obligations associated with each party’s relationship with or involvement in the entity, an estimate of the entity’s expected losses and expected residual returns and the allocation of such estimates to each party involved in the entity. The Company generally uses a qualitative approach to determine whether it is the primary beneficiary. However, for VIEs that are investment companies or apply measurement principles consistent with those utilized by investment companies, the primary beneficiary is based on a risks and rewards model and is defined as the entity that will absorb a majority of a VIE’s expected losses, receive a majority of a VIE’s expected residual returns if no single entity absorbs a majority of expected losses, or both. The Company reassesses its involvement with VIEs on a quarterly basis. The use of different methodologies, assumptions and inputs in the determination of the primary beneficiary could have a material effect on the amounts presented within the consolidated financial statements.

25

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Consolidated VIEs

The following table presents the total assets and total liabilities relating to VIEs for which the Company has concluded that it is the primary beneficiary and which are consolidated at September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012. Creditors or beneficial interest holders of VIEs where the Company is the primary beneficiary have no recourse to the general credit of the Company, as the Company’s obligation to the VIEs is limited to the amount of its committed investment.

	September 30, 2013		December 31, 2012
	(In millions)
CSEs: (1)
Assets:
Mortgage loans (commercial mortgage loans)	$	2,096	$	2,666
Accrued investment income	11		13
Total assets	$	2,107	$	2,679
Liabilities:
Long-term debt	$	1,969	$	2,559
Other liabilities	10		13
Total liabilities	$	1,979	$	2,572

____________

(1) The Company consolidates former qualified special purpose entities (“QSPEs”) that are structured as CMBS. The assets of these entities can only be used to settle their respective liabilities, and under no circumstances is the Company liable for any principal or interest shortfalls should any arise. The Company’s exposure was limited to that of its remaining investment in the former QSPEs of $110 million and $92 million at estimated fair value at September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively. The long-term debt bears interest primarily at fixed rates ranging from 2.25% to 5.57%, payable primarily on a monthly basis. Interest expense related to these obligations, included in other expenses, was $30 million and $96 million for the three months and nine months endedSeptember 30, 2013, respectively, and $40 million and $125 million for the three months and nine months endedSeptember 30, 2012, respectively.

Unconsolidated VIEs

The carrying amount and maximum exposure to loss relating to VIEs in which the Company holds a significant variable interest but is not the primary beneficiary and which have not been consolidated were as follows at:

	September 30, 2013				December 31, 2012
	Carrying Amount		Maximum Exposure to Loss (1)		Carrying Amount		Maximum Exposure to Loss (1)
	(In millions)
Fixed maturity securities AFS:
Structured securities (RMBS, CMBS and ABS) (2)	$	8,715	$	8,715	$	10,347	$	10,347
U.S. and foreign corporate	548		548		651		651
Other limited partnership interests	1,573		2,047		1,408		1,930
Real estate joint ventures	68		72		71		74
Total	$	10,904	$	11,382	$	12,477	$	13,002

____________

(1) The maximum exposure to loss relating to fixed maturity securities AFS is equal to their carrying amounts or the carrying amounts of retained interests. The maximum exposure to loss relating to other limited partnership interests and real estate joint ventures is equal to the carrying amounts plus any unfunded commitments of the Company. Such a maximum loss would be expected to occur only upon bankruptcy of the issuer or investee.

(2) For these variable interests, the Company’s involvement is limited to that of a passive investor.

As described in Note 10, the Company makes commitments to fund partnership investments in the normal course of business. Excluding these commitments, the Company did not provide financial or other support to investees designated as VIEs during the nine months endedSeptember 30, 2013 and 2012.

26

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Net Investment Income

The components of net investment income were as follows:

	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2013			2012			2013			2012
	(In millions)
Investment income:
Fixed maturity securities	$	523		$	531		$	1,589		$	1,595
Equity securities	3			(1		)	8			6
FVO securities — FVO general account securities (1)	—			2			1			2
Mortgage loans	82			85			247			262
Policy loans	14			14			42			44
Real estate and real estate joint ventures	10			9			36			77
Other limited partnership interests	41			18			195			115
Cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments	—			1			3			3
International joint ventures	6			—			(4		)	(3		)
Other	(4		)	1			(3		)	4
Subtotal	675			660			2,114			2,105
Less: Investment expenses	30			27			86			75
Subtotal, net	645			633			2,028			2,030
FVO securities — FVO contractholder-directed unit-linked investments	—			—			—			62
FVO CSEs — interest income — commercial mortgage loans	33			42			104			131
Subtotal	33			42			104			193
Net investment income	$	678		$	675		$	2,132		$	2,223

____________

(1) Changes in estimated fair value subsequent to purchase for securities still held as of the end of the respective periods included in net investment income were:

	Three Months Ended September 30,				Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2013		2012		2013		2012
	(In millions)
FVO general account securities	$	1	$	—	$	—	$	—

See “— Variable Interest Entities” for discussion of CSEs.

See “— Related Party Investment Transactions” for discussion of affiliated net investment income and investment expenses.

27

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Net Investment Gains (Losses)

Components of Net Investment Gains (Losses)

The components of net investment gains (losses) were as follows:

	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2013			2012			2013			2012
	(In millions)
Total gains (losses) on fixed maturity securities:
Total OTTI losses recognized — by sector and industry:
U.S. and foreign corporate securities — by industry:
Finance	$	—		$	—		$	(3	)	$	(7	)
Utility	—			—			—			(3		)
Communications	—			—			—			(2		)
Industrial	—			—			—			(1		)
Transportation	(3		)	(10		)	(3		)	(16		)
Total U.S. and foreign corporate securities	(3		)	(10		)	(6		)	(29		)
RMBS	(6		)	(3		)	(14		)	(13		)
OTTI losses on fixed maturity securities recognized in earnings	(9		)	(13		)	(20		)	(42		)
Fixed maturity securities — net gains (losses) on sales and disposals	(50		)	6			33			84
Total gains (losses) on fixed maturity securities	(59		)	(7		)	13			42
Total gains (losses) on equity securities:
Total OTTI losses recognized — by sector:
Non-redeemable preferred stock	—			—			(3		)	—
Common stock	—			—			—			(6		)
OTTI losses on equity securities recognized in earnings	—			—			(3		)	(6		)
Equity securities — net gains (losses) on sales and disposals	(2		)	1			4			4
Total gains (losses) on equity securities	(2		)	1			1			(2		)
FVO securities — FVO general account securities — changes in estimated fair value subsequent to purchase	—			(1		)	—			—
Mortgage loans	(1		)	—			—			20
Real estate and real estate joint ventures	—			—			—			(3		)
Other limited partnership interests	—			2			1			3
Other investment portfolio gains (losses)	1			2			2			2
Subtotal — investment portfolio gains (losses)	(61		)	(3		)	17			62
FVO CSEs — changes in estimated fair value subsequent to consolidation:
Commercial mortgage loans	(14		)	9			(50		)	8
Long-term debt — related to commercial mortgage loans	18			(2		)	68			9
Non-investment portfolio gains (losses)	6			—			(4		)	—
Subtotal FVO CSEs and non-investment portfolio gains (losses)	10			7			14			17
Total net investment gains (losses)	$	(51	)	$	4		$	31		$	79

See “— Variable Interest Entities” for discussion of CSEs.

See “— Related Party Investment Transactions” for discussion of affiliated net investment gains (losses) related to transfers of invested assets to affiliates.

Gains (losses) from foreign currency transactions included within net investment gains (losses) were $6 million and ($3) million for the three months and nine months endedSeptember 30, 2013, respectively, and $1 million and $2 million for the three months and nine months endedSeptember 30, 2012, respectively.

28

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Sales or Disposals and Impairments of Fixed Maturity and Equity Securities

Proceeds from sales or disposals of fixed maturity and equity securities and the components of fixed maturity and equity securities net investment gains (losses) are as shown in the tables below. Investment gains and losses on sales of securities are determined on a specific identification basis. 

	Three Months Ended September 30,
	2013			2012			2013			2012			2013			2012
	Fixed Maturity Securities						Equity Securities						Total
	(In millions)
Proceeds	$	3,914		$	1,354		$	13		$	5		$	3,927		$	1,359
Gross investment gains	$	9		$	13		$	—		$	2		$	9		$	15
Gross investment losses	(59		)	(7		)	(2		)	(1		)	(61		)	(8		)
Total OTTI losses recognized in earnings:
Credit-related	(9		)	(13		)	—			—			(9		)	(13		)
Other (1)	—			—			—			—			—			—
Total OTTI losses recognized in earnings	(9		)	(13		)	—			—			(9		)	(13		)
Net investment gains (losses)	$	(59	)	$	(7	)	$	(2	)	$	1		$	(61	)	$	(6	)
	Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2013			2012			2013			2012			2013			2012
	Fixed Maturity Securities						Equity Securities						Total
	(In millions)
Proceeds	$	9,269		$	4,348		$	55		$	31		$	9,324		$	4,379
Gross investment gains	$	124		$	117		$	10		$	9		$	134		$	126
Gross investment losses	(91		)	(33		)	(6		)	(5		)	(97		)	(38		)
Total OTTI losses recognized in earnings:
Credit-related	(17		)	(35		)	—			—			(17		)	(35		)
Other (1)	(3		)	(7		)	(3		)	(6		)	(6		)	(13		)
Total OTTI losses recognized in earnings	(20		)	(42		)	(3		)	(6		)	(23		)	(48		)
Net investment gains (losses)	$	13		$	42		$	1		$	(2	)	$	14		$	40

____________

(1) Other OTTI losses recognized in earnings include impairments on (i) equity securities, (ii) perpetual hybrid securities classified within fixed maturity securities where the primary reason for the impairment was the severity and/or the duration of an unrealized loss position and (iii) fixed maturity securities where there is an intent to sell or it is more likely than not that the Company will be required to sell the security before recovery of the decline in estimated fair value.

29

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Credit Loss Rollforward

The table below presents a rollforward of the cumulative credit loss component of OTTI loss recognized in earnings on fixed maturity securities still held for which a portion of the OTTI loss was recognized in other comprehensive income (loss) (“OCI”): 

	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2013			2012			2013			2012
	(In millions)
Balance, beginning of period	$	58		$	56		$	59		$	55
Additions:
Initial impairments — credit loss OTTI recognized on securities not previously impaired	—			1			1			5
Additional impairments — credit loss OTTI recognized on securities previously impaired	5			2			12			9
Reductions:
Sales (maturities, pay downs or prepayments) during the period of securities previously impaired as credit loss OTTI	(4		)	(7		)	(13		)	(11		)
Increases in cash flows — accretion of previous credit loss OTTI	—			—			—			(6		)
Balance, end of period	$	59		$	52		$	59		$	52

Related Party Investment Transactions

In the normal course of business, the Company transfers invested assets, primarily consisting of fixed maturity securities, to and from affiliates. Invested assets transferred to and from affiliates were as follows:

	Three Months Ended September 30,				Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2013		2012		2013		2012
	(In millions)
Estimated fair value of invested assets transferred to affiliates	$	—	$	—	$	13	$	—
Amortized cost of invested assets transferred to affiliates	$	—	$	—	$	12	$	—
Net investment gains (losses) recognized on transfers	$	—	$	—	$	1	$	—
Estimated fair value of invested assets transferred from affiliates	$	—	$	—	$	83	$	—

The Company receives investment administrative services from an affiliate. The related investment administrative service charges were $17 million and $51 million for the three months and nine months endedSeptember 30, 2013, respectively, and $16 million and $50 million for the three months and nine months endedSeptember 30, 2012, respectively. The Company also had additional affiliated net investment income (loss) of less than $1 million and ($1) million for the three months and nine months endedSeptember 30, 2013, respectively, and less than $1 million for both the three months and nine months endedSeptember 30, 2012.

Below is a summary of certain affiliated loans, which are more fully described in Note 7 of the Notes of the Consolidated Financial Statements in the 2012 Annual Report.

The Company has loans outstanding to wholly-owned real estate subsidiaries of an affiliate, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MLIC”), which are included in mortgage loans. The carrying value of these loans was $304 million and $306 million at September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively. The loans to affiliates are secured by interests in the real estate subsidiaries, which own operating real estate with a fair value in excess of the loans. Net investment income from these loans was $4 million and $12 million for both the three months and nine months endedSeptember 30, 2013 and 2012, respectively.

The Company has affiliated loans outstanding to MetLife, which are included in other invested assets, totaling $430 million at both September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012. Net investment income from these loans was $6 million and $18 million for both the three months and nine months endedSeptember 30, 2013 and 2012, respectively.

30

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

5.  Derivatives

Accounting for Derivatives

Freestanding Derivatives

Freestanding derivatives are carried in the Company’s consolidated balance sheets either as assets within other invested assets or as liabilities within other liabilities at estimated fair value. The Company does not offset the fair value amounts recognized for derivatives executed with the same counterparty under the same master netting agreement. See “— Credit Risk on Freestanding Derivatives.”

Accruals on derivatives are generally recorded in accrued investment income or within other liabilities. However, accruals that are not scheduled to settle within one year are included with the derivatives carrying value in other invested assets or other liabilities.

If a derivative is not designated as an accounting hedge or its use in managing risk does not qualify for hedge accounting, changes in the estimated fair value of the derivative are reported in net derivative gains (losses) except as follows:

Statement of Operations Presentation:	Derivative:
Policyholder benefits and claims	•  Economic hedges of variable annuity guarantees included in future policy benefits
Net investment income	•  Economic hedges of equity method investments in joint ventures

Hedge Accounting

To qualify for hedge accounting, at the inception of the hedging relationship, the Company formally documents its risk management objective and strategy for undertaking the hedging transaction, as well as its designation of the hedge. Hedge designation and financial statement presentation of changes in estimated fair value of the hedging derivatives are as follows:

• Fair value hedge (a hedge of the estimated fair value of a recognized asset or liability) - in net derivative gains (losses), consistent with the change in fair value of the hedged item attributable to the designated risk being hedged.

• Cash flow hedge (a hedge of a forecasted transaction or of the variability of cash flows to be received or paid related to a recognized asset or liability) - effectiveness in OCI (deferred gains or losses on the derivative are reclassified into the consolidated statement of operations when the Company’s earnings are affected by the variability in cash flows of the hedged item); ineffectiveness in net derivative gains (losses).

The change in estimated fair values of the hedging derivatives are exclusive of any accruals that are separately reported in the consolidated statement of operations within interest income or interest expense to match the location of the hedged item.

In its hedge documentation, the Company sets forth how the hedging instrument is expected to hedge the designated risks related to the hedged item and sets forth the method that will be used to retrospectively and prospectively assess the hedging instrument’s effectiveness and the method that will be used to measure ineffectiveness. A derivative designated as a hedging instrument must be assessed as being highly effective in offsetting the designated risk of the hedged item. Hedge effectiveness is formally assessed at inception and at least quarterly throughout the life of the designated hedging relationship. Assessments of hedge effectiveness and measurements of ineffectiveness are also subject to interpretation and estimation and different interpretations or estimates may have a material effect on the amount reported in net income.

The Company discontinues hedge accounting prospectively when: (i) it is determined that the derivative is no longer highly effective in offsetting changes in the estimated fair value or cash flows of a hedged item; (ii) the derivative expires, is sold, terminated, or exercised; (iii) it is no longer probable that the hedged forecasted transaction will occur; or (iv) the derivative is de-designated as a hedging instrument.

31

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

When hedge accounting is discontinued because it is determined that the derivative is not highly effective in offsetting changes in the estimated fair value or cash flows of a hedged item, the derivative continues to be carried in the consolidated balance sheets at its estimated fair value, with changes in estimated fair value recognized in net derivative gains (losses). The carrying value of the hedged recognized asset or liability under a fair value hedge is no longer adjusted for changes in its estimated fair value due to the hedged risk, and the cumulative adjustment to its carrying value is amortized into income over the remaining life of the hedged item. Provided the hedged forecasted transaction is still probable of occurrence, the changes in estimated fair value of derivatives recorded in OCI related to discontinued cash flow hedges are released into the consolidated statement of operations when the Company’s earnings are affected by the variability in cash flows of the hedged item.

When hedge accounting is discontinued because it is no longer probable that the forecasted transactions will occur on the anticipated date or within two months of that date, the derivative continues to be carried in the consolidated balance sheets at its estimated fair value, with changes in estimated fair value recognized currently in net derivative gains (losses). Deferred gains and losses of a derivative recorded in OCI pursuant to the discontinued cash flow hedge of a forecasted transaction that is no longer probable are recognized immediately in net derivative gains (losses).

In all other situations in which hedge accounting is discontinued, the derivative is carried at its estimated fair value in the consolidated balance sheets, with changes in its estimated fair value recognized in the current period as net derivative gains (losses).

Embedded Derivatives

The Company purchases certain securities, issues certain insurance products and investment contracts and is a party to certain reinsurance agreements that have embedded derivatives. The Company assesses each identified embedded derivative to determine whether it is required to be bifurcated. The embedded derivative is bifurcated from the host contract and accounted for as a freestanding derivative if:

• the combined instrument is not accounted for in its entirety at fair value with changes in fair value recorded in earnings;

• the terms of the embedded derivative are not clearly and closely related to the economic characteristics of the host contract; and

• a separate instrument with the same terms as the embedded derivative would qualify as a derivative instrument.

Such embedded derivatives are carried in the consolidated balance sheets at estimated fair value with the host contract and changes in their estimated fair value are generally reported in net derivative gains (losses). If the Company is unable to properly identify and measure an embedded derivative for separation from its host contract, the entire contract is carried on the balance sheet at estimated fair value, with changes in estimated fair value recognized in the current period in net investment gains (losses) or net investment income. Additionally, the Company may elect to carry an entire contract on the balance sheet at estimated fair value, with changes in estimated fair value recognized in the current period in net investment gains (losses) or net investment income if that contract contains an embedded derivative that requires bifurcation. At inception, the Company attributes to the embedded derivative a portion of the projected future guarantee fees to be collected from the policyholder equal to the present value of projected future guaranteed benefits. Any additional fees represent “excess” fees and are reported in universal life and investment-type product policy fees.

See Note 6 for information about the fair value hierarchy for derivatives.

Derivative Strategies

The Company is exposed to various risks relating to its ongoing business operations, including interest rate, foreign currency exchange rate, credit and equity market. The Company uses a variety of strategies to manage these risks, including the use of derivatives.

Derivatives are financial instruments whose values are derived from interest rates, foreign currency exchange rates, credit spreads and/or other financial indices. Derivatives may be exchange-traded or contracted in the over-the-counter (“OTC”) market. Certain of the Company’s OTC derivatives are cleared and settled through central clearing counterparties (“OTC-cleared”), while others are bilateral contracts between two counterparties (“OTC-bilateral”). The types of derivatives the Company uses include swaps, forwards, futures and option contracts. To a lesser extent, the Company uses credit default swaps to synthetically replicate investment risks and returns which are not readily available in the cash market.

32

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Interest Rate Derivatives

The Company uses a variety of interest rate derivatives to reduce its exposure to changes in interest rates, including interest rate swaps, caps, floors, futures and forwards.

Interest rate swaps are used by the Company primarily to reduce market risks from changes in interest rates and to alter interest rate exposure arising from mismatches between assets and liabilities (duration mismatches). In an interest rate swap, the Company agrees with another party to exchange, at specified intervals, the difference between fixed rate and floating rate interest amounts as calculated by reference to an agreed notional amount. The Company utilizes interest rate swaps in fair value, cash flow and non-qualifying hedging relationships.

The Company purchases interest rate caps and floors primarily to protect its floating rate liabilities against rises in interest rates above a specified level, and against interest rate exposure arising from mismatches between assets and liabilities, as well as to protect its minimum rate guarantee liabilities against declines in interest rates below a specified level, respectively. In certain instances, the Company locks in the economic impact of existing purchased caps and floors by entering into offsetting written caps and floors. The Company utilizes interest rate caps and floors in non-qualifying hedging relationships.

In exchange-traded interest rate (Treasury and swap) futures transactions, the Company agrees to purchase or sell a specified number of contracts, the value of which is determined by the different classes of interest rate securities, and to post variation margin on a daily basis in an amount equal to the difference in the daily market values of those contracts. The Company enters into exchange-traded futures with regulated futures commission merchants that are members of the exchange. Exchange-traded interest rate (Treasury and swap) futures are used primarily to hedge mismatches between the duration of assets in a portfolio and the duration of liabilities supported by those assets, to hedge against changes in value of securities the Company owns or anticipates acquiring and to hedge against changes in interest rates on anticipated liability issuances by replicating Treasury or swap curve performance. The Company utilizes exchange-traded interest rate futures in non-qualifying hedging relationships.

Inflation swaps are used as an economic hedge to reduce inflation risk generated from inflation-indexed liabilities. Inflation swaps are included in interest rate swaps. The Company utilizes inflation swaps in non-qualifying hedging relationships.

The Company enters into interest rate forwards to buy and sell securities. The price is agreed upon at the time of the contract and payment for such a contract is made at a specified future date. The Company utilizes interest rate forwards in cash flow hedging relationships.

Foreign Currency Exchange Rate Derivatives

The Company uses foreign currency swaps to reduce the risk from fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates associated with its assets and liabilities denominated in foreign currencies. In a foreign currency swap transaction, the Company agrees with another party to exchange, at specified intervals, the difference between one currency and another at a fixed exchange rate, generally set at inception, calculated by reference to an agreed upon notional amount. The notional amount of each currency is exchanged at the inception and termination of the currency swap by each party. The Company utilizes foreign currency swaps in fair value, cash flow and non-qualifying hedging relationships.

To a lesser extent, the Company uses foreign currency forwards in non-qualifying hedging relationships.

Credit Derivatives

The Company enters into purchased credit default swaps to hedge against credit-related changes in the value of its investments. In a credit default swap transaction, the Company agrees with another party to pay, at specified intervals, a premium to hedge credit risk. If a credit event occurs, as defined by the contract, the contract may be cash settled or it may be settled gross by the delivery of par quantities of the referenced investment equal to the specified swap notional in exchange for the payment of cash amounts by the counterparty equal to the par value of the investment surrendered. Credit events vary by type of issuer but typically include bankruptcy, failure to pay debt obligations, repudiation, moratorium, or involuntary restructuring. In each case, payout on a credit default swap is triggered only after the Credit Derivatives Determinations Committee of the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. (“ISDA”) deems that a credit event has occurred. The Company utilizes credit default swaps in non-qualifying hedging relationships.

33

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

The Company enters into written credit default swaps to synthetically create credit investments that are either more expensive to acquire or otherwise unavailable in the cash markets. These transactions are a combination of a derivative and one or more cash instruments, such as U.S. Treasury securities, agency securities or other fixed maturity securities. These credit default swaps are not designated as hedging instruments.

To a lesser extent, the Company uses credit forwards to lock in the price to be paid for forward purchases of certain securities. The Company utilizes credit forwards in cash flow hedging relationships.

Equity Derivatives

The Company uses a variety of equity derivatives to reduce its exposure to equity market risk, including equity index options, variance swaps and exchange-traded equity futures.

Equity index options are used by the Company primarily to hedge minimum guarantees embedded in certain variable annuity products offered by the Company. To hedge against adverse changes in equity indices, the Company enters into contracts to sell the equity index within a limited time at a contracted price. The contracts will be net settled in cash based on differentials in the indices at the time of exercise and the strike price. In certain instances, the Company may enter into a combination of transactions to hedge adverse changes in equity indices within a pre-determined range through the purchase and sale of options. The Company utilizes equity index options in non-qualifying hedging relationships.

Equity variance swaps are used by the Company primarily to hedge minimum guarantees embedded in certain variable annuity products offered by the Company. In an equity variance swap, the Company agrees with another party to exchange amounts in the future, based on changes in equity volatility over a defined period. The Company utilizes equity variance swaps in non-qualifying hedging relationships.

In exchange-traded equity futures transactions, the Company agrees to purchase or sell a specified number of contracts, the value of which is determined by the different classes of equity securities, and to post variation margin on a daily basis in an amount equal to the difference in the daily market values of those contracts. The Company enters into exchange-traded futures with regulated futures commission merchants that are members of the exchange. Exchange-traded equity futures are used primarily to hedge liabilities embedded in certain variable annuity products offered by the Company. The Company utilizes exchange-traded equity futures in non-qualifying hedging relationships.

To a lesser extent, the Company also uses total rate of return swaps (“TRRs”) to hedge its equity market guarantees in certain of its insurance products. The Company utilizes TRRs in non-qualifying hedging relationships.

34

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Primary Risks Managed by Derivatives

The following table presents the gross notional amount, estimated fair value and primary underlying risk exposure of the Company’s derivatives, excluding embedded derivatives, held at:

		September 30, 2013						December 31, 2012
	Primary Underlying Risk Exposure	Notional Amount		Estimated Fair Value				Notional Amount		Estimated Fair Value
				Assets		Liabilities				Assets		Liabilities
		(In millions)
Derivatives Designated as Hedging Instruments
Fair value hedges:
Interest rate swaps	Interest rate	$	465	$	6	$	8	$	538	$	28	$	9
Foreign currency swaps	Foreign currency exchange rate	122		—		15		122		—		14
Subtotal		587		6		23		660		28		23
Cash flow hedges:
Interest rate swaps	Interest rate	537		16		19		658		99		—
Interest rate forwards	Interest rate	290		12		—		410		81		—
Foreign currency swaps	Foreign currency exchange rate	546		21		27		524		16		14
Subtotal		1,373		49		46		1,592		196		14
Total qualifying hedges		1,960		55		69		2,252		224		37
Derivatives Not Designated or Not Qualifying as Hedging Instruments
Interest rate swaps	Interest rate	23,748		925		424		16,869		1,254		513
Interest rate floors	Interest rate	17,604		144		139		15,136		318		274
Interest rate caps	Interest rate	8,001		29		—		9,031		11		—
Interest rate futures	Interest rate	1,493		1		—		2,771		—		7
Foreign currency swaps	Foreign currency exchange rate	823		51		44		811		60		35
Foreign currency forwards	Foreign currency exchange rate	43		—		2		139		—		4
Credit default swaps - purchased	Credit	194		—		2		162		—		2
Credit default swaps - written	Credit	2,299		29		—		2,456		23		1
Equity futures	Equity market	774		5		—		1,075		—		27
Equity options	Equity market	3,453		356		25		2,845		469		1
Variance swaps	Equity market	2,562		4		97		2,346		11		62
TRRs	Equity market	473		1		9		300		—		7
Total non-designated or non-qualifying derivatives		61,467		1,545		742		53,941		2,146		933
Total		$	63,427	$	1,600	$	811	$	56,193	$	2,370	$	970

Based on notional amounts, a substantial portion of the Company’s derivatives was not designated or did not qualify as part of a hedging relationship at both September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012. The Company’s use of derivatives includes (i) derivatives that serve as macro hedges of the Company’s exposure to various risks and that generally do not qualify for hedge accounting due to the criteria required under the portfolio hedging rules; (ii) derivatives that economically hedge insurance liabilities that contain mortality or morbidity risk and that generally do not qualify for hedge accounting because the lack of these risks in the derivatives cannot support an expectation of a highly effective hedging relationship; (iii) derivatives that economically hedge embedded derivatives that do not qualify for hedge accounting because the changes in estimated fair value of the embedded derivatives are already recorded in net income; and (iv) written credit default swaps that are used to synthetically create credit investments and that do not qualify for hedge accounting because they do not involve a hedging relationship. For these non-qualified derivatives, changes in market factors can lead to the recognition of fair value changes in the consolidated statement of operations without an offsetting gain or loss recognized in earnings for the item being hedged.

35

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Net Derivative Gains (Losses)

The components of net derivative gains (losses) were as follows:

	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2013			2012			2013			2012
	(In millions)
Derivatives and hedging gains (losses) (1)	$	(183	)	$	(189	)	$	(746	)	$	(225	)
Embedded derivatives	(16		)	91			165			270
Total net derivative gains (losses)	$	(199	)	$	(98	)	$	(581	)	$	45

____________

(1) Includes foreign currency transaction gains (losses) on hedged items in cash flow and non-qualifying hedging relationships, which are not presented elsewhere in this note.

The following table presents earned income on derivatives:

	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2013			2012			2013			2012
	(In millions)
Qualifying hedges:
Net investment income	$	1		$	—		$	2		$	1
Interest credited to policyholder account balances	—			1			2			17
Non-qualifying hedges:
Net derivative gains (losses)	8			32			69			87
Policyholder benefits and claims	(6		)	(3		)	(13		)	(5		)
Total	$	3		$	30		$	60		$	100

36

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Non-Qualifying Derivatives and Derivatives for Purposes Other Than Hedging

The following table presents the amount and location of gains (losses) recognized in income for derivatives that were not designated or qualifying as hedging instruments:

	Net Derivative Gains (Losses)			Net Investment Income (Loss) (1)			Policyholder Benefits and Claims (2)
	(In millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2013:
Interest rate derivatives	$	(47	)	$	—		$	(3	)
Foreign currency exchange rate derivatives	(30		)	—			—
Credit derivatives — purchased	—			—			—
Credit derivatives — written	10			—			—
Equity derivatives	(125		)	(3		)	(15		)
Total	$	(192	)	$	(3	)	$	(18	)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2012:
Interest rate derivatives	$	(84	)	$	—		$	—
Foreign currency exchange rate derivatives	(11		)	—			—
Credit derivatives — purchased	(2		)	—			—
Credit derivatives — written	22			—			—
Equity derivatives	(138		)	(1		)	(24		)
Total	$	(213	)	$	(1	)	$	(24	)
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2013:
Interest rate derivatives	$	(450	)	$	—		$	(16	)
Foreign currency exchange rate derivatives	(14		)	—			—
Credit derivatives — purchased	—			—			—
Credit derivatives — written	17			—			—
Equity derivatives	(368		)	(6		)	(60		)
Total	$	(815	)	$	(6	)	$	(76	)
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2012:
Interest rate derivatives	$	33		$	—		$	—
Foreign currency exchange rate derivatives	(3		)	—			—
Credit derivatives — purchased	(10		)	—			—
Credit derivatives — written	36			—			—
Equity derivatives	(353		)	(3		)	(47		)
Total	$	(297	)	$	(3	)	$	(47	)

____________

(1) Changes in estimated fair value related to economic hedges of equity method investments in joint ventures.

(2) Changes in estimated fair value related to economic hedges of variable annuity guarantees included in future policy benefits.

Fair Value Hedges

The Company designates and accounts for the following as fair value hedges when they have met the requirements of fair value hedging: (i) interest rate swaps to convert fixed rate assets and liabilities to floating rate assets and liabilities; and (ii) foreign currency swaps to hedge the foreign currency fair value exposure of foreign currency denominated liabilities.

37

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

The Company recognizes gains and losses on derivatives and the related hedged items in fair value hedges within net derivative gains (losses). The following table presents the amount of such net derivative gains (losses):

Derivatives in Fair Value Hedging Relationships	Hedged Items in Fair Value Hedging Relationships	Net Derivative Gains (Losses) Recognized for Derivatives			Net Derivative Gains (Losses) Recognized for Hedged Items			Ineffectiveness Recognized in Net Derivative Gains (Losses)
		(In millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2013:
Interest rate swaps:	Fixed maturity securities	$	(1	)	$	1		$	—
	Policyholder liabilities (1)	(6		)	6			—
Foreign currency swaps:	Foreign-denominated PABs (2)	6			(7		)	(1		)
Total		$	(1	)	$	—		$	(1	)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2012:
Interest rate swaps:	Fixed maturity securities	$	(3	)	$	2		$	(1	)
	Policyholder liabilities (1)	(4		)	4			—
Foreign currency swaps:	Foreign-denominated PABs (2)	3			(3		)	—
Total		$	(4	)	$	3		$	(1	)
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2013:
Interest rate swaps:	Fixed maturity securities	$	6		$	(7	)	$	(1	)
	Policyholder liabilities (1)	(24		)	22			(2		)
Foreign currency swaps:	Foreign-denominated PABs (2)	(1		)	—			(1		)
Total		$	(19	)	$	15		$	(4	)
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2012:
Interest rate swaps:	Fixed maturity securities	$	(5	)	$	3		$	(2	)
	Policyholder liabilities (1)	(2		)	1			(1		)
Foreign currency swaps:	Foreign-denominated PABs (2)	(29		)	21			(8		)
Total		$	(36	)	$	25		$	(11	)

____________ 

(1) Fixed rate liabilities reported in PABs or future policy benefits.

(2) Fixed rate or floating rate liabilities.

All components of each derivative’s gain or loss were included in the assessment of hedge effectiveness.

Cash Flow Hedges

The Company designates and accounts for the following as cash flow hedges when they have met the requirements of cash flow hedging: (i) interest rate swaps to convert floating rate assets and liabilities to fixed rate assets and liabilities; (ii) foreign currency swaps to hedge the foreign currency cash flow exposure of foreign currency denominated assets and liabilities; (iii) interest rate forwards and credit forwards to lock in the price to be paid for forward purchases of investments; and (iv) interest rate swaps and interest rate forwards to hedge the forecasted purchases of fixed-rate investments.

The Company discontinues cash flow hedge accounting when the forecasted transactions are no longer probable of occurring. When such forecasted transactions are not probable of occurring within two months of the anticipated date, the Company reclassifies certain amounts from AOCI into net derivative gains (losses). There were no amounts reclassified into net derivative gain (losses) for both the three months and nine months endedSeptember 30, 2013 and 2012 related to such discontinued cash flow hedges.

At September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the maximum length of time over which the Company was hedging its exposure to variability in future cash flows for forecasted transactions did not exceed six years and seven years, respectively.

At September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the balance in AOCI associated with cash flow hedges was $79 million and $243 million, respectively. 

38

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

The following table presents the effects of derivatives in cash flow hedging relationships on the interim condensed consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income (loss) and the interim condensed consolidated statements of stockholders’ equity:

Derivatives in Cash Flow Hedging Relationships	Amount of Gains  (Losses) Deferred in  AOCI on Derivatives			Amount and Location  of Gains (Losses) Reclassified from AOCI into Income (Loss)					Amount and Location of Gains (Losses) Recognized in Income (Loss) on Derivatives
	(Effective Portion)			(Effective Portion)					(Ineffective Portion)
				Net Derivative Gains (Losses)			Net Investment Income		Net Derivative Gains (Losses)
				(In millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2013:
Interest rate swaps	$	(20	)	$	2		$	—	$	(1	)
Interest rate forwards	(12		)	1			—		(1		)
Foreign currency swaps	(32		)	1			—		—
Credit forwards	(1		)	—			—		—
Total	$	(65	)	$	4		$	—	$	(2	)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2012:
Interest rate swaps	$	(15	)	$	—		$	—	$	—
Interest rate forwards	(7		)	1			—		1
Foreign currency swaps	(22		)	—			—		(1		)
Credit forwards	—			—			—		—
Total	$	(44	)	$	1		$	—	$	—
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2013:
Interest rate swaps	$	(97	)	$	1		$	—	$	—
Interest rate forwards	(47		)	7			1		—
Foreign currency swaps	(10		)	—			—		1
Credit forwards	(1		)	—			—		—
Total	$	(155	)	$	8		$	1	$	1
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2012:
Interest rate swaps	$	47		$	—		$	—	$	—
Interest rate forwards	8			1			—		1
Foreign currency swaps	(8		)	(1		)	—		(1		)
Credit forwards	—			—			—		—
Total	$	47		$	—		$	—	$	—

All components of each derivative’s gain or loss were included in the assessment of hedge effectiveness.

At September 30, 2013, ($1) million of deferred net gains (losses) on derivatives in AOCI was expected to be reclassified to earnings within the next 12 months.

Credit Derivatives

In connection with synthetically created credit investment transactions, the Company writes credit default swaps for which it receives a premium to insure credit risk. Such credit derivatives are included within the non-qualifying derivatives and derivatives for purposes other than hedging table. If a credit event occurs, as defined by the contract, the contract may be cash settled or it may be settled gross by the Company paying the counterparty the specified swap notional amount in exchange for the delivery of par quantities of the referenced credit obligation. The Company’s maximum amount at risk, assuming the value of all referenced credit obligations is zero, was $2.3 billion and $2.5 billion at September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively. The Company can terminate these contracts at any time through cash settlement with the counterparty at an amount equal to the then current fair value of the credit default swaps. At September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the Company would have received $29 million and $22 million, respectively, to terminate all of these contracts.

39

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

The following table presents the estimated fair value, maximum amount of future payments and weighted average years to maturity of written credit default swaps at: 

	September 30, 2013					December 31, 2012
Rating Agency Designation of Referenced Credit Obligations (1)	Estimated Fair Value of Credit Default Swaps		Maximum Amount of Future Payments under Credit Default Swaps (2)		Weighted Average Years to Maturity (3)	Estimated Fair Value of Credit Default Swaps		Maximum Amount of Future Payments under Credit Default Swaps (2)		Weighted Average Years to Maturity (3)
	(In millions)					(In millions)
Aaa/Aa/A
Single name credit default swaps (corporate)	$	2	$	117	2.4	$	3	$	167	3.2
Credit default swaps referencing indices	7		650		1.3	10		650		2.1
Subtotal	9		767		1.5	13		817		2.3
Baa
Single name credit default swaps (corporate)	8		500		3.2	4		479		3.8
Credit default swaps referencing indices	10		996		5.0	5		1,124		4.8
Subtotal	18		1,496		4.4	9		1,603		4.5
B
Single name credit default swaps (corporate)	—		—		0.0	—		—		0.0
Credit default swaps referencing indices	2		36		5.3	—		36		5.0
Subtotal	2		36		5.3	—		36		5.0
Total	$	29	$	2,299	3.5	$	22	$	2,456	3.8

____________

(1) The rating agency designations are based on availability and the midpoint of the applicable ratings among Moody’s Investors Service (“Moody’s”), Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services (“S&P”) and Fitch Ratings. If no rating is available from a rating agency, then an internally developed rating is used.

(2) Assumes the value of the referenced credit obligations is zero.

(3) The weighted average years to maturity of the credit default swaps is calculated based on weighted average notional amounts.

Credit Risk on Freestanding Derivatives

The Company may be exposed to credit-related losses in the event of nonperformance by counterparties to derivatives. Generally, the current credit exposure of the Company’s derivatives is limited to the net positive estimated fair value of derivatives at the reporting date after taking into consideration the existence of master netting or similar agreements and any collateral received pursuant to such agreements.

The Company manages its credit risk related to derivatives by entering into transactions with creditworthy counterparties and establishing and monitoring exposure limits. The Company’s OTC-bilateral derivative transactions are generally governed by ISDA Master Agreements which provide for legally enforceable set-off and close-out netting of exposures to specific counterparties in the event of early termination of a transaction, which includes, but is not limited, to events of default and bankruptcy. In the event of an early termination, the Company is permitted to set off receivables from the counterparty against payables to the same counterparty arising out of all included transactions. Substantially all of the Company’s ISDA Master Agreements also include Credit Support Annex provisions which require both the pledging and accepting of collateral in connection with its OTC-bilateral derivatives.

The Company’s OTC-cleared derivatives are effected through central clearing counterparties and its exchange-traded derivatives are effected through regulated exchanges. Such positions are marked to market and margined on a daily basis, and the Company has minimal exposure to credit-related losses in the event of nonperformance by counterparties to such derivatives.

See Note 6 for a description of the impact of credit risk on the valuation of derivatives.

40

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

The estimated fair value of the Company’s net derivative assets and net derivative liabilities after the application of master netting agreements and collateral were as follows at: 

	September 30, 2013						December 31, 2012
Derivatives Subject to a Master Netting Arrangement or a Similar Arrangement	Assets			Liabilities			Assets			Liabilities
	(In millions)
Gross estimated fair value of derivatives:
OTC-bilateral (1)	$	1,598		$	821		$	2,436		$	982
OTC-cleared (1)	39			14			—			—
Exchange-traded	5			—			—			34
Total gross estimated fair value of derivatives (1)	1,642			835			2,436			1,016
Amounts offset in the consolidated balance sheets	—			—			—			—
Estimated fair value of derivatives presented in the consolidated balance sheets (1)	1,642			835			2,436			1,016
Gross amounts not offset in the consolidated balance sheets:
Gross estimated fair value of derivatives: (2)
OTC-bilateral	(682		)	(682		)	(838		)	(838		)
OTC-cleared	(13		)	(13		)	—			—
Exchange-traded	—			—			—			—
Cash collateral: (3)
OTC-bilateral	(356		)	—			(897		)	—
OTC-cleared	(23		)	—			—			—
Exchange-traded	—			—			—			(34		)
Securities collateral: (4)
OTC-bilateral	(456		)	(120		)	(689		)	(121		)
OTC-cleared	—			(1		)	—			—
Exchange-traded	—			—			—			—
Net amount after application of master netting agreements and collateral	$	112		$	19		$	12		$	23

____________

(1) At September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, derivative assets include income or expense accruals reported in accrued investment income or in other liabilities of $42 million and $66 million, respectively, and derivative liabilities include income or expense accruals reported in accrued investment income or in other liabilities of $24 million and $46 million, respectively.

(2) Estimated fair value of derivatives is limited to the amount that is subject to set-off and includes income or expense accruals.

(3) Cash collateral received is included in cash and cash equivalents, short-term investments, or in fixed maturity securities, and the obligation to return it is included in payables for collateral under securities loaned and other transactions in the consolidated balance sheets. The receivable for the return of cash collateral provided by the Company is inclusive of initial margin on exchange-traded and OTC-cleared derivatives and is included in premiums, reinsurance and other receivables in the consolidated balance sheets. The amount of cash collateral offset in the table above is limited to the net estimated fair value of derivatives after application of netting agreements. At September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the Company received excess cash collateral of $9 million and $0, respectively, and provided excess cash collateral of $55 million and $53 million, respectively, which is not included in the table above due to the foregoing limitation.

(4) Securities collateral received by the Company is held in separate custodial accounts and is not recorded on the consolidated balance sheets. Subject to certain constraints, the Company is permitted by contract to sell or repledge this collateral, but at September 30, 2013none of the collateral had been sold or repledged. Securities collateral pledged by the Company is reported in fixed maturity securities in the consolidated balance sheets. Subject to certain constraints, the counterparties are permitted by contract to sell or repledge this collateral. The amount of securities collateral offset in the table above is limited to the net estimated fair value of derivatives after application of netting agreements and cash collateral. At September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the Company received excess securities collateral of $78 million and $0, respectively, for its OTC-bilateral derivatives, which are not included in the table above due to the foregoing limitation. At September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the Company provided excess securities collateral of $5 million and $0, respectively, for its OTC-bilateral derivatives and $18 million and $0, respectively, for its OTC-cleared derivatives, which are not included in the table above due to the foregoing limitation. At both September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the Company did not pledge any securities collateral for its exchange-traded derivatives.

41

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

The Company’s collateral arrangements for its OTC-bilateral derivatives generally require the counterparty in a net liability position, after considering the effect of netting agreements, to pledge collateral when the fair value of that counterparty’s derivatives reaches a pre-determined threshold. Certain of these arrangements also include credit-contingent provisions that provide for a reduction of these thresholds (on a sliding scale that converges toward zero) in the event of downgrades in the credit ratings of the Company and/or the counterparty. In addition, certain of the Company’s netting agreements for derivatives contain provisions that require both the Company and the counterparty to maintain a specific investment grade credit rating from each of Moody’s and S&P. If a party’s credit ratings were to fall below that specific investment grade credit rating, that party would be in violation of these provisions, and the other party to the derivatives could terminate the transactions and demand immediate settlement and payment based on such party’s reasonable valuation of the derivatives.

The following table presents the estimated fair value of the Company’s OTC-bilateral derivatives that are in a net liability position after considering the effect of netting agreements, together with the estimated fair value and balance sheet location of the collateral pledged. The table also presents the incremental collateral that the Company would be required to provide if there was a one notch downgrade in the Company’s credit rating at the reporting date or if the Company’s credit rating sustained a downgrade to a level that triggered full overnight collateralization or termination of the derivative position at the reporting date. OTC-bilateral derivatives that are not subject to collateral agreements are excluded from this table. 

			Estimated Fair Value of Collateral Provided:		Fair Value of Incremental  Collateral Provided Upon:
	Estimated Fair Value of Derivatives in Net Liability Position (1)		Fixed Maturity Securities		One Notch Downgrade in the Company’s Credit Rating		Downgrade in the Company’s Credit Rating to a Level that Triggers Full Overnight Collateralization or Termination of the Derivative Position
	(In millions)
September 30, 2013	$	139	$	125	$	1	$	12
December 31, 2012	$	143	$	121	$	2	$	28

____________

(1) After taking into consideration the existence of netting agreements.

Embedded Derivatives

The Company issues certain products or purchases certain investments that contain embedded derivatives that are required to be separated from their host contracts and accounted for as freestanding derivatives. These host contracts principally include: variable annuities with guaranteed minimum benefits, including GMWBs, guaranteed minimum accumulation benefits (“GMABs”) and certain GMIBs; affiliated ceded reinsurance of guaranteed minimum benefits related to GMWBs, GMABs and certain GMIBs; affiliated assumed reinsurance of guaranteed minimum benefits related to GMWBs and certain GMIBs; funds withheld on ceded reinsurance; and certain debt and equity securities.

The following table presents the estimated fair value and balance sheet location of the Company’s embedded derivatives that have been separated from their host contracts at:

	Balance Sheet Location	September 30, 2013			December 31, 2012
		(In millions)
Net embedded derivatives within asset host contracts:
Ceded guaranteed minimum benefits	Premiums, reinsurance and other receivables	$	1,797		$	3,551
Options embedded in debt or equity securities	Investments	(31		)	(14		)
Net embedded derivatives within asset host contracts		$	1,766		$	3,537
Net embedded derivatives within liability host contracts:
Direct guaranteed minimum benefits	PABs	$	(674	)	$	705
Assumed guaranteed minimum benefits	PABs	(7		)	4
Funds withheld on ceded reinsurance	Other liabilities	75			552
Net embedded derivatives within liability host contracts		$	(606	)	$	1,261

42

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

The following table presents changes in estimated fair value related to embedded derivatives:

	Three Months Ended September 30,					Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2013			2012		2013		2012
	(In millions)
Net derivative gains (losses) (1), (2)	$	(16	)	$	91	$	165	$	270

____________

(1) The valuation of direct and assumed guaranteed minimum benefits includes a nonperformance risk adjustment. The amounts included in net derivative gains (losses) in connection with this adjustment were ($12) million and ($139) million for the three months and nine months endedSeptember 30, 2013, respectively, and ($110) million and ($212) million for the three months and nine months endedSeptember 30, 2012, respectively. In addition, the valuation of ceded guaranteed minimum benefits includes a nonperformance risk adjustment. The amounts included in net derivative gains (losses) in connection with this adjustment were $39 million and $198 million for the three months and nine months endedSeptember 30, 2013, respectively, and $202 million and $241 million for the three months and nine months endedSeptember 30, 2012, respectively.

(2) See Note 11 for discussion of affiliated net derivative gains (losses) included in the table above.

43

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

6.  Fair Value

Considerable judgment is often required in interpreting market data to develop estimates of fair value, and the use of different assumptions or valuation methodologies may have a material effect on the estimated fair value amounts.

Recurring Fair Value Measurements

The assets and liabilities measured at estimated fair value on a recurring basis and their corresponding placement in the fair value hierarchy, including those items for which the Company has elected the FVO, are presented below.

	September 30, 2013
	Fair Value Hierarchy							Total Estimated Fair Value
	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3
	(In millions)
Assets:
Fixed maturity securities:
U.S. corporate	$	—	$	16,367	$	1,081		$	17,448
U.S. Treasury and agency	3,836		3,920		—			7,756
Foreign corporate	—		8,033		762			8,795
RMBS	108		4,603		393			5,104
ABS	—		1,538		410			1,948
State and political subdivision	—		2,117		5			2,122
CMBS	—		1,597		66			1,663
Foreign government	—		1,094		—			1,094
Total fixed maturity securities	3,944		39,269		2,717			45,930
Equity securities:
Non-redeemable preferred stock	—		131		77			208
Common stock	77		84		28			189
Total equity securities	77		215		105			397
FVO securities	—		9		—			9
Short-term investments (1)	289		1,811		2			2,102
Mortgage loans held by CSEs	—		2,096		—			2,096
Derivative assets: (2)
Interest rate	1		1,077		55			1,133
Foreign currency exchange rate	—		72		—			72
Credit	—		22		7			29
Equity market	5		356		5			366
Total derivative assets	6		1,527		67			1,600
Net embedded derivatives within asset host contracts (3)	—		—		1,797			1,797
Separate account assets (4)	218		93,662		140			94,020
Total assets	$	4,534	$	138,589	$	4,828		$	147,951
Liabilities:
Derivative liabilities: (2)
Interest rate	$	—	$	570	$	20		$	590
Foreign currency exchange rate	—		88		—			88
Credit	—		2		—			2
Equity market	—		34		97			131
Total derivative liabilities	—		694		117			811
Net embedded derivatives within liability host contracts (3)	—		—		(606		)	(606		)
Long-term debt of CSEs	—		1,969		—			1,969
Total liabilities	$	—	$	2,663	$	(489	)	$	2,174

44

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

	December 31, 2012
	Fair Value Hierarchy						Total Estimated Fair Value
	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3
	(In millions)
Assets:
Fixed maturity securities:
U.S. corporate	$	—	$	17,461	$	1,434	$	18,895
U.S. Treasury and agency	5,082		3,782		—		8,864
Foreign corporate	—		8,577		868		9,445
RMBS	—		5,460		278		5,738
ABS	—		1,910		343		2,253
State and political subdivision	—		2,304		25		2,329
CMBS	—		2,231		125		2,356
Foreign government	—		1,085		3		1,088
Total fixed maturity securities	5,082		42,810		3,076		50,968
Equity securities:
Non-redeemable preferred stock	—		47		93		140
Common stock	70		81		26		177
Total equity securities	70		128		119		317
FVO securities	—		9		—		9
Short-term investments (1)	1,233		1,285		13		2,531
Mortgage loans held by CSEs	—		2,666		—		2,666
Derivative assets: (2)
Interest rate	—		1,643		148		1,791
Foreign currency exchange rate	—		76		—		76
Credit	—		13		10		23
Equity market	—		469		11		480
Total derivative assets	—		2,201		169		2,370
Net embedded derivatives within asset host contracts (3)	—		—		3,551		3,551
Separate account assets (4)	201		85,772		141		86,114
Total assets	$	6,586	$	134,871	$	7,069	$	148,526
Liabilities:
Derivative liabilities: (2)
Interest rate	$	7	$	767	$	29	$	803
Foreign currency exchange rate	—		67		—		67
Credit	—		3		—		3
Equity market	27		8		62		97
Total derivative liabilities	34		845		91		970
Net embedded derivatives within liability host contracts (3)	—		—		1,261		1,261
Long-term debt of CSEs	—		2,559		—		2,559
Total liabilities	$	34	$	3,404	$	1,352	$	4,790

____________

(1) Short-term investments as presented in the tables above differ from the amounts presented in the consolidated balance sheets because certain short-term investments are not measured at estimated fair value on a recurring basis.

(2) Derivative assets are presented within other invested assets in the consolidated balance sheets and derivative liabilities are presented within other liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets. The amounts are presented gross in the tables above to reflect the presentation in the consolidated balance sheets, but are presented net for purposes of the rollforward in the Fair Value Measurements Using Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3) tables.

(3) Net embedded derivatives within asset host contracts are presented primarily within premiums, reinsurance and other receivables in the consolidated balance sheets. Net embedded derivatives within liability host contracts are presented primarily within PABs and other liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets. At September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, equity securities also included embedded derivatives of ($31) million and ($14) million, respectively.

(4) Investment performance related to separate account assets is fully offset by corresponding amounts credited to contractholders whose liability is reflected within separate account liabilities. Separate account liabilities are set equal to the estimated fair value of separate account assets.

45

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

The following describes the valuation methodologies used to measure assets and liabilities at fair value. The description includes the valuation techniques and key inputs for each category of assets or liabilities that are classified within Level 2 and Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy.

Investments

Valuation Controls and Procedures

On behalf of the Company and MetLife, Inc.’s Chief Investment Officer and Chief Financial Officer, a pricing and valuation committee that is independent of the trading and investing functions and comprised of senior management provides oversight of control systems and valuation policies for securities, mortgage loans and derivatives. On a monthly basis, this committee reviews and approves new transaction types and markets, ensures that observable market prices and market-based parameters are used for valuation, wherever possible, and determines that judgmental valuation adjustments, when applied, are based upon established policies and are applied consistently over time. This committee also provides oversight of the selection of independent third party pricing providers and the controls and procedures to evaluate third party pricing. Periodically, the Chief Accounting Officer reports to MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut’s Audit Committee regarding compliance with fair value accounting standards.

The Company reviews its valuation methodologies on an ongoing basis and revises those methodologies when necessary based on changing market conditions. Assurance is gained on the overall reasonableness and consistent application of input assumptions, valuation methodologies and compliance with fair value accounting standards through controls designed to ensure valuations represent an exit price. Several controls are utilized, including certain monthly controls, which include, but are not limited to, analysis of portfolio returns to corresponding benchmark returns, comparing a sample of executed prices of securities sold to the fair value estimates, comparing fair value estimates to management’s knowledge of the current market, reviewing the bid/ask spreads to assess activity, comparing prices from multiple independent pricing services and ongoing due diligence to confirm that independent pricing services use market-based parameters. The process includes a determination of the observability of inputs used in estimated fair values received from independent pricing services or brokers by assessing whether these inputs can be corroborated by observable market data. The Company ensures that prices received from independent brokers, also referred to herein as “consensus pricing,” represent a reasonable estimate of fair value by considering such pricing relative to the Company’s knowledge of the current market dynamics and current pricing for similar financial instruments. While independent non-binding broker quotations are utilized, they are not used for a significant portion of the portfolio. For example, fixed maturity securities priced using independent non-binding broker quotations represent less than 1% of the total estimated fair value of fixed maturity securities and 6% of the total estimated fair value of Level 3 fixed maturity securities.

The Company also applies a formal process to challenge any prices received from independent pricing services that are not considered representative of estimated fair value. If prices received from independent pricing services are not considered reflective of market activity or representative of estimated fair value, independent non-binding broker quotations are obtained, or an internally developed valuation is prepared. Internally developed valuations of current estimated fair value, which reflect internal estimates of liquidity and nonperformance risks, compared with pricing received from the independent pricing services, did not produce material differences in the estimated fair values for the majority of the portfolio; accordingly, overrides were not material. This is, in part, because internal estimates of liquidity and nonperformance risks are generally based on available market evidence and estimates used by other market participants. In the absence of such market-based evidence, management’s best estimate is used.

Securities, Short-term Investments and Long-term Debt of CSEs

When available, the estimated fair value of these financial instruments is based on quoted prices in active markets that are readily and regularly obtainable. Generally, these are the most liquid of the Company’s securities holdings and valuation of these securities does not involve management’s judgment.

46

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

When quoted prices in active markets are not available, the determination of estimated fair value is based on market standard valuation methodologies, giving priority to observable inputs. The significant inputs to the market standard valuation methodologies for certain types of securities with reasonable levels of price transparency are inputs that are observable in the market or can be derived principally from, or corroborated by, observable market data. When observable inputs are not available, the market standard valuation methodologies rely on inputs that are significant to the estimated fair value that are not observable in the market or cannot be derived principally from, or corroborated by, observable market data. These unobservable inputs can be based in large part on management’s judgment or estimation and cannot be supported by reference to market activity. Even though these inputs are unobservable, management believes they are consistent with what other market participants would use when pricing such securities and are considered appropriate given the circumstances.

The estimated fair value of long-term debt of CSEs is determined on a basis consistent with the methodologies described herein for securities.

Level 2 Valuation Techniques and Key Inputs:

This level includes securities priced principally by independent pricing services using observable inputs. FVO securities and short-term investments within this level are of a similar nature and class to the Level 2 fixed maturity securities and equity securities.

U.S. corporate and foreign corporate securities

These securities are principally valued using the market and income approaches. Valuations are based primarily on quoted prices in markets that are not active, or using matrix pricing or other similar techniques that use standard market observable inputs such as benchmark yields, spreads off benchmark yields, new issuances, issuer rating, duration, and trades of identical or comparable securities. Privately-placed securities are valued using matrix pricing methodologies using standard market observable inputs, and inputs derived from, or corroborated by, market observable data including market yield curve, duration, call provisions, observable prices and spreads for similar publicly traded or privately traded issues that incorporate the credit quality and industry sector of the issuer, and in certain cases, delta spread adjustments to reflect specific credit-related issues.

U.S. Treasury and agency securities

These securities are principally valued using the market approach. Valuations are based primarily on quoted prices in markets that are not active, or using matrix pricing or other similar techniques using standard market observable inputs such as a benchmark U.S. Treasury yield curve, the spread off the U.S. Treasury yield curve for the identical security and comparable securities that are actively traded.

Structured securities comprised of RMBS, ABS and CMBS

These securities are principally valued using the market and income approaches. Valuations are based primarily on matrix pricing, discounted cash flow methodologies or other similar techniques using standard market inputs, including spreads for actively traded securities, spreads off benchmark yields, expected prepayment speeds and volumes, current and forecasted loss severity, rating, weighted average coupon, weighted average maturity, average delinquency rates, geographic region, debt-service coverage ratios and issuance-specific information, including, but not limited to: collateral type, payment terms of the underlying assets, payment priority within the tranche, structure of the security, deal performance and vintage of loans.

State and political subdivision and foreign government securities

These securities are principally valued using the market approach. Valuations are based primarily on matrix pricing or other similar techniques using standard market observable inputs including benchmark U.S. Treasury yield or other yields, issuer ratings, broker-dealer quotes, issuer spreads and reported trades of similar securities, including those within the same sub-sector or with a similar maturity or credit rating.

Common and non-redeemable preferred stock

These securities are principally valued using the market approach. Valuations are based principally on observable inputs, including quoted prices in markets that are not considered active.

47

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Level 3 Valuation Techniques and Key Inputs:

In general, securities classified within Level 3 use many of the same valuation techniques and inputs as described previously for Level 2. However, if key inputs are unobservable, or if the investments are less liquid and there is very limited trading activity, the investments are generally classified as Level 3. The use of independent non-binding broker quotations to value investments generally indicates there is a lack of liquidity or a lack of transparency in the process to develop the valuation estimates, generally causing these investments to be classified in Level 3.

Short-term investments within this level are of a similar nature and class to the Level 3 securities described below; accordingly, the valuation techniques and significant market standard observable inputs used in their valuation are also similar to those described below.

U.S. corporate and foreign corporate securities

These securities, including financial services industry hybrid securities classified within fixed maturity securities, are principally valued using the market approach. Valuations are based primarily on matrix pricing or other similar techniques that utilize unobservable inputs or inputs that cannot be derived principally from, or corroborated by, observable market data, including illiquidity premium, delta spread adjustments to reflect specific credit-related issues, credit spreads; and inputs including quoted prices for identical or similar securities that are less liquid and based on lower levels of trading activity than securities classified in Level 2. Certain valuations are based on independent non-binding broker quotations.

Structured securities comprised of RMBS, ABS and CMBS

These securities are principally valued using the market and income approaches. Valuations are based primarily on matrix pricing, discounted cash flow methodologies or other similar techniques that utilize inputs that are unobservable or cannot be derived principally from, or corroborated by, observable market data, including credit spreads. Below investment grade securities and sub-prime RMBS included in this level are valued based on inputs including quoted prices for identical or similar securities that are less liquid and based on lower levels of trading activity than securities classified in Level 2. Certain of these valuations are based on independent non-binding broker quotations.

State and political subdivision and foreign government securities

These securities are principally valued using the market approach. Valuations are based primarily on independent non-binding broker quotations and inputs including quoted prices for identical or similar securities that are less liquid and based on lower levels of trading activity than securities classified in Level 2. Certain valuations are based on matrix pricing that utilize inputs that are unobservable or cannot be derived principally from, or corroborated by, observable market data, including credit spreads.

Common and non-redeemable preferred stock

These securities, including privately-held securities and financial services industry hybrid securities classified within equity securities, are principally valued using the market and income approaches. Valuations are based primarily on matrix pricing, discounted cash flow methodologies or other similar techniques using inputs such as comparable credit rating and issuance structure. Certain of these securities are valued based on inputs including quoted prices for identical or similar securities that are less liquid and based on lower levels of trading activity than securities classified in Level 2 and independent non-binding broker quotations.

Mortgage Loans Held by CSEs

The Company consolidates certain securitization entities that hold mortgage loans.

Level 2 Valuation Techniques and Key Inputs:

These investments are principally valued using the market approach. The principal market for these investments is the securitization market. The Company uses the quoted securitization market price of the obligations of the CSEs to determine the estimated fair value of these commercial loan portfolios. These market prices are determined principally by independent pricing services using observable inputs.

48

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Separate Account Assets

Separate account assets are carried at estimated fair value and reported as a summarized total on the consolidated balance sheets. The estimated fair value of separate account assets is based on the estimated fair value of the underlying assets. Separate account assets include: mutual funds, fixed maturity securities, equity securities, derivatives, other limited partnership interests, short-term investments and cash and cash equivalents.

Level 2 Valuation Techniques and Key Inputs:

These assets are comprised of investments that are similar in nature to the instruments described under “— Securities, Short-term Investments and Long-term Debt of CSEs.” Also included are certain mutual funds without readily determinable fair values, as prices are not published publicly. Valuation of the mutual funds is based upon quoted prices or reported net asset value (“NAV”) provided by the fund managers.

Level 3 Valuation Techniques and Key Inputs:

These assets are comprised of investments that are similar in nature to the instruments described under “— Securities, Short-term Investments and Long-term Debt of CSEs.” Also included are other limited partnership interests, which are valued giving consideration to the value of the underlying holdings of the partnerships and by applying a premium or discount, if appropriate, for factors such as liquidity, bid/ask spreads, the performance record of the fund manager or other relevant variables that may impact the exit value of the particular partnership interest.

Derivatives

The estimated fair value of derivatives is determined through the use of quoted market prices for exchange-traded derivatives, or through the use of pricing models for OTC-bilateral and OTC-cleared derivatives. The determination of estimated fair value, when quoted market values are not available, is based on market standard valuation methodologies and inputs that management believes are consistent with what other market participants would use when pricing such instruments. Derivative valuations can be affected by changes in interest rates, foreign currency exchange rates, financial indices, credit spreads, default risk, nonperformance risk, volatility, liquidity and changes in estimates and assumptions used in the pricing models. The valuation controls and procedures for derivatives are described in “— Investments.”

The significant inputs to the pricing models for most OTC-bilateral and OTC-cleared derivatives are inputs that are observable in the market or can be derived principally from, or corroborated by, observable market data. Significant inputs that are observable generally include: interest rates, foreign currency exchange rates, interest rate curves, credit curves and volatility. However, certain OTC-bilateral and OTC-cleared derivatives may rely on inputs that are significant to the estimated fair value that are not observable in the market or cannot be derived principally from, or corroborated by, observable market data. Significant inputs that are unobservable generally include references to emerging market currencies and inputs that are outside the observable portion of the interest rate curve, credit curve, volatility or other relevant market measure. These unobservable inputs may involve significant management judgment or estimation. Even though unobservable, these inputs are based on assumptions deemed appropriate given the circumstances and management believes they are consistent with what other market participants would use when pricing such instruments.

Most inputs for OTC-bilateral and OTC-cleared derivatives are mid-market inputs but, in certain cases, liquidity adjustments are made when they are deemed more representative of exit value. Market liquidity, as well as the use of different methodologies, assumptions and inputs, may have a material effect on the estimated fair values of the Company’s derivatives and could materially affect net income.

The credit risk of both the counterparty and the Company are considered in determining the estimated fair value for all OTC-bilateral and OTC-cleared derivatives, and any potential credit adjustment is based on the net exposure by counterparty after taking into account the effects of netting agreements and collateral arrangements. The Company values its OTC-bilateral and OTC-cleared derivatives using standard swap curves which may include a spread to the risk free rate, depending upon specific collateral arrangements. This credit spread is appropriate for those parties that execute trades at pricing levels consistent with similar collateral arrangements. As the Company and its significant derivative counterparties generally execute trades at such pricing levels and hold sufficient collateral, additional credit risk adjustments are not currently required in the valuation process. The Company’s ability to consistently execute at such pricing levels is in part due to the netting agreements and collateral arrangements that are in place with all of its significant derivative counterparties. An evaluation of the requirement to make additional credit risk adjustments is performed by the Company each reporting period.

49

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Freestanding Derivatives

Level 2 Valuation Techniques and Key Inputs:

This level includes all types of derivatives utilized by the Company with the exception of exchange-traded derivatives included within Level 1 and those derivatives with unobservable inputs as described in Level 3. These derivatives are principally valued using the income approach.

Interest rate

Non-option-based. Valuations are based on present value techniques, which utilize significant inputs that may include the swap yield curve and basis curves.

Option-based. Valuations are based on option pricing models, which utilize significant inputs that may include the swap yield curve, basis curves and interest rate volatility.

Foreign currency exchange rate

Non-option-based. Valuations are based on present value techniques, which utilize significant inputs that may include the swap yield curve, basis curves, currency spot rates and cross currency basis curves.

Credit

Non-option-based. Valuations are based on present value techniques, which utilize significant inputs that may include the swap yield curve, credit curves and recovery rates.

Equity market

Non-option-based. Valuations are based on present value techniques, which utilize significant inputs that may include the swap yield curve, spot equity index levels and dividend yield curves.

Option-based. Valuations are based on option pricing models, which utilize significant inputs that may include the swap yield curve, spot equity index levels, dividend yield curves and equity volatility.

Level 3 Valuation Techniques and Key Inputs:

These derivatives are principally valued using the income approach. Valuations of non-option-based derivatives utilize present value techniques, whereas valuations of option-based derivatives utilize option pricing models. These valuation methodologies generally use the same inputs as described in the corresponding sections above for Level 2 measurements of derivatives. However, these derivatives result in Level 3 classification because one or more of the significant inputs are not observable in the market or cannot be derived principally from, or corroborated by, observable market data.

Interest rate

Non-option-based. Significant unobservable inputs may include the extrapolation beyond observable limits of the swap yield curve and basis curves.

Credit

Non-option-based. Significant unobservable inputs may include credit spreads, repurchase rates and the extrapolation beyond observable limits of the swap yield curve and credit curves. Certain of these derivatives are valued based on independent non-binding broker quotations.

Equity market

Non-option-based. Significant unobservable inputs may include the extrapolation beyond observable limits of dividend yield curves and equity volatility.

50

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Embedded Derivatives

Embedded derivatives principally include certain direct, assumed and ceded variable annuity guarantees and embedded derivatives related to funds withheld on ceded reinsurance. Embedded derivatives are recorded at estimated fair value with changes in estimated fair value reported in net income.

The Company issues certain variable annuity products with guaranteed minimum benefits. GMWBs, GMABs and GMIBs contain embedded derivatives, which are measured at estimated fair value separately from the host variable annuity contract, with changes in estimated fair value reported in net derivative gains (losses). These embedded derivatives are classified within PABs in the consolidated balance sheets.

The fair value of these embedded derivatives, estimated as the present value of projected future benefits minus the present value of projected future fees using actuarial and capital market assumptions including expectations concerning policyholder behavior, is calculated by the Company’s actuarial department. The calculation is based on in-force business, and is performed using standard actuarial valuation software which projects future cash flows from the embedded derivative over multiple risk neutral stochastic scenarios using observable risk free rates.

Capital market assumptions, such as risk free rates and implied volatilities, are based on market prices for publicly traded instruments to the extent that prices for such instruments are observable. Implied volatilities beyond the observable period are extrapolated based on observable implied volatilities and historical volatilities. Actuarial assumptions, including mortality, lapse, withdrawal and utilization, are unobservable and are reviewed at least annually based on actuarial studies of historical experience.

The valuation of these guarantee liabilities includes nonperformance risk adjustments and adjustments for a risk margin related to non-capital market inputs. The nonperformance adjustment is determined by taking into consideration publicly available information relating to spreads in the secondary market for MetLife’s debt, including related credit default swaps. These observable spreads are then adjusted, as necessary, to reflect the priority of these liabilities and the claims paying ability of the issuing insurance subsidiaries compared to MetLife.

Risk margins are established to capture the non-capital market risks of the instrument which represent the additional compensation a market participant would require to assume the risks related to the uncertainties of such actuarial assumptions as annuitization, premium persistency, partial withdrawal and surrenders. The establishment of risk margins requires the use of significant management judgment, including assumptions of the amount and cost of capital needed to cover the guarantees. These guarantees may be more costly than expected in volatile or declining equity markets. Market conditions including, but not limited to, changes in interest rates, equity indices, market volatility and foreign currency exchange rates; changes in nonperformance risk; and variations in actuarial assumptions regarding policyholder behavior, mortality and risk margins related to non-capital market inputs, may result in significant fluctuations in the estimated fair value of the guarantees that could materially affect net income.

The Company assumed, from an affiliated insurance company, the risk associated with certain GMIBs. These embedded derivatives are included in other policy-related balances in the consolidated balance sheets with changes in estimated fair value reported in net derivative gains (losses). The value of the embedded derivatives on these assumed risks is determined using a methodology consistent with that described previously for the guarantees directly written by the Company.

The Company ceded, to an affiliated reinsurance company, the risk associated with certain of the GMIBs, GMABs and GMWBs described above that are also accounted for as embedded derivatives. In addition to ceding risks associated with guarantees that are accounted for as embedded derivatives, the Company also cedes, to the same affiliated reinsurance company, certain directly written GMIBs that are accounted for as insurance (i.e., not as embedded derivatives), but where the reinsurance agreement contains an embedded derivative. These embedded derivatives are included within premiums, reinsurance and other receivables in the consolidated balance sheets with changes in estimated fair value reported in net derivative gains (losses). The value of the embedded derivatives on the ceded risk is determined using a methodology consistent with that described previously for the guarantees directly written by the Company with the exception of the input for nonperformance risk that reflects the credit of the reinsurer.

51

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

The estimated fair value of the embedded derivatives within funds withheld related to certain ceded reinsurance is determined based on the change in estimated fair value of the underlying assets held by the Company in a reference portfolio backing the funds withheld liability. The estimated fair value of the underlying assets is determined as previously described in “— Investments — Securities, Short-term Investments and Long-term Debt of CSEs.” The estimated fair value of these embedded derivatives is included, along with their funds withheld hosts, in other liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets with changes in estimated fair value recorded in net derivative gains (losses). Changes in the credit spreads on the underlying assets, interest rates and market volatility may result in significant fluctuations in the estimated fair value of these embedded derivatives that could materially affect net income.

Embedded Derivatives Within Asset and Liability Host Contracts

Level 3 Valuation Techniques and Key Inputs:

Direct and assumed guaranteed minimum benefits

These embedded derivatives are principally valued using the income approach. Valuations are based on option pricing techniques, which utilize significant inputs that may include swap yield curve, currency exchange rates and implied volatilities. These embedded derivatives result in Level 3 classification because one or more of the significant inputs are not observable in the market or cannot be derived principally from, or corroborated by, observable market data. Significant unobservable inputs generally include: the extrapolation beyond observable limits of the swap yield curve and implied volatilities, actuarial assumptions for policyholder behavior and mortality and the potential variability in policyholder behavior and mortality, nonperformance risk and cost of capital for purposes of calculating the risk margin.

Reinsurance ceded on certain guaranteed minimum benefits

These embedded derivatives are principally valued using the income approach. The valuation techniques and significant market standard unobservable inputs used in their valuation are similar to those described above in “— Direct and Assumed Guaranteed Minimum Benefits” and also include counterparty credit spreads.

Transfers between Levels

Overall, transfers between levels occur when there are changes in the observability of inputs and market activity. Transfers into or out of any level are assumed to occur at the beginning of the period.

Transfers between Levels 1 and 2:

For assets and liabilities measured at estimated fair value and still held at both September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, transfers between Levels 1 and 2 were not significant.

Transfers into or out of Level 3:

Assets and liabilities are transferred into Level 3 when a significant input cannot be corroborated with market observable data. This occurs when market activity decreases significantly and underlying inputs cannot be observed, current prices are not available, and/or when there are significant variances in quoted prices, thereby affecting transparency. Assets and liabilities are transferred out of Level 3 when circumstances change such that a significant input can be corroborated with market observable data. This may be due to a significant increase in market activity, a specific event, or one or more significant input(s) becoming observable.

Transfers into Level 3 for fixed maturity securities were due primarily to a lack of trading activity, decreased liquidity and credit ratings downgrades (e.g., from investment grade to below investment grade) which have resulted in decreased transparency of valuations and an increased use of independent non-binding broker quotations and unobservable inputs, such as illiquidity premiums, delta spread adjustments, or credit spreads.

Transfers out of Level 3 for fixed maturity securities resulted primarily from increased transparency of both new issuances that, subsequent to issuance and establishment of trading activity, became priced by independent pricing services and existing issuances that, over time, the Company was able to obtain pricing from, or corroborate pricing received from, independent pricing services with observable inputs (such as observable spreads used in pricing securities) or increases in market activity and upgraded credit ratings.

52

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Assets and Liabilities Measured at Fair Value Using Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)

The following table presents certain quantitative information about the significant unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, and the sensitivity of the estimated fair value to changes in those inputs, for the more significant asset and liability classes measured at fair value on a recurring basis using significant unobservable inputs (Level 3) at:

					September 30, 2013				December 31, 2012				Impact of Increase in Input on Estimated Fair Value (2)
	Valuation Techniques		Significant Unobservable Inputs		Range			Weighted Average (1)	Range			Weighted Average (1)
Fixed maturity securities: (3)
U.S. corporate and foreign corporate	Ÿ	Matrix pricing	Ÿ	Delta spread adjustments (4)	—	-	240	72	9	-	500	105	Decrease
			Ÿ	Illiquidity premium (4)	30	-	30	30	30	-	30	30	Decrease
			Ÿ	Credit spreads (4)	(491)	-	505	241	(157)	-	876	282	Decrease
			Ÿ	Offered quotes (5)	14	-	100	99	100	-	100	100	Increase
	Ÿ	Consensus pricing	Ÿ	Offered quotes (5)	64	-	103	87	35	-	555	96	Increase
RMBS		Matrix pricing and discounted cash flow	Ÿ	Credit spreads (4)	(205)	-	1,243	290	40	-	2,367	436	Decrease (6)
	Ÿ	Market pricing	Ÿ	Quoted prices (5)	75	-	100	98	100	-	100	100	Increase (6)
CMBS	Ÿ	Matrix pricing and discounted cash flow	Ÿ	Credit spreads (4)	130	-	2,515	945	10	-	9,164	413	Decrease (6)
	Ÿ	Market pricing	Ÿ	Quoted prices (5)	98	-	104	101	100	-	104	102	Increase (6)
	Ÿ	Consensus pricing	Ÿ	Offered quotes (5)	96	-	96	96					Increase (6)
ABS	Ÿ	Matrix pricing and discounted cash flow	Ÿ	Credit spreads (4)	30	-	875	258	—	-	900	152	Decrease (6)
	Ÿ	Market pricing	Ÿ	Quoted prices (5)	—	-	104	101	97	-	102	100	Increase (6)
	Ÿ	Consensus pricing	Ÿ	Offered quotes (5)	54	-	106	95	50	-	111	100	Increase (6)
Derivatives:
Interest rate	Ÿ	Present value techniques	Ÿ	Swap yield (7)	247	-	427		221	-	353		Increase (11)
Credit	Ÿ	Present value techniques	Ÿ	Credit spreads (8)	99	-	99		100	-	100		Decrease (8)
	Ÿ	Consensus pricing	Ÿ	Offered quotes (9)
Equity market	Ÿ	Present value techniques	Ÿ	Volatility (10)	16%	-	25%		18%	-	26%		Increase (11)
Embedded derivatives:
Direct and ceded guaranteed minimum benefits	Ÿ	Option pricing techniques	Ÿ	Mortality rates:
				Ages 0 - 40	0%	-	0.10%		0%	-	0.10%		Decrease (12)
				Ages 41 - 60	0.04%	-	0.65%		0.05%	-	0.64%		Decrease (12)
				Ages 61 - 115	0.26%	-	100%		0.32%	-	100%		Decrease (12)
			Ÿ	Lapse rates:
				Durations 1 - 10	0.50%	-	100%		0.50%	-	100%		Decrease (13)
				Durations 11 - 20	3%	-	100%		3%	-	100%		Decrease (13)
				Durations 21 - 116	3%	-	100%		3%	-	100%		Decrease (13)
			Ÿ	Utilization rates	20%	-	50%		20%	-	50%		Increase (14)
			Ÿ	Withdrawal rates	0.07%	-	10%		0.07%	-	10%		(15)
			Ÿ	Long-term equity volatilities	17.40%	-	25%		17.40%	-	25%		Increase (16)
			Ÿ	Nonperformance risk spread	0.05%	-	0.55%		0.10%	-	0.67%		Decrease (17)

____________

(1) The weighted average for fixed maturity securities is determined based on the estimated fair value of the securities.

(2) The impact of a decrease in input would have the opposite impact on the estimated fair value. For embedded derivatives, changes to direct guaranteed minimum benefits are based on liability positions and changes to ceded guaranteed minimum benefits are based on asset positions.

(3) Significant increases (decreases) in expected default rates in isolation would result in substantially lower (higher) valuations.

(4) Range and weighted average are presented in basis points.

(5) Range and weighted average are presented in accordance with the market convention for fixed maturity securities of dollars per hundred dollars of par.

(6) Changes in the assumptions used for the probability of default is accompanied by a directionally similar change in the assumption used for the loss severity and a directionally opposite change in the assumptions used for prepayment rates.

53

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

(7) Ranges represent the rates across different yield curves and are presented in basis points. The swap yield curve is utilized among different types of derivatives to project cash flows, as well as to discount future cash flows to present value. Since this valuation methodology uses a range of inputs across a yield curve to value the derivative, presenting a range is more representative of the unobservable input used in the valuation.

(8) Represents the risk quoted in basis points of a credit default event on the underlying instrument. The range being provided is a single quoted spread in the valuation model. Credit derivatives with significant unobservable inputs are primarily comprised of written credit default swaps.

(9) At both September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, independent non-binding broker quotations were used in the determination of less than 1% of the total net derivative estimated fair value.

(10) Ranges represent the underlying equity volatility quoted in percentage points. Since this valuation methodology uses a range of inputs across multiple volatility surfaces to value the derivative, presenting a range is more representative of the unobservable input used in the valuation.

(11) Changes are based on long U.S. dollar net asset positions and will be inversely impacted for short U.S. dollar net asset positions.

(12) Mortality rates vary by age and by demographic characteristics such as gender. Mortality rate assumptions are based on company experience. A mortality improvement assumption is also applied. For any given contract, mortality rates vary throughout the period over which cash flows are projected for purposes of valuing the embedded derivative.

(13) Base lapse rates are adjusted at the contract level based on a comparison of the actuarially calculated guaranteed values and the current policyholder account value, as well as other factors, such as the applicability of any surrender charges. A dynamic lapse function reduces the base lapse rate when the guaranteed amount is greater than the account value as in the money contracts are less likely to lapse. Lapse rates are also generally assumed to be lower in periods when a surrender charge applies. For any given contract, lapse rates vary throughout the period over which cash flows are projected for purposes of valuing the embedded derivative.

(14) The utilization rate assumption estimates the percentage of contract holders with a GMIB or lifetime withdrawal benefit who will elect to utilize the benefit upon becoming eligible. The rates may vary by the type of guarantee, the amount by which the guaranteed amount is greater than the account value, the contract’s withdrawal history and by the age of the policyholder. For any given contract, utilization rates vary throughout the period over which cash flows are projected for purposes of valuing the embedded derivative.

(15) The withdrawal rate represents the percentage of account balance that any given policyholder will elect to withdraw from the contract each year. The withdrawal rate assumption varies by age and duration of the contract, and also by other factors such as benefit type. For any given contract, withdrawal rates vary throughout the period over which cash flows are projected for purposes of valuing the embedded derivative. For GMWBs, any increase (decrease) in withdrawal rates results in an increase (decrease) in the estimated fair value of the guarantees. For GMABs and GMIBs, any increase (decrease) in withdrawal rates results in a decrease (increase) in the estimated fair value.

(16) Long-term equity volatilities represent equity volatility beyond the period for which observable equity volatilities are available. For any given contract, long-term equity volatility rates vary throughout the period over which cash flows are projected for purposes of valuing the embedded derivative.

(17) Nonperformance risk spread varies by duration and by currency. For any given contract, multiple nonperformance risk spreads will apply, depending on the duration of the cash flow being discounted for purposes of valuing the embedded derivative.

54

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

The following is a summary of the valuation techniques and significant unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement of assets and liabilities classified within Level 3 that are not included in the preceding table. Generally, all other classes of securities classified within Level 3, including those within separate account assets and embedded derivatives within funds withheld related to certain ceded reinsurance, use the same valuation techniques and significant unobservable inputs as previously described for Level 3 securities. This includes matrix pricing and discounted cash flow methodologies, inputs such as quoted prices for identical or similar securities that are less liquid and based on lower levels of trading activity than securities classified in Level 2, as well as independent non-binding broker quotations. The sensitivity of the estimated fair value to changes in the significant unobservable inputs for these other assets and liabilities is similar in nature to that described in the preceding table. The valuation techniques and significant unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement for the more significant assets measured at estimated fair value on a nonrecurring basis and determined using significant unobservable inputs (Level 3) are summarized in “— Nonrecurring Fair Value Measurements.”

The following tables summarize the change of all assets and (liabilities) measured at estimated fair value on a recurring basis using significant unobservable inputs (Level 3):

	Fair Value Measurements Using Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)
	Fixed Maturity Securities:
	U.S. Corporate			Foreign Corporate			RMBS			ABS			State and Political Subdivision			CMBS			Foreign Government
	(In millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2013:
Balance, beginning of period	$	1,169		$	813		$	352		$	423		$	6		$	66		$	2
Total realized/unrealized gains (losses)
included in:
Net income (loss): (1), (2)
Net investment income	2			—			1			—			—			—			—
Net investment gains (losses)	—			(3		)	(1		)	2			—			—			—
Net derivative gains (losses)	—			—			—			—			—			—			—
OCI	(7		)	12			(2		)	(2		)	—			—			—
Purchases (3)	20			—			81			37			—			18			—
Sales (3)	(56		)	(29		)	(15		)	(34		)	(1		)	(7		)	(2		)
Issuances (3)	—			—			—			—			—			—			—
Settlements (3)	—			—			—			—			—			—			—
Transfers into Level 3 (4)	—			11			—			—			—			—			—
Transfers out of Level 3 (4)	(47		)	(42		)	(23		)	(16		)	—			(11		)	—
Balance, end of period	$	1,081		$	762		$	393		$	410		$	5		$	66		$	—
Changes in unrealized gains (losses)
included in net income (loss): (5)
Net investment income	$	2		$	—		$	1		$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—
Net investment gains (losses)	$	—		$	(3	)	$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—
Net derivative gains (losses)	$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—

55

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

	Fair Value Measurements Using Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)
	Equity Securities:								Net Derivatives: (6)
	Non - redeemable Preferred Stock			Common Stock			Short-term Investments		Interest Rate			Credit		Equity Market			Net Embedded Derivatives (7)			Separate Account Assets (8)
	(In millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2013:
Balance, beginning of period	$	81		$	30		$	2	$	47		$	6	$	(84	)	$	2,453		$	140
Total realized/unrealized gains (losses)
included in:
Net income (loss): (1), (2)
Net investment income	—			—			—		—			—		—			—			—
Net investment gains (losses)	—			2			—		—			—		—			—			(1		)
Net derivative gains (losses)	—			—			—		3			1		(8		)	(20		)	—
OCI	2			—			—		(13		)	—		—			—			—
Purchases (3)	2			—			—		—			—		—			—			1
Sales (3)	(8		)	(4		)	—		—			—		—			—			—
Issuances (3)	—			—			—		—			—		—			—			—
Settlements (3)	—			—			—		(2		)	—		—			(30		)	—
Transfers into Level 3 (4)	—			—			—		—			—		—			—			—
Transfers out of Level 3 (4)	—			—			—		—			—		—			—			—
Balance, end of period	$	77		$	28		$	2	$	35		$	7	$	(92	)	$	2,403		$	140
Changes in unrealized gains (losses)
included in net income (loss): (5)
Net investment income	$	—		$	—		$	—	$	—		$	—	$	—		$	—		$	—
Net investment gains (losses)	$	—		$	—		$	—	$	—		$	—	$	—		$	—		$	—
Net derivative gains (losses)	$	—		$	—		$	—	$	5		$	1	$	(10	)	$	(14	)	$	—

56

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

	Fair Value Measurements Using Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)
	Fixed Maturity Securities:
	U.S. Corporate			Foreign Corporate			RMBS			ABS			State and Political Subdivision		CMBS			Foreign Government
	(In millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2012:
Balance, beginning of period	$	1,522		$	698		$	233		$	289		$	25	$	158		$	2
Total realized/unrealized gains (losses)
included in:
Net income (loss): (1), (2)
Net investment income	2			—			—			—			—		—			—
Net investment gains (losses)	—			(14		)	(1		)	—			—		—			—
Net derivative gains (losses)	—			—			—			—			—		—			—
OCI	73			19			16			4			—		(1		)	—
Purchases (3)	56			26			27			7			—		32			—
Sales (3)	(45		)	(26		)	(24		)	(3		)	—		(37		)	—
Issuances (3)	—			—			—			—			—		—			—
Settlements (3)	—			—			—			—			—		—			—
Transfers into Level 3 (4)	2			40			1			—			—		22			—
Transfers out of Level 3 (4)	(38		)	(8		)	—			(4		)	—		(15		)	—
Balance, end of period	$	1,572		$	735		$	252		$	293		$	25	$	159		$	2
Changes in unrealized gains (losses)
included in net income (loss): (5)
Net investment income	$	2		$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—	$	—		$	—
Net investment gains (losses)	$	—		$	(10	)	$	—		$	—		$	—	$	—		$	—
Net derivative gains (losses)	$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—	$	—		$	—

57

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

	Fair Value Measurements Using Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)
	Equity Securities:								Net Derivatives: (6)
	Non- redeemable Preferred Stock		Common Stock			Short-term Investments			Interest Rate			Credit		Equity Market			Net Embedded Derivatives (7)			Separate Account Assets (8)
	(In millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2012:
Balance, beginning of period	$	91	$	22		$	22		$	169		$	6	$	(6	)	$	1,214		$	149
Total realized/unrealized gains (losses)
included in:
Net income (loss): (1), (2)
Net investment income	—		—			—			—			—		—			—			—
Net investment gains (losses)	—		1			—			—			—		—			—			—
Net derivative gains (losses)	—		—			—			(6		)	4		(25		)	95			—
OCI	1		1			—			(6		)	—		—			—			—
Purchases (3)	—		—			45			—			—		—			—			4
Sales (3)	—		(1		)	(1		)	—			—		—			—			(3		)
Issuances (3)	—		—			—			(10		)	—		—			—			—
Settlements (3)	—		—			—			(5		)	—		—			(10		)	—
Transfers into Level 3 (4)	—		—			—			—			—		—			—			—
Transfers out of Level 3 (4)	—		—			—			—			—		—			—			(2		)
Balance, end of period	$	92	$	23		$	66		$	142		$	10	$	(31	)	$	1,299		$	148
Changes in unrealized gains (losses)
included in net income (loss): (5)
Net investment income	$	—	$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—	$	—		$	—		$	—
Net investment gains (losses)	$	—	$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—	$	—		$	—		$	—
Net derivative gains (losses)	$	—	$	—		$	—		$	(4	)	$	4	$	(25	)	$	97		$	—

58

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

	Fair Value Measurements Using Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)
	Fixed Maturity Securities:
	U.S. Corporate			Foreign Corporate			RMBS			ABS			State and Political Subdivision			CMBS			Foreign Government
	(In millions)
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2013:
Balance, beginning of period	$	1,434		$	868		$	278		$	343		$	25		$	125		$	3
Total realized/unrealized gains (losses)
included in:
Net income (loss): (1), (2)
Net investment income	7			—			—			1			—			1			—
Net investment gains (losses)	(3		)	(7		)	—			2			—			—			—
Net derivative gains (losses)	—			—			—			—			—			—			—
OCI	(21		)	(10		)	7			(3		)	—			2			(1		)
Purchases (3)	109			56			141			136			—			24			—
Sales (3)	(192		)	(83		)	(37		)	(41		)	(1		)	(60		)	(2		)
Issuances (3)	—			—			—			—			—			—			—
Settlements (3)	—			—			—			—			—			—			—
Transfers into Level 3 (4)	49			15			8			—			—			—			—
Transfers out of Level 3 (4)	(302		)	(77		)	(4		)	(28		)	(19		)	(26		)	—
Balance, end of period	$	1,081		$	762		$	393		$	410		$	5		$	66		$	—
Changes in unrealized gains (losses)
included in net income (loss): (5)
Net investment income	$	7		$	—		$	—		$	1		$	—		$	—		$	—
Net investment gains (losses)	$	—		$	(3	)	$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—
Net derivative gains (losses)	$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—

59

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

	Fair Value Measurements Using Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)
	Equity Securities:									Net Derivatives: (6)
	Non- redeemable Preferred Stock			Common Stock			Short-term Investments			Interest Rate			Credit			Equity Market			Net Embedded Derivatives (7)			Separate Account Assets (8)
	(In millions)
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2013:
Balance, beginning of period	$	93		$	26		$	13		$	119		$	10		$	(51	)	$	2,290		$	141
Total realized/unrealized gains (losses)
included in:
Net income (loss): (1), (2)
Net investment income	—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—
Net investment gains (losses)	4			2			—			—			—			—			—			(1		)
Net derivative gains (losses)	—			—			—			(21		)	(3		)	(34		)	153			—
OCI	9			1			—			(47		)	—			—			—			—
Purchases (3)	2			3			2			—			—			—			—			3
Sales (3)	(31		)	(4		)	(13		)	—			—			—			—			(3		)
Issuances (3)	—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—
Settlements (3)	—			—			—			(17		)	—			(7		)	(40		)	—
Transfers into Level 3 (4)	—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—
Transfers out of Level 3 (4)	—			—			—			1			—			—			—			—
Balance, end of period	$	77		$	28		$	2		$	35		$	7		$	(92	)	$	2,403		$	140
Changes in unrealized gains (losses)
included in net income (loss): (5)
Net investment income	$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—
Net investment gains (losses)	$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—
Net derivative gains (losses)	$	—		$	—		$	—		$	(14	)	$	(3	)	$	(34	)	$	172		$	—

60

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

	Fair Value Measurements Using Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)
	Fixed Maturity Securities:
	U.S. Corporate			Foreign Corporate			RMBS			ABS			State and Political Subdivision		CMBS			Foreign Government
	(In millions)
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2012:
Balance, beginning of period	$	1,432		$	580		$	239		$	220		$	23	$	147		$	2
Total realized/unrealized gains (losses)
included in:
Net income (loss): (1), (2)
Net investment income	5			—			—			—			—		—			—
Net investment gains (losses)	—			(22		)	(4		)	—			—		(2		)	—
Net derivative gains (losses)	—			—			—			—			—		—			—
OCI	70			39			32			5			2		5			—
Purchases (3)	143			100			27			98			—		33			—
Sales (3)	(98		)	(41		)	(46		)	(12		)	—		(52		)	—
Issuances (3)	—			—			—			—			—		—			—
Settlements (3)	—			—			—			—			—		—			—
Transfers into Level 3 (4)	26			93			4			—			—		28			—
Transfers out of Level 3 (4)	(6		)	(14		)	—			(18		)	—		—			—
Balance, end of period	$	1,572		$	735		$	252		$	293		$	25	$	159		$	2
Changes in unrealized gains (losses)
included in net income (loss): (5)
Net investment income	$	5		$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—	$	—		$	—
Net investment gains (losses)	$	—		$	(16	)	$	(2	)	$	—		$	—	$	—		$	—
Net derivative gains (losses)	$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—	$	—		$	—

61

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

	Fair Value Measurements Using Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)
	Equity Securities:								Net Derivatives: (6)
	Non- redeemable Preferred Stock		Common Stock			Short-term Investments			Interest Rate			Credit			Equity Market			Net Embedded Derivatives (7)			Separate Account Assets (8)
	(In millions)
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2012:
Balance, beginning of period	$	76	$	21		$	10		$	174		$	(1	)	$	43		$	1,032		$	130
Total realized/unrealized gains (losses)
included in:
Net income (loss): (1), (2)
Net investment income	—		—			—			—			—			—			—			—
Net investment gains (losses)	—		(2		)	—			—			—			—			—			19
Net derivative gains (losses)	—		—			—			3			10			(74		)	276			—
OCI	16		5			—			9			—			—			—			—
Purchases (3)	—		—			66			—			—			—			—			4
Sales (3)	—		(1		)	(10		)	—			—			—			—			(4		)
Issuances (3)	—		—			—			(10		)	—			—			—			—
Settlements (3)	—		—			—			(34		)	—			—			(9		)	—
Transfers into Level 3 (4)	—		—			—			—			—			—			—			—
Transfers out of Level 3 (4)	—		—			—			—			1			—			—			(1		)
Balance, end of period	$	92	$	23		$	66		$	142		$	10		$	(31	)	$	1,299		$	148
Changes in unrealized gains (losses)
included in net income (loss): (5)
Net investment income	$	—	$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—
Net investment gains (losses)	$	—	$	(3	)	$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—
Net derivative gains (losses)	$	—	$	—		$	—		$	4		$	10		$	(74	)	$	283		$	—

____________

(1) Amortization of premium/accretion of discount is included within net investment income. Impairments charged to net income (loss) on securities are included in net investment gains (losses). Lapses associated with net embedded derivatives are included in net derivative gains (losses).

(2) Interest and dividend accruals, as well as cash interest coupons and dividends received, are excluded from the rollforward.

(3) Items purchased/issued and then sold/settled in the same period are excluded from the rollforward. Fees attributed to embedded derivatives are included in settlements.

(4) Gains and losses, in net income (loss) and OCI, are calculated assuming transfers into and/or out of Level 3 occurred at the beginning of the period. Items transferred into and then out of Level 3 in the same period are excluded from the rollforward.

(5) Changes in unrealized gains (losses) included in net income (loss) relate to assets and liabilities still held at the end of the respective periods.

(6) Freestanding derivative assets and liabilities are presented net for purposes of the rollforward.

(7) Embedded derivative assets and liabilities are presented net for purposes of the rollforward.

(8) Investment performance related to separate account assets is fully offset by corresponding amounts credited to contractholders within separate account liabilities. Therefore, such changes in estimated fair value are not recorded in net income. For the purpose of this disclosure, these changes are presented within net investment gains (losses).

62

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Fair Value Option

The following table presents information for certain assets and liabilities of CSEs, which are accounted for under the FVO. These assets and liabilities were initially measured at fair value.

	September 30, 2013		December 31, 2012
	(In millions)
Assets: (1)
Unpaid principal balance	$	2,020	$	2,539
Difference between estimated fair value and unpaid principal balance	76		127
Carrying value at estimated fair value	$	2,096	$	2,666
Liabilities: (1)
Contractual principal balance	$	1,925	$	2,444
Difference between estimated fair value and contractual principal balance	44		115
Carrying value at estimated fair value	$	1,969	$	2,559

____________

(1) These assets and liabilities are comprised of commercial mortgage loans and long-term debt. Changes in estimated fair value on these assets and liabilities and gains or losses on sales of these assets are recognized in net investment gains (losses). Interest income on commercial mortgage loans held by CSEs is recognized in net investment income. Interest expense from long-term debt of CSEs is recognized in other expenses.

Nonrecurring Fair Value Measurements

The following table presents information for assets measured at estimated fair value on a nonrecurring basis during the periods and still held at the reporting dates; that is, they are not measured at fair value on a recurring basis but are subject to fair value adjustments only in certain circumstances (for example, when there is evidence of impairment). The estimated fair values for these assets were determined using significant unobservable inputs (Level 3).

	At September 30,				Three Months   Ended   September 30,						Nine Months   Ended   September 30,
	2013		2012		2013			2012			2013			2012
	Carrying Value After Measurement				Gains (Losses)
	(In millions)
Mortgage loans, net (1)	$	18	$	12	$	—		$	—		$	(3	)	$	4
Other limited partnership interests (2)	$	4	$	4	$	—		$	(1	)	$	(5	)	$	(3	)
Real estate joint ventures (3)	$	1	$	2	$	—		$	—		$	(1	)	$	(3	)
Goodwill (4)	$	—	$	—	$	(66	)	$	(394	)	$	(66	)	$	(394	)

____________

(1) Estimated fair values for impaired mortgage loans are based on independent broker quotations or valuation models using unobservable inputs or, if the loans are in foreclosure or are otherwise determined to be collateral dependent, are based on the estimated fair value of the underlying collateral or the present value of the expected future cash flows.

(2) For these cost method investments, estimated fair value is determined from information provided in the financial statements of the underlying entities including NAV data. These investments include private equity and debt funds that typically invest primarily in various strategies including domestic and international leveraged buyout funds; power, energy, timber and infrastructure development funds; venture capital funds; and below investment grade debt and mezzanine debt funds. Distributions will be generated from investment gains, from operating income from the underlying investments of the funds and from liquidation of the underlying assets of the funds. It is estimated that the underlying assets of the funds will be liquidated over the next two to 10 years. Unfunded commitments for these investments at both September 30, 2013 and 2012 were not significant.

63

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

(3) For these cost method investments, estimated fair value is determined from information provided in the financial statements of the underlying entities including NAV data. These investments include several real estate funds that typically invest primarily in commercial real estate. Distributions will be generated from investment gains, from operating income from the underlying investments of the funds and from liquidation of the underlying assets of the funds. It is estimated that the underlying assets of the funds will be liquidated over the next one to 10 years. Unfunded commitments for these investments at both September 30, 2013 and 2012 were not significant.

(4) As discussed in Note 7, in September 2013, the Company recorded an impairment of goodwill associated with the Retail Life & Other reporting unit. Also, as discussed in Note 10 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in the 2012 Annual Report, the Company recorded an impairment of goodwill associated with the Retail Annuities reporting unit. These impairments have been categorized as Level 3 due to the significant unobservable inputs used in the determination of the estimated fair value.

Fair Value of Financial Instruments Carried at Other Than Fair Value

The following tables provide fair value information for financial instruments that are carried on the balance sheet at amounts other than fair value. These tables exclude the following financial instruments: cash and cash equivalents, accrued investment income, payables for collateral under securities loaned and other transactions and those short-term investments that are not securities, such as time deposits, and therefore are not included in the three level hierarchy table disclosed in the “— Recurring Fair Value Measurements” section. The estimated fair value of the excluded financial instruments, which are primarily classified in Level 2 and, to a lesser extent, in Level 1, approximates carrying value as they are short-term in nature such that the Company believes there is minimal risk of material changes in interest rates or credit quality. All remaining balance sheet amounts excluded from the table below are not considered financial instruments subject to this disclosure.

The carrying values and estimated fair values for such financial instruments, and their corresponding placement in the fair value hierarchy, are summarized as follows at:

	September 30, 2013
			Fair Value Hierarchy
	Carrying Value		Level 1		Level 2		Level 3			Total Estimated Fair Value
	(In millions)
Assets:
Mortgage loans:
Held-for-investment	$	6,390	$	—	$	—	$	6,752		$	6,752
Held-for-sale	63		—		—		63			63
Mortgage loans, net	$	6,453	$	—	$	—	$	6,815		$	6,815
Policy loans	$	1,216	$	—	$	869	$	418		$	1,287
Real estate joint ventures	$	56	$	—	$	—	$	103		$	103
Other limited partnership interests	$	85	$	—	$	—	$	96		$	96
Other invested assets	$	455	$	—	$	512	$	—		$	512
Premiums, reinsurance and other receivables	$	6,541	$	—	$	506	$	6,753		$	7,259
Liabilities:
PABs	$	21,255	$	—	$	—	$	22,933		$	22,933
Long-term debt	$	790	$	—	$	999	$	—		$	999
Other liabilities	$	435	$	—	$	278	$	157		$	435
Separate account liabilities	$	1,373	$	—	$	1,373	$	—		$	1,373
Commitments: (1)
Mortgage loan commitments	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	(1	)	$	(1	)
Commitments to fund bank credit facilities and private corporate bond investments	$	—	$	—	$	3	$	—		$	3

64

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

	December 31, 2012
			Fair Value Hierarchy
	Carrying Value		Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total Estimated Fair Value
	(In millions)
Assets:
Mortgage loans:
Held-for-investment	$	6,491	$	—	$	—	$	7,009	$	7,009
Held-for-sale	—		—		—		—		—
Mortgage loans, net	$	6,491	$	—	$	—	$	7,009	$	7,009
Policy loans	$	1,216	$	—	$	861	$	450	$	1,311
Real estate joint ventures	$	59	$	—	$	—	$	101	$	101
Other limited partnership interests	$	94	$	—	$	—	$	103	$	103
Other invested assets	$	432	$	—	$	548	$	—	$	548
Premiums, reinsurance and other receivables	$	6,015	$	—	$	86	$	6,914	$	7,000
Liabilities:
PABs	$	22,613	$	—	$	—	$	24,520	$	24,520
Long-term debt	$	791	$	—	$	1,076	$	—	$	1,076
Other liabilities	$	237	$	—	$	81	$	156	$	237
Separate account liabilities	$	1,296	$	—	$	1,296	$	—	$	1,296
Commitments: (1)
Mortgage loan commitments	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	1	$	1
Commitments to fund bank credit facilities and private corporate bond investments	$	—	$	—	$	6	$	—	$	6

____________

(1) Commitments are off-balance sheet obligations. Negative estimated fair values represent off-balance sheet liabilities. See Note 10 for additional information on these off-balance sheet obligations.

The methods, assumptions and significant valuation techniques and inputs used to estimate the fair value of financial instruments are summarized as follows:

Mortgage Loans

Mortgage loans held-for-investment

For mortgage loans held-for-investment, estimated fair value is primarily determined by estimating expected future cash flows and discounting them using current interest rates for similar mortgage loans with similar credit risk, or is determined from pricing for similar loans.

Mortgage loans held-for-sale

For mortgage loans held-for-sale, estimated fair value is determined using independent non-binding broker quotations or internal valuation models using significant unobservable inputs.

Policy Loans

Policy loans with fixed interest rates are classified within Level 3. The estimated fair values for these loans are determined using a discounted cash flow model applied to groups of similar policy loans determined by the nature of the underlying insurance liabilities. Cash flow estimates are developed by applying a weighted-average interest rate to the outstanding principal balance of the respective group of policy loans and an estimated average maturity determined through experience studies of the past performance of policyholder repayment behavior for similar loans. These cash flows are discounted using current risk-free interest rates with no adjustment for borrower credit risk as these loans are fully collateralized by the cash surrender value of the underlying insurance policy. Policy loans with variable interest rates are classified within Level 2 and the estimated fair value approximates carrying value due to the absence of borrower credit risk and the short time period between interest rate resets, which presents minimal risk of a material change in estimated fair value due to changes in market interest rates.

65

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Real Estate Joint Ventures and Other Limited Partnership Interests

The estimated fair values of these cost method investments are generally based on the Company’s share of the NAV as provided in the financial statements of the investees. In certain circumstances, management may adjust the NAV by a premium or discount when it has sufficient evidence to support applying such adjustments.

Other Invested Assets

These other invested assets are principally comprised of loans to affiliates. The estimated fair value of loans to affiliates is determined by discounting the expected future cash flows using market interest rates currently available for instruments with similar terms and remaining maturities.

Premiums, Reinsurance and Other Receivables

Premiums, reinsurance and other receivables are principally comprised of certain amounts recoverable under reinsurance agreements, amounts on deposit with financial institutions to facilitate daily settlements related to certain derivatives and amounts receivable for securities sold but not yet settled.

Amounts recoverable under ceded reinsurance agreements, which the Company has determined do not transfer significant risk such that they are accounted for using the deposit method of accounting, have been classified as Level 3. The valuation is based on discounted cash flow methodologies using significant unobservable inputs. The estimated fair value is determined using interest rates determined to reflect the appropriate credit standing of the assuming counterparty.

The amounts on deposit for derivative settlements, classified within Level 2, essentially represent the equivalent of demand deposit balances and amounts due for securities sold are generally received over short periods such that the estimated fair value approximates carrying value.

PABs

These PABs include investment contracts. Embedded derivatives on investment contracts and certain variable annuity guarantees accounted for as embedded derivatives are excluded from this caption in the preceding tables as they are separately presented in “— Recurring Fair Value Measurements.”

The investment contracts primarily include certain funding agreements, fixed deferred annuities, modified guaranteed annuities, fixed term payout annuities and total control accounts. The valuation of these investment contracts is based on discounted cash flow methodologies using significant unobservable inputs. The estimated fair value is determined using current market risk-free interest rates adding a spread to reflect the nonperformance risk in the liability.

Long-term Debt

The estimated fair value of long-term debt is principally determined using market standard valuation methodologies. Valuations are based primarily on quoted prices in markets that are not active or using matrix pricing that use standard market observable inputs such as quoted prices in markets that are not active and observable yields and spreads in the market. Instruments valued using discounted cash flow methodologies use standard market observable inputs including market yield curve, duration, observable prices and spreads for similar publicly traded or privately traded issues.

Other Liabilities

Other liabilities consist primarily of interest payable, amounts due for securities purchased but not yet settled and funds withheld amounts payable, which are contractually withheld by the Company in accordance with the terms of the reinsurance agreements. The Company evaluates the specific terms, facts and circumstances of each instrument to determine the appropriate estimated fair values, which are not materially different from the carrying values.

66

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Separate Account Liabilities

Separate account liabilities represent those balances due to policyholders under contracts that are classified as investment contracts.

Separate account liabilities classified as investment contracts primarily represent variable annuities with no significant mortality risk to the Company such that the death benefit is equal to the account balance and certain contracts that provide for benefit funding.

Since separate account liabilities are fully funded by cash flows from the separate account assets which are recognized at estimated fair value as described in the section “— Recurring Fair Value Measurements,” the value of those assets approximates the estimated fair value of the related separate account liabilities. The valuation techniques and inputs for separate account liabilities are similar to those described for separate account assets.

Mortgage Loan Commitments and Commitments to Fund Bank Credit Facilities and Private Corporate Bond Investments

The estimated fair values for mortgage loan commitments that will be held-for-investment and commitments to fund bank credit facilities and private corporate bonds that will be held-for-investment represent the difference between the discounted expected future cash flows using interest rates that incorporate current credit risk for similar instruments on the reporting date and the principal amounts of the commitments.

7.  Goodwill

The Company tests goodwill for impairment during the third quarter of each year at the reporting unit level based upon data at June 30 of that year. A reporting unit is the operating segment or a business one level below the operating segment, if discrete financial information is prepared and regularly reviewed by management at that level. Step 1 of the goodwill impairment process requires a comparison of the fair value of a reporting unit to its carrying value. To determine the fair values for our reporting units, the Company generally applies a market multiple valuation, discounted cash flow valuation, and/or actuarial appraisal approach. The market multiple valuation approach utilizes market multiples of companies with similar businesses and the projected operating earnings of the reporting unit. The discounted cash flow valuation approach requires judgments about revenues, operating earnings projections, capital market assumptions and discount rates.

Since the market multiple and discounted cash flow valuation techniques indicated that the fair value of the Retail Life & Other reporting unit was below its carrying value, an actuarial appraisal, which estimates the net worth of the reporting unit, the value of existing business and the value of new business, was also performed. This appraisal also resulted in a fair value of the Retail Life & Other reporting unit that was less than the carrying value, indicating a potential for goodwill impairment. An increase in required reserves on universal life products with secondary guarantees, together with modifications to financial reinsurance treaty terms, was reflected in the fair value estimate. In addition, decreased future sales assumptions reflected in the valuation were driven by the discontinuance of certain sales of universal life products with secondary guarantees by the Company. Accordingly, the Company performed Step 2 of the goodwill impairment process, which compares the implied fair value of goodwill with the carrying value of that goodwill in the reporting unit to calculate the amount of goodwill impairment. The Company determined that all of the recorded goodwill associated with the Retail Life & Other reporting unit was not recoverable and recorded a non-cash charge of $66 million ($57 million, net of income tax) for the impairment of the entire goodwill balance in the interim condensed consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income (loss) for both the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2013.

In addition, the Company performed its annual goodwill impairment tests of its other reporting unit during the third quarter of 2013 using a market multiple valuation approach based upon data at June 30, 2013 and concluded that the fair value of such reporting unit was in excess of its carrying values and, therefore, goodwill was not impaired.

Management continues to evaluate current market conditions that may affect the estimated fair value of the remaining reporting unit to assess whether any goodwill impairment exists. Deteriorating or adverse market conditions may have a significant impact on the estimated fair value of this reporting unit and could result in future impairments of goodwill.

67

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

The following table presents the changes in the net carrying amount of goodwill in each of the Company’s segments, as well as Corporate & Other, and the balances at:

	Retail			Corporate  Benefit  Funding		Corporate  & Other (1)			Total
	(In millions)
Balance at December 31, 2012
Goodwill	$	241		$	307	$	405		$	953
Accumulated impairment	(218		)	—		(176		)	(394		)
Total goodwill, net	$	23		$	307	$	229		$	559
Impairments	$	(23	)	$	—	$	(43	)	$	(66	)
Balance at September 30, 2013
Goodwill	241			307		405			953
Accumulated impairment	(241		)	—		(219		)	(460		)
Total goodwill, net	$	—		$	307	$	186		$	493

____________

(1) The $229 million of net goodwill in Corporate & Other at December 31, 2012, relates to goodwill acquired as a part of the 2005 Travelers acquisition. For purposes of goodwill impairment testing, $229 million of Corporate & Other goodwill was allocated to business units of the Retail and Corporate Benefit Funding segments in the amounts of $43 million and $186 million, respectively. As reflected in the table, the $43 million related to the Retail segment was impaired in the third quarter of 2013.

8.  Equity

Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)

Information regarding changes in the balances of each component of AOCI, net of income tax, was as follows:

	Three Months   Ended   September 30, 2013
	Unrealized Investment Gains (Losses), Net of Related Offsets (1)			Unrealized Gains (Losses) on Derivatives			Foreign Currency Translation Adjustments			Total
	(In millions)
Balance, beginning of period	$	1,285		$	95		$	(108	)	$	1,272
OCI before reclassifications	(88		)	(39		)	57			(70		)
Amounts reclassified from AOCI	36			(3		)	—			33
Balance, end of period	$	1,233		$	53		$	(51	)	$	1,235

	Nine Months   Ended   September 30, 2013
	Unrealized Investment Gains (Losses), Net of Related Offsets (1)			Unrealized Gains (Losses) on Derivatives			Foreign Currency Translation Adjustments			Total
	(In millions)
Balance, beginning of period	$	2,291		$	158		$	(49	)	$	2,400
OCI before reclassifications	(1,043		)	(99		)	(2		)	(1,144		)
Amounts reclassified from AOCI	(15		)	(6		)	—			(21		)
Balance, end of period	$	1,233		$	53		$	(51	)	$	1,235

____________ 

(1) See Note 4 for information on offsets to investments related to insurance liabilities and DAC and VOBA.

68

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Information regarding amounts reclassified out of each component of AOCI was as follows:

AOCI Components	Amounts Reclassified from AOCI						Statement of Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss) Location
	Three Months   Ended   September 30, 2013			Nine Months   Ended   September 30, 2013
	(In millions)
Net unrealized investment gains (losses):
Net unrealized investment gains (losses)	$	(56	)	$	24		Other net investment gains (losses)
Net unrealized investment gains (losses)	3			9			Net investment income
OTTI	(5		)	(11		)	OTTI on fixed maturity securities
Net unrealized investment gains (losses), before income tax	(58		)	22
Income tax (expense) benefit	22			(7		)
Net unrealized investment gains (losses), net of income tax	$	(36	)	$	15
Unrealized gains (losses) on derivatives - cash flow hedges:
Interest rate swaps	$	2		$	1		Net derivative gains (losses)
Interest rate forwards	1			7			Net derivative gains (losses)
Interest rate forwards	—			1			Net investment income
Foreign currency swaps	1			—			Net derivative gains (losses)
Gains (losses) on cash flow hedges, before income tax	4			9
Income tax (expense) benefit	(1		)	(3		)
Gains (losses) on cash flow hedges, net of income tax	$	3		$	6
Total reclassifications, net of income tax	$	(33	)	$	21

9. Other Expenses

Information on other expenses was as follows:

	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2013			2012			2013			2012
	(In millions)
Compensation	$	83		$	85		$	254		$	261
Commissions	151			214			514			740
Volume-related costs	22			32			62			130
Affiliated interest costs on ceded reinsurance	52			54			150			201
Capitalization of DAC	(112		)	(197		)	(399		)	(691		)
Amortization of DAC and VOBA	42			185			72			639
Interest expense on debt and debt issuance costs	47			57			147			176
Premium taxes, licenses and fees	14			11			42			51
Professional services	19			6			29			18
Rent	8			9			23			26
Other	108			91			316			340
Total other expenses	$	434		$	547		$	1,210		$	1,891

Affiliated Expenses

Commissions, capitalization of DAC and amortization of DAC include the impact of affiliated reinsurance transactions. See Note 11 for discussion of affiliated expenses included in the table above.

69

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

10. Contingencies, Commitments and Guarantees

Contingencies

Litigation

The Company is a defendant in a number of litigation matters. In some of the matters, 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 experience of the Company 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 vagaries of litigation, the outcome of a litigation matter and the amount or range of potential loss at particular points in time may normally be 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.

The Company establishes liabilities for litigation and regulatory loss contingencies when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Liabilities have been established for some of the matters below. It is possible that some of the matters could require the Company to pay damages or make other expenditures or establish accruals in amounts that could not be estimated at September 30, 2013.

Matters as to Which an Estimate Can Be Made

For some of the matters discussed below, the Company is able to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss. For such matters where a loss is believed to be reasonably possible, but not probable, no accrual has been made. As of September 30, 2013, the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses in excess of amounts accrued for these matters was not material for the Company.

Matters as to Which an Estimate Cannot Be Made

For other matters disclosed below, the Company is not currently able to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss. The Company is 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, the Company reviews relevant information with respect to litigation contingencies and updates its accruals, disclosures and estimates of reasonably possible losses or ranges of loss based on such reviews.

70

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Unclaimed Property Litigation and Inquiries

In 2012, MetLife, for itself and on behalf of entities including MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut, reached agreements with representatives of the U.S. jurisdictions that were conducting audits of MetLife and certain of its affiliates for compliance with unclaimed property laws, and with state insurance regulators directly involved in a multistate targeted market conduct examination relating to claim-payment practices and compliance with unclaimed property laws. On December 28, 2012, the West Virginia Treasurer filed an action (West Virginia ex rel. John D. Perdue v. MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut, Circuit Court of Putnam County), alleging that the Company violated the West Virginia Uniform Unclaimed Property Act, seeking to compel compliance with the Act, and seeking payment of unclaimed property, interest, and penalties. On November 14, 2012, the Treasurer filed a substantially identical suit against MLI-USA. At least one other jurisdiction is pursuing a market conduct examination. It is possible that other jurisdictions may pursue similar examinations, audits, or lawsuits and that such actions may result in additional payments to beneficiaries, additional escheatment of funds deemed abandoned under state laws, administrative penalties, interest, and/or further changes to the Company’s procedures. The Company is not currently able to estimate these additional possible costs.

Sales Practices Claims and Regulatory Matters

The Company and certain of its affiliates have faced numerous claims, including class action lawsuits, alleging improper marketing or sales of individual life insurance policies, annuities, mutual funds or other products. Regulatory authorities in a small number of states and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, and occasionally the SEC, have also conducted investigations or inquiries relating to sales of individual life insurance policies or annuities or other products issued by the Company. These investigations often focus on the conduct of particular financial service representatives and the sale of unregistered or unsuitable products or the misuse of client assets. Over the past several years, these and a number of investigations by other regulatory authorities were resolved for monetary payments and certain other relief, including restitution payments. The Company may continue to resolve investigations in a similar manner. The Company believes adequate provision has been made in its consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably estimable losses for sales practices matters.

Summary

Various litigation, claims and assessments against the Company, in addition to those discussed previously and those otherwise provided for in the Company’s consolidated financial statements, have arisen in the course of the Company’s business, including, but not limited to, in connection with its activities as an insurer, employer, investor, investment advisor and taxpayer. Further, state insurance regulatory authorities and other federal and state authorities regularly make inquiries and conduct investigations concerning the Company’s compliance with applicable insurance and other laws and regulations.

It is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of all pending investigations and legal proceedings. In some of the matters referred to previously, large and/or indeterminate amounts, including punitive and treble damages, are sought. Although, in light of these considerations it is possible that an adverse outcome in certain cases could have a material effect upon the Company’s financial position, based on information currently known by the Company’s management, in its opinion, the outcomes of such pending investigations and legal proceedings are not likely to have such an effect. However, given the large and/or indeterminate amounts sought in certain of these matters and the inherent unpredictability of litigation, it is possible that an adverse outcome in certain matters could, from time to time, have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated net income or cash flows in particular quarterly or annual periods.

Commitments

Commitments to Fund Partnership Investments

The Company makes commitments to fund partnership investments in the normal course of business. The amounts of these unfunded commitments were $1.0 billion at both September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012. The Company anticipates that these amounts will be invested in partnerships over the next five years.

Mortgage Loan Commitments

The Company commits to lend funds under mortgage loan commitments. The amounts of these mortgage loan commitments were $124 million and $181 million at September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively.

71

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Commitments to Fund Bank Credit Facilities and Private Corporate Bond Investments

The Company commits to lend funds under bank credit facilities and private corporate bond investments. The amounts of these unfunded commitments were $86 million and $144 million at September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively.

Other Commitments

The Company has entered into collateral arrangements with affiliates, which require the transfer of collateral in connection with secured demand notes. At September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the Company had agreed to fund up to $61 million and $86 million, respectively, of cash upon the request by these affiliates and had transferred collateral consisting of various securities with a fair market value of $77 million and $106 million at September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively, to custody accounts to secure the demand notes. Each of these affiliates is permitted by contract to sell or repledge this collateral.

In July 2013, the Company committed to lend up to $1.8 billion to Exeter Reassurance Company, Ltd. (“Exeter”), an affiliate, pursuant to a note purchase agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut committed to purchase up to $1.3 billion of notes and MLI-USA committed to purchase up to $438 million of notes. The notes would be due not later than three years after issuance. The repayment of any notes issued pursuant to this agreement will be guaranteed by MetLife, Inc., which has agreed to guarantee notes issued on or before December 31, 2013. The commitment to purchase notes expires on December 31, 2013, subject to extension to December 31, 2014 if MetLife, Inc.’s board of directors approves the guarantee of repayment of notes issued on or before such date. See Note 12 for information regarding drawdowns.

11.  Related Party Transactions

Service Agreements

The Company has entered into various agreements with affiliates for services necessary to conduct its activities. Typical services provided under these agreements include management, policy administrative functions, personnel, investment advice and distribution services. For certain agreements, charges are based on various performance measures or activity-based costing. The bases for such charges are modified and adjusted by management when necessary or appropriate to reflect fairly and equitably the actual incidence of cost incurred by the Company and/or affiliate. Expenses and fees incurred with affiliates related to these agreements, recorded in other expenses, were $329 million and $1.1 billion for the three months and nine months endedSeptember 30, 2013, respectively, and $361 million and $1.2 billion for the three months and nine months endedSeptember 30, 2012, respectively. Revenues received from affiliates related to these agreements, recorded in universal life and investment-type product policy fees, were $53 million and $155 million for the three months and nine months endedSeptember 30, 2013, respectively, and $46 million and $132 million for the three months and nine months endedSeptember 30, 2012, respectively. Revenues received from affiliates related to these agreements, recorded in other revenues, were $46 million and $138 million for the three months and nine months endedSeptember 30, 2013, respectively, and $43 million and $123 million for the three months and nine months endedSeptember 30, 2012, respectively.

The Company had net receivables from affiliates, related to the items discussed above, of $73 million and $107 million at September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively. These amounts exclude affiliated reinsurance balances discussed below.

See Note 4 for additional information on related party transactions.

72

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Related Party Reinsurance Transactions

The Company has reinsurance agreements with certain MetLife subsidiaries, including MLIC, MetLife Reinsurance Company of South Carolina, Exeter, General American Life Insurance Company, MetLife Investors Insurance Company, MetLife Reinsurance Company of Vermont and MetLife Reinsurance Company of Delaware (“MRD”), all of which are related parties.

Information regarding the significant effects of affiliated reinsurance included in the interim condensed consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income (loss) was as follows:

	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2013			2012			2013			2012
	(In millions)
Premiums:
Reinsurance assumed	$	3		$	4		$	9		$	10
Reinsurance ceded	(163		)	(126		)	(466		)	(323		)
Net premiums	$	(160	)	$	(122	)	$	(457	)	$	(313	)
Universal life and investment-type product policy fees:
Reinsurance assumed	$	25		$	22		$	57		$	66
Reinsurance ceded	(128		)	(101		)	(430		)	(306		)
Net universal life and investment-type product policy fees	$	(103	)	$	(79	)	$	(373	)	$	(240	)
Other revenues:
Reinsurance assumed	$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—
Reinsurance ceded	81			79			248			213
Net other revenues	$	81		$	79		$	248		$	213
Policyholder benefits and claims:
Reinsurance assumed	$	5		$	5		$	10		$	11
Reinsurance ceded	(216		)	(174		)	(602		)	(494		)
Net policyholder benefits and claims	$	(211	)	$	(169	)	$	(592	)	$	(483	)
Interest credited to policyholder account balances:
Reinsurance assumed	$	19		$	18		$	55		$	53
Reinsurance ceded	(31		)	(27		)	(92		)	(79		)
Net interest credited to policyholder account balances	$	(12	)	$	(9	)	$	(37	)	$	(26	)
Other expenses:
Reinsurance assumed	$	8		$	7		$	20		$	28
Reinsurance ceded	20			28			53			126
Net other expenses	$	28		$	35		$	73		$	154

Information regarding the significant effects of affiliated reinsurance included in the interim condensed consolidated balance sheets was as follows at:

	September 30, 2013					December 31, 2012
	Assumed		Ceded			Assumed		Ceded
	(In millions)
Assets:
Premiums, reinsurance and other receivables	$	32	$	12,942		$	35	$	14,171
Deferred policy acquisition costs and value of business acquired	137		(684		)	121		(642		)
Total assets	$	169	$	12,258		$	156	$	13,529
Liabilities:
Other policy-related balances	$	1,641	$	820		$	1,592	$	855
Other liabilities	9		4,550			10		4,894
Total liabilities	$	1,650	$	5,370		$	1,602	$	5,749

73

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

In October 2012, MLI-USA entered into a reinsurance agreement to cede two blocks of business to MRD, on a 90% coinsurance with funds withheld basis. This agreement covers certain term and certain universal life policies issued in 2012 by MLI-USA. This agreement transfers risk to MRD and, therefore, is accounted for as reinsurance. As a result of the agreement, affiliated reinsurance recoverables, included in premiums, reinsurance and other receivables, were $339 million and $407 million at September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively. MLI-USA also recorded a funds withheld liability and other reinsurance payables, included in other liabilities, which were $213 million and $438 million at September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively. Certain contractual features of this agreement qualify as embedded derivatives, which are separately accounted for at fair value on the Company’s consolidated balance sheets. The embedded derivative related to this cession is included within other liabilities and was ($10) million and $6 million at September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively. For the three months and nine months endedSeptember 30, 2013, the Company’s consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income (loss) reflects a loss for this agreement of $6 million and $36 million, respectively.

The Company ceded risks to affiliates related to guaranteed minimum benefit guarantees written directly by the Company. These ceded reinsurance agreements contain embedded derivatives and changes in their fair value are also included within net derivative gains (losses). The embedded derivatives associated with the cessions are included within premiums, reinsurance and other receivables and were assets of $1.8 billion and $3.6 billion at September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively. Net derivative gains (losses) associated with the embedded derivatives were ($607) million and ($2.0) billion for the three months and nine months endedSeptember 30, 2013, respectively, and ($344) million and ($357) million for the three months and nine months endedSeptember 30, 2012, respectively.

MLI-USA ceded two blocks of business to an affiliate on a 90% coinsurance with funds withheld basis. Certain contractual features of this agreement qualify as embedded derivatives, which are separately accounted for at estimated fair value on the Company’s consolidated balance sheets. The embedded derivative related to the funds withheld associated with this reinsurance agreement is included within other liabilities and increased the funds withheld balance by $85 million and $546 million at September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively. Net derivative gains (losses) associated with the embedded derivatives were $48 million and $477 million for the three months and nine months endedSeptember 30, 2013, respectively, and ($37) million and ($186) million for the three months and nine months endedSeptember 30, 2012, respectively.

12. Subsequent Event

On October 15, 2013, the Company loaned $500 million to Exeter pursuant to a note purchase agreement. See Note 10 for information regarding the note purchase agreement and the remaining commitment to lend. MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut purchased $375 million of these notes and MLI-USA purchased $125 million of these notes. The $500 million of notes are due on October 15, 2015 and bear interest payable semi-annually at 2.47%.

74

Item 2.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
	Index to Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

	Page Number
Forward-Looking Statements and Other Financial Information	76
Business	76
Summary of Critical Accounting Estimates	80
Economic Capital	81
Results of Operations	82
Adoption of New Accounting Pronouncements	88
Future Adoption of New Accounting Pronouncements	88
Non-GAAP and Other Financial Disclosures	88
Subsequent Event	88

75

Forward-Looking Statements and Other Financial Information

For purposes of this discussion, “MICC,” the “Company,” “we,” “our” and “us” refer to MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut, a Connecticut corporation incorporated in 1863, and its subsidiaries, including MetLife Investors USA Insurance Company (“MLI-USA”). MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”). Management’s narrative analysis of the results of operations is presented pursuant to General Instruction H(2)(a) of Form 10-Q. This narrative analysis should be read in conjunction with MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012 (the “2012 Annual Report”), the forward-looking statement information included below, the “Risk Factors” set forth in Part II, Item 1A, and the additional risk factors referred to therein, and the Company’s interim condensed consolidated financial statements included elsewhere herein.

This narrative analysis may contain or incorporate by reference information that includes or is based upon forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements give expectations or forecasts of future events. These statements can be identified by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts. They use words such as “anticipate,” “estimate,” “expect,” “project,” “intend,” “plan,” “believe” and other words and terms of similar meaning in connection with a discussion of future operating or financial performance. In particular, these include statements relating to future actions, prospective services or products, future performance or results of current and anticipated services or products, sales efforts, expenses, the outcome of contingencies such as legal proceedings, trends in operations and financial results. Any or all forward-looking statements may turn out to be wrong. Actual results could differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements. See “Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements.”

This narrative analysis includes references to our performance measure, operating earnings, that is not based on accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”). Operating earnings is the measure of segment profit or loss we use to evaluate segment performance and allocate resources. Consistent with GAAP guidance for segment reporting, operating earnings is our measure of segment performance. See “— Non-GAAP and Other Financial Disclosures” for definitions of such measures.

Business

Overview

MICC is organized into two segments: Retail and Corporate Benefit Funding. In addition, the Company reports certain of its results of operations in Corporate & Other. Management continues to evaluate the Company’s segment performance and allocated resources and may adjust related measurements in the future to better reflect segment profitability. See Note 2 of the Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for further information on the Company’s segments and Corporate & Other.

In the second quarter of 2013, MetLife announced its plans to merge into MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut, as the surviving entity, two U.S.-based life insurance companies and an offshore reinsurance subsidiary to create one larger U.S.-based and U.S.-regulated life insurance company, which is expected to be renamed and domiciled in Delaware. The companies to be merged into MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut consist of MLI-USA and MetLife Investors Insurance Company, each a U.S. insurance company that issues variable annuity products in addition to other products, and Exeter Reassurance Company, Ltd. (“Exeter”), a reinsurance company that mainly reinsures guarantees associated with variable annuity products. Exeter, formerly a Cayman Islands company, was domesticated to Delaware in October 2013. Prior to the merger, MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut will surrender its New York insurance license and, in connection therewith, reinsure certain of its New York business, including variable annuity business, with Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, subject to regulatory approvals. Also, following Exeter's merger into MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut, MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut will consider transferring to one or more affiliates certain business that is currently reinsured by Exeter. These mergers are expected to occur towards the end of 2014, subject to regulatory approvals. As a result of these mergers, MICC's financial condition will be impacted. It is also anticipated transparency will be increased relative to capital allocation and variable annuity risk management.

76

Regulatory Developments

The U.S. life insurance industry is regulated primarily at the state level, with some products and services also subject to Federal regulation. As life insurers introduce new and often more complex products, regulators refine capital requirements and introduce new reserving standards for the life insurance industry. Regulations recently adopted or currently under review can potentially impact the statutory reserve and capital requirements of the industry. In addition, regulators have undertaken market and sales practices reviews of several markets or products, including equity-indexed annuities, variable annuities and group products.

The regulation of the global financial services industry has received renewed scrutiny as a result of the recent financial crisis. Significant regulatory reforms have been recently adopted and additional reforms proposed, and these or other reforms could be implemented. See “Risk Factors — Regulatory and Legal Risks — Our Insurance and Brokerage Businesses Are Highly Regulated, and Changes in Regulation and in Supervisory and Enforcement Policies May Reduce Our Profitability and Limit Our Growth.” See also “Business — Regulation,” “Risk Factors — Risks Related to Our Business — Our Statutory Life Insurance Reserve Financings May Be Subject to Cost Increases and New Financings May Be Subject to Limited Market Capacity,” and “Risk Factors — Regulatory and Legal Risks — Changes in U.S. Federal and State Securities Laws and Regulations, and State Insurance Regulations Regarding Suitability of Annuity Product Sales, May Affect Our Operations and Our Profitability” included in the 2012 Annual Report. For example, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”), which was signed by President Obama in July 2010, effected the most far-reaching overhaul of financial regulation in the U.S. in decades. The full impact of Dodd-Frank on us will depend on the numerous rulemaking initiatives required or permitted by Dodd-Frank which are in various stages of implementation, many of which are not likely to be completed for some time. See “Business — Regulation” included in the 2012 Annual Report.

Insurance Regulatory Examinations

Regulatory authorities in a small number of states, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and, occasionally, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), have had investigations or inquiries relating to our sales of individual life insurance policies or annuities or other products. These investigations often focus on the conduct of particular financial services representatives and the sale of unregistered or unsuitable products or the misuse of client assets. Over the past several years, these and a number of investigations by other regulatory authorities were resolved for monetary payments and certain other relief, including restitution payments. We may continue to resolve investigations in a similar manner.

Like many life insurance companies, we utilize captive reinsurers to satisfy statutory reserve requirements related to universal life and term life insurance policies. We also cede variable annuity risks to a captive reinsurer, which allows us to consolidate hedging and other risk management programs. If the insurance regulators in Connecticut or Delaware restrict the use of such captive reinsurers or if we otherwise are unable to continue to use captive reinsurers in the future, our ability to write certain products or to hedge the associated risks efficiently, and/or our risk-based capital (“RBC”) ratios could be adversely affected or we may need to increase prices on those products, which could adversely impact our competitive position and our results of operations. In the second quarter of 2013, MetLife announced its plans to merge three U.S.-based life insurance companies and an offshore reinsurance subsidiary to create one larger U.S.-based and U.S.-regulated life insurance company. The companies to be merged consist of MICC, MLI-USA and MLIIC, each a U.S. insurance company that issues variable annuity products in addition to other products, and Exeter, a reinsurance company that mainly reinsures guarantees associated with variable annuity products. MICC, which is expected to be renamed and domiciled in Delaware, will be the surviving entity. Exeter, formerly a Cayman Islands company, was domesticated to Delaware in October 2013. These anticipated mergers may mitigate to some degree the impact of any restrictions on the use of captive reinsurers that could be adopted by the insurance regulators in Connecticut or Delaware. For more information on our use of captive reinsurers see Note 10 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in the 2012 Annual Report.

The International Association of Insurance Supervisors (“IAIS”) has encouraged U.S. insurance supervisors to establish Supervisory Colleges for U.S.-based insurance groups with international operations, including MetLife, to facilitate cooperation and coordination among the insurance groups’ supervisors and to enhance the member regulators’ understanding of an insurance group’s risk profile. In January 2013, MetLife was the subject of a Supervisory College meeting which was chaired by the New York State Department of Financial Services (“Department of Financial Services”) and was attended by MetLife’s key U.S. and international insurance regulators, including our key regulators. MetLife has not received any report or recommendations from the Supervisory College meeting, and we do not expect any outcome of the meeting to have a material adverse effect on our business.

77

Surplus and Capital; Risk-Based Capital

The Department of Financial Services issues an annual “Special Considerations” circular letter to New York licensed insurers dictating tests to be performed as part of insurers’ asset adequacy testing. The Department of Financial Services issued its 2013 Special Considerations letter on October 31, 2013. The letter mandates the use of certain assumptions in the 2013 asset adequacy testing which were previously required as sensitivity test disclosures. The Company is currently assessing the impact on its statutory financial results, however, these mandated assumptions are expected to reduce asset adequacy testing margins and may result in the need for statutory reserve strengthening. Further, these provisions in the Special Considerations letter may result in increases in RBC requirements.

On July 26, 2013, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (“NAIC”) adopted a change to the methodology for calculating the RBC risk charges associated with commercial and agricultural mortgage loans. Prior to the adoption of this methodology change, the risk charges were calculated based on an insurance company's portfolio level experience as compared to an industry average. The newly adopted change considers each loan's risk in the calculation of these risk charges. This methodology applies to each of MetLife, Inc.'s U.S. insurance subsidiaries. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of this adoption on its RBC ratios, which are provided in its statutory annual statements. We are not aware of any other potential NAIC actions that would have a material impact on our RBC.

Regulation of Over-the-Counter Derivatives

Dodd-Frank includes a new framework of regulation of the over-the-counter (“OTC”) derivatives markets which requires clearing of certain types of transactions currently traded OTC and imposes additional costs, including new reporting and margin requirements and will likely impose additional regulation on the Company, including new capital requirements. Our costs of risk mitigation are increasing under Dodd-Frank. For example, increased margin requirements, including the requirement to pledge initial margin for OTC Cleared transactions entered into after June 10, 2013 and for OTC Uncleared transactions entered into after the phase-in period, which would be applicable to us in 2019 if the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the SEC adopt the final margin requirements for non-centrally cleared derivatives published by the Bank of International Settlements and International Organization of Securities Commissions in September 2013, combined with restrictions on securities that will qualify as eligible collateral, will require increased holdings of cash and highly liquid securities with lower yields causing a reduction in income. Centralized clearing of certain OTC derivatives exposes us to the risk of a default by a clearing member or clearinghouse with respect to our cleared derivative transactions. We use derivatives to mitigate a wide range of risks in connection with our businesses, including the impact of increased benefit exposures from our annuity products that offer guaranteed benefits. We have always been subject to the risk that hedging and other management procedures might prove ineffective in reducing the risks to which insurance policies expose us or that unanticipated policyholder behavior or mortality, combined with adverse market events, could produce economic losses beyond the scope of the risk management techniques employed. Any such losses could be increased by higher costs of writing derivatives (including customized derivatives) and the reduced availability of customized derivatives that might result from the enactment and implementation of Dodd-Frank.

78

Potential Regulation of MetLife as a Non-Bank SIFI

Regulation of MetLife, Inc. as a non-bank systemically important financial institution (“non-bank SIFI”) could materially and adversely affect our business. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Federal Reserve Board”) has proposed a set of prudential standards that would apply to non-bank SIFIs, including enhanced RBC requirements, leverage limits, liquidity requirements, single counterparty exposure limits, governance requirements for risk management, stress test requirements, special debt-to-equity limits for certain companies, early remediation procedures, and recovery and resolution planning through international crisis management groups and under federal regulation. The Federal Reserve Board’s proposal contemplates that these standards would be subject to the authority of the Federal Reserve Board to determine, on its own or in response to a recommendation by the Financial Stability Oversight Council (“FSOC”), to tailor the application of the enhanced standards to different companies on an individual basis or by category, taking into consideration their capital structure, riskiness, complexity, financial activities, size, and any other risk-related factors that the Federal Reserve Board deems appropriate. Accordingly, the manner in which these proposed standards might apply to MetLife, Inc. remains unclear. The Federal Reserve Board has stated that it believes other provisions of Dodd-Frank, known as the Collins Amendment, constrain its ability to tailor capital standards for non-bank SIFIs. However, on October 24, 2013, the Federal Reserve Board proposed a rule that would set standardized liquidity requirements for banking organizations, as well as some non-bank SIFIs. The proposed rule would require covered institutions to hold minimum amounts of high quality-liquid assets, but expressly excepts from coverage non-bank SIFIs with substantial insurance operations. Therefore, this proposed rule would not be applicable to MetLife even were it to be designated by the FSOC as a non-bank SIFI. See “Risk Factors — Regulatory and Legal Risks — Our Insurance and Brokerage Businesses Are Highly Regulated, and Changes in Regulation and in Supervisory and Enforcement Policies May Reduce Our Profitability and Limit Our Growth — Federal Regulatory Agencies.”

Regulatory Developments Relating to G-SIIs

The IAIS, an association of insurance supervisors and regulators and a member of the Financial Stability Board (“FSB”), an international entity established to coordinate, develop and promote effective regulatory, supervisory and other financial sector policies in the interest of financial stability, is participating in the FSB’s initiative to identify global systemically important financial institutions by devising a process for designating global systemically important insurers (“G-SIIs”). On July 18, 2013, the IAIS published a revised assessment methodology for identifying G-SIIs and a framework of policy measures to be applied to G-SIIs, and the FSB published its initial list of nine G-SIIs, which includes MetLife. The FSB will update the list annually beginning in 2014.

For G-SIIs which engage in activities deemed to be systemically risky, the framework of policy measures calls for imposition of additional capital requirements on those activities. G-SII backstop capital requirements for the calculation of additional capital are to be developed by the end of 2014, for application beginning in 2019. In addition, the IAIS has confirmed that it will develop a risk-based global insurance capital standard by 2016. This global insurance capital standard will apply to all internationally active insurance groups, including G-SIIs, with implementation to begin in 2019 after two years of testing and refinement. The FSB and IAIS propose that national authorities ensure that any insurers identified as G-SIIs be subject to additional requirements consistent with the framework of policy measures, which include preparation of a systemic risk management plan, preparation of a recovery and resolution plan, enhanced liquidity planning and management, more intensive supervision, closer coordination among regulators led by a regulator with group-wide supervisory authority and a policy bias in favor of separation of non-traditional insurance and non-insurance activities from traditional insurance activities. The IAIS policy measures would need to be implemented by legislation or regulation in each applicable jurisdiction, and the impact on MetLife and us, and other designated G-SIIs in the U.S., is uncertain. See “Business — Regulation — Designation Process and Policy Measures that May Apply to Global Systemically Important Insurers” included in the 2012 Annual Report.

Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) Considerations

We provide products and services to certain employee benefit plans that are subject to ERISA, or the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). As such, our activities are subject to the restrictions imposed by ERISA and the Code, including the requirement under ERISA that fiduciaries must perform their duties solely in the interests of ERISA plan participants and beneficiaries, and the requirement under ERISA and the Code that fiduciaries may not cause a covered plan to engage in prohibited transactions with persons who have certain relationships with respect to such plans. The applicable provisions of ERISA and the Code are subject to enforcement by the Department of Labor (“DOL”), the Internal Revenue Service and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

79

The prohibited transaction rules of ERISA and the Code generally restrict the provision of investment advice to ERISA plans and participants and Individual Retirement Accounts (“IRAs”) if the investment recommendation results in fees paid to the individual advisor, his or her firm or their affiliates that vary according to the investment recommendation chosen. In October 2011, the DOL issued final regulations that provide limited relief from these investment advice restrictions. If additional relief is not provided, our ability to provide investment advice to ERISA plans and participants, and IRAs would likely be significantly restricted. Also, the fee and revenue arrangements of certain advisory programs may be required to be revenue neutral, resulting in potential lost revenues.

Other proposed investment advice regulatory initiatives under ERISA also may have a negative impact on us. In particular, the DOL issued a proposed regulation in October 2010 that would, if adopted as proposed, significantly broaden the circumstances under which a person or entity providing investment advice with respect to ERISA plans or IRAs would be deemed a fiduciary under ERISA or the Code. If adopted, the proposed regulations may make it easier for the DOL in enforcement actions, and for plaintiffs’ attorneys in ERISA litigation, to attempt to extend fiduciary status to advisors who would not be deemed fiduciaries under current regulations. In September 2011, the DOL announced it will re-propose these fiduciary definition regulations, and a new proposal is expected in 2014. See “Business — Regulation — Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) Considerations” included in the 2012 Annual Report.

Summary of Critical Accounting Estimates

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to adopt accounting policies and make estimates and assumptions that affect amounts reported in the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. The most critical estimates include those used in determining:

(i) liabilities for future policyholder benefits and the accounting for reinsurance;

(ii) capitalization and amortization of deferred policy acquisition costs (“DAC”) and the establishment and amortization of value of business acquired (“VOBA”);

(iii) estimated fair values of investments in the absence of quoted market values;

(iv) investment impairments;

(v) estimated fair values of freestanding derivatives and the recognition and estimated fair value of embedded derivatives requiring bifurcation;

(vi) measurement of goodwill and related impairment;

(vii) measurement of income taxes and the valuation of deferred tax assets; and

(viii) liabilities for litigation and regulatory matters.

In applying our accounting policies, we make subjective and complex judgments that frequently require estimates about matters that are inherently uncertain. Many of these policies, estimates and related judgments are common in the insurance and financial services industries; others are specific to our business and operations. Actual results could differ from these estimates.

The above critical accounting estimates are described in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Summary of Critical Accounting Estimates” and Note 1 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in the 2012 Annual Report.

Goodwill

Goodwill is tested for impairment at least annually or more frequently if events or circumstances, such as adverse changes in the business climate, indicate that there may be justification for conducting an interim test.

80

For purposes of goodwill impairment testing, if the carrying value of a reporting unit exceeds its estimated fair value, the implied fair value of the reporting unit goodwill is compared to the carrying value of that goodwill to measure the amount of impairment loss, if any. In such instances, the implied fair value of the goodwill is determined in the same manner as the amount of goodwill that would be determined in a business acquisition. The key inputs, judgments and assumptions necessary in determining estimated fair value of the reporting units include projected operating earnings, current book value, the level of economic capital required to support the mix of business, long-term growth rates, comparative market multiples, the account value of in-force business, projections of new and renewal business, as well as margins on such business, the level of interest rates, credit spreads, equity market levels, and the discount rate that we believe is appropriate for the respective reporting unit. The estimated fair values of the Retail Life & Other reporting unit is particularly sensitive to interest rate and equity market levels.

In the third quarter of 2013, the Company performed its annual goodwill impairment test on its Retail Life & Other reporting unit based upon data at June 30, 2013. The Company utilized an actuarial appraisal approach, which estimates the net worth of the reporting unit, the value of existing business and the value of new business. This appraisal resulted in a fair value of the Retail Life & Other reporting unit less than the carrying value, indicating a potential for goodwill impairment. An increase in required reserves on universal life products with secondary guarantees, together with modifications to financial reinsurance treaty terms, was reflected in the fair value estimate. In addition, decreased future sales assumptions reflected in the valuation were driven by the discontinuance of certain sales of universal life products with secondary guarantees by the Company. Accordingly, the Company performed Step 2 of the goodwill impairment process, which compares the implied fair value of the reporting unit’s goodwill with its carrying value. This analysis indicated that the recorded goodwill associated with this reporting unit was not recoverable. Therefore, the Company recorded a non-cash charge of $66 million ($57 million, net of income tax) for the impairment of the entire goodwill balance that is reported in goodwill impairment in the interim condensed consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income (loss) for both the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2013.

In addition, the Company performed its annual goodwill impairment test of its other reporting unit during the third quarter of 2013 using a market multiple valuation approach, based upon data at June 30, 2013 and concluded that the fair value of such reporting unit was in excess of its carrying value and, therefore, goodwill was not impaired.

We apply significant judgment when determining the estimated fair value of our reporting units. The valuation methodologies utilized are subject to key judgments and assumptions that are sensitive to change. Estimates of fair value are inherently uncertain and represent only management’s reasonable expectation regarding future developments. These estimates and the judgments and assumptions upon which the estimates are based will, in all likelihood, differ in some respects from actual future results. Declines in the estimated fair value of our reporting units could result in goodwill impairments in future periods which could materially adversely affect our results of operations or financial position. See “Risk Factors — Risks Related to Our Business — If Our Business Does Not Perform Well, We May Be Required to Recognize an Impairment of Our Goodwill or Other Long-Lived Assets or to Establish a Valuation Allowance Against the Deferred Income Tax Asset, Which Could Adversely Affect Our Results of Operations or Financial Condition” included in the 2012 Annual Report.

See Note 7 of the Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information on the Company’s goodwill.

Economic Capital

Economic capital is an internally developed risk capital model, the purpose of which is to measure the risk in the business and to provide a basis upon which capital is deployed. The economic capital model accounts for the unique and specific nature of the risks inherent in MetLife’s and the Company’s business.

MetLife’s economic capital model aligns segment allocated equity with emerging standards and consistent risk principles. The model applies statistical based risk evaluation principles to the material risks to which the Company is exposed. These consistent risk principles include calibrating required economic capital shock factors to a specific confidence level and time horizon and applying an industry standard method for the inclusion of diversification benefits among risk types. Economic capital based risk estimation is an evolving science and industry best practices have emerged and continue to evolve. Areas of evolving industry best practices include stochastic liability valuation techniques, alternative methodologies for the calculation of diversification benefits, and the quantification of appropriate shock levels. MetLife staff is responsible for the on-going production and enhancement to the framework and reviews its approach periodically to ensure that it remains consistent with emerging industry practice standards.

Segment net investment income is credited or charged based on the level of allocated equity; however, changes in allocated equity do not impact the Company’s consolidated net investment income, operating earnings or net income (loss).

81

Results of Operations

Consolidated Results

The Company made additional changes to variable annuity guarantee features as we continued to manage sales volume, focusing on pricing discipline and risk management in this challenging economic environment. These actions, in combination with product changes made in 2012, resulted in a net decrease in sales of annuities of $4.0 billion, before income tax, or 43% compared to the prior period. The sustained low interest rate environment adversely impacted sales of our pension closeouts. While premiums for this business were entirely offset by the related change in policyholder benefits, the impact of current period deposits contributed to growth in our investment portfolio.

	Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2013			2012
	(In millions)
Revenues
Premiums	$	420		$	1,070
Universal life and investment-type product policy fees	1,744			1,691
Net investment income	2,132			2,223
Other revenues	447			385
Net investment gains (losses)	31			79
Net derivative gains (losses)	(581		)	45
Total revenues	4,193			5,493
Expenses
Policyholder benefits and claims	1,238			1,775
Interest credited to policyholder account balances	779			882
Goodwill impairment	66			394
Capitalization of DAC	(399		)	(691		)
Amortization of DAC and VOBA	72			639
Interest expense on debt	147			176
Other expenses	1,390			1,767
Total expenses	3,293			4,942
Income (loss) before provision for income tax	900			551
Provision for income tax expense (benefit)	266			38
Net income (loss)	$	634		$	513

Nine Months Ended September 30, 2013 Compared with the Nine Months Ended September 30, 2012

During the nine months ended September 30, 2013, income (loss) before provision for income tax increased $349 million ($121 million, net of income tax) over the prior period primarily driven by a lower goodwill impairment charge compared to the prior period, as well as higher operating earnings, partially offset by unfavorable changes in net derivative gains (losses) and net investment gains (losses).

We manage our investment portfolio using disciplined Asset/Liability Management principles, focusing on cash flow and duration to support our current and future liabilities. Our intent is to match the timing and amount of liability cash outflows with invested assets that have cash inflows of comparable timing and amount, while optimizing risk-adjusted net investment income and risk-adjusted total return. Our investment portfolio is heavily weighted toward fixed income investments, with over 80% of our portfolio invested in fixed maturity securities and mortgage loans. These securities and loans have varying maturities and other characteristics which cause them to be generally well suited for matching the cash flow and duration of insurance liabilities. Other invested asset classes including, but not limited to, equity securities, other limited partnership interests and real estate and real estate joint ventures, provide additional diversification and opportunity for long-term yield enhancement in addition to supporting the cash flow and duration objectives of our investment portfolio. We also use derivatives as an integral part of our management of the investment portfolio to hedge certain risks, including changes in interest rates, foreign currency exchange rates, credit spreads and equity market levels. Additional considerations for our investment portfolio include current and expected market conditions and expectations for changes within our specific mix of products and business segments. In addition, the general account investment portfolio includes, within fair value option securities, contractholder-directed unit-linked investments supporting unit-linked variable annuity type liabilities, which do not qualify as separate account assets. The returns on these contractholder-directed unit-linked investments, which can vary significantly from period to period, include changes in estimated fair value subsequent to purchase, inure to contractholders and are offset in earnings by a corresponding change in policyholder account balances (“PABs”) through interest credited to policyholder account balances. During June 2012, the Company disposed of MetLife Europe Limited (“MetLife Europe”), which held these contractholder-directed unit-linked investments.

82

The composition of the investment portfolio of each business segment is tailored to the specific characteristics of its insurance liabilities, causing certain portfolios to be shorter in duration and others to be longer in duration. Accordingly, certain portfolios are more heavily weighted in longer duration, higher yielding fixed maturity securities, or certain sub-sectors of fixed maturity securities, than other portfolios.

Investments are purchased to support our insurance liabilities and not to generate net investment gains and losses. However, net investment gains and losses are incurred and can change significantly from period to period due to changes in external influences, including changes in market factors such as interest rates, foreign currency exchange rates, credit spreads and equity markets; counterparty specific factors such as financial performance, credit rating and collateral valuation; and internal factors such as portfolio rebalancing. Changes in these factors from period to period can significantly impact the levels of both impairments and realized gains and losses on investments sold.

We use freestanding interest rate, equity, credit and currency derivatives to hedge certain invested assets and insurance liabilities. Certain of these hedges are designated and qualify as accounting hedges, which reduce volatility in earnings. For those hedges not designated as accounting hedges, changes in market factors lead to the recognition of fair value changes in net derivative gains (losses) generally without an offsetting gain or loss recognized in earnings for the item being hedged.

Certain direct or assumed variable annuity products with minimum benefit guarantees contain embedded derivatives that are measured at estimated fair value separately from the host variable annuity contract, with changes in estimated fair value recorded in net derivative gains (losses). The Company hedges the market and other risks inherent in these variable annuity guarantees through a combination of reinsurance and freestanding derivatives. Ceded reinsurance of direct or assumed variable annuity products with minimum benefit guarantees generally contain embedded derivatives that are measured at estimated fair value separately from the host variable annuity contract, with changes in estimated fair value recorded in net derivative gains (losses). The valuation of these embedded derivatives includes a nonperformance risk adjustment, which is unhedged and can be a significant driver of net derivative gains (losses) but does not have an economic impact on the Company.

Direct, assumed, and ceded variable annuity embedded derivatives and associated freestanding derivative hedges are collectively referred to as “VA program derivatives” in the following table. All other derivatives that are economic hedges of certain invested assets and insurance liabilities are referred to as “non-VA program derivatives” in the following table. The table below presents the impact on net derivative gains (losses) from non-VA program derivatives and VA program derivatives:

	Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2013			2012
	(In millions)
Non-VA program derivatives
Interest rate	$	(155	)	$	(34	)
Foreign currency exchange rate	(19		)	(15		)
Credit	35			41
Non-VA embedded derivatives	488			(192		)
Total non-VA program derivatives	349			(200		)
VA program derivatives
Embedded derivatives-direct/assumed guarantees:
Market risks	1,872			1,352
Nonperformance risk	(139		)	(212		)
Other risks	(34		)	(321		)
Total	1,699			819
Embedded derivatives-ceded reinsurance:
Market and other risks	(2,220		)	(598		)
Nonperformance risk	198			241
Total	(2,022		)	(357		)
Freestanding derivatives hedging direct/assumed embedded derivatives	(607		)	(217		)
Total VA program derivatives	(930		)	245
Net derivative gains (losses)	$	(581	)	$	45

Within VA program derivatives, a reclassification has been made to the prior period amounts to conform to the current period presentation and separately present each component of (i) fees on direct/assumed and ceded embedded derivatives, and (ii) market risks and other risks within direct/assumed embedded derivatives.

83

The favorable change in net derivative gains (losses) on non-VA program derivatives was $549 million ($357 million, net of income tax). This was primarily due to non-VA program embedded derivatives in affiliated ceded reinsurance written on a coinsurance with funds withheld basis, which were favorably impacted by changes in value of the underlying assets, as well as by a current period refinement to the method in which the changes in fair value of the underlying assets in the reference portfolio are allocated to the embedded derivative. The favorable change was also due to increasing forward United Kingdom inflation rates favorably impacting receive-float inflation swaps. These favorable impacts were partially offset by long-term interest rates increasing in the current period and decreasing in the prior period, unfavorably impacting receive-fixed interest rate swaps and net long interest rate floors. These freestanding derivatives are primarily hedging long duration liability portfolios. Because certain of these hedging strategies are not designated or do not qualify as accounting hedges, the changes in the estimated fair value of these freestanding derivatives are recognized in net derivative gains (losses) without an offsetting gain or loss recognized in earnings for the item being hedged.

The unfavorable change in net derivative gains (losses) on VA program derivatives was $1.2 billion ($764 million, net of income tax). This was due to an unfavorable change of $1.2 billion ($783 million, net of income tax) related to market and other risks on direct and assumed variable annuity embedded derivatives, net of the impact of market and other risks on the ceded reinsurance embedded derivatives and net of freestanding derivatives hedging those risks, an unfavorable change of $43 million ($28 million, net of income tax) related to the nonperformance risk adjustment on the ceded variable annuity embedded derivatives and a favorable change of $73 million ($47 million, net of income tax) related to the nonperformance risk adjustment on the direct and assumed variable annuity embedded derivatives.

The nonperformance risk adjustment on the ceded variable annuity embedded derivatives gain of $198 million ($129 million, net of income tax) in the current period was comprised of a gain of $155 million due to the impact of changes in capital market inputs, such as long-term risk free interest rates and key equity index levels, as well as a gain of $43 million due to changes in the reinsurer’s credit spread. The nonperformance risk adjustment on the direct and assumed variable annuity embedded derivatives loss of $139 million ($90 million, net of income tax) in the current period was comprised of a loss of $129 million due to the impact of changes in capital market inputs, such as long-term risk free interest rates and key equity index levels, as well as a loss of $10 million due to changes in the Company’s own credit spread.

The Company calculates the nonperformance risk adjustment on the direct, assumed, and ceded variable annuity embedded derivatives as the change in the embedded derivative discounted at the risk adjusted rate (which includes a credit spread to the extent that the embedded derivative is in-the-money) less the change in the embedded derivative discounted at the risk free rate.

When equity index levels decrease in isolation, the direct and assumed variable annuity guarantees become more valuable to policyholders, which results in an increase in the undiscounted embedded derivative liability. Discounting this unfavorable change by the risk adjusted rate yields a smaller loss than by discounting at the risk free rate, thus, creating a gain from including an adjustment for nonperformance risk on the direct and assumed variable annuity embedded derivatives. The opposite impact occurs with respect to the nonperformance risk adjustment on the ceded variable annuity guarantees.

When the risk free interest rate decreases in isolation, discounting the embedded derivative liability produces a higher valuation of the liability than if the risk free interest rate had remained constant. Discounting this unfavorable change by the risk adjusted rate yields a smaller loss than by discounting at the risk free rate, thus creating a gain from including an adjustment for nonperformance risk on the direct and assumed variable annuity embedded derivatives. The opposite impact occurs with respect to the nonperformance risk adjustment on the ceded variable annuity guarantees.

When the Company's own credit spread increases in isolation, discounting the embedded derivative liability produces a lower valuation of the liability than if the own credit spread had remained constant. As a result, a gain is created from including an adjustment for nonperformance risk on the direct and assumed variable annuity embedded derivatives. The opposite impact occurs with respect to the nonperformance risk adjustment on ceded variable annuity guarantees when the reinsurer's credit spread increases in isolation. For each of these primary market drivers, the opposite effect occurs when they move in the opposite direction.

Generally, a higher portion of the ceded reinsurance for guaranteed minimum income benefits (“GMIBs”) is accounted for as an embedded derivative as compared to the direct guarantees since the settlement provisions of the reinsurance contracts generally meet the accounting criteria of “net settlement.” This mismatch in accounting can lead to significant volatility in earnings, even though the risks inherent in these direct guarantees are fully covered by the ceded reinsurance.

84

The foregoing unfavorable change of $1.2 billion ($783 million, net of income tax) is comprised of a $2.0 billion ($1.3 billion, net of income tax) unfavorable change in market and other risks on ceded variable annuity embedded derivatives and freestanding derivatives, which together hedge the market and other risks on direct and assumed variable annuity embedded derivatives, and a $807 million ($525 million, net of income tax) favorable change in market and other risks on direct and assumed variable annuity embedded derivatives. As discussed in the preceding paragraph, changes in market and other risks lead to volatility in earnings due to the mismatch in accounting on GMIBs.

The primary changes in market factors are summarized as follows:

• Long-term interest rates increased in the current period and decreased in the prior period, contributing to an unfavorable change in our ceded reinsurance assets and our freestanding derivatives and favorable changes in our direct and assumed embedded derivatives.

• Key equity index levels increased more in the current period than in the prior period, contributing to unfavorable changes in our ceded reinsurance assets and our freestanding derivatives and favorable changes in our direct and assumed embedded derivatives.

• Key equity volatility measures decreased less in the current period than in the prior period, contributing to favorable changes in our ceded reinsurance assets and our freestanding derivatives and unfavorable changes in our direct and assumed embedded derivatives.

The unfavorable change in net investment gains (losses) of $48 million ($31 million, net of income tax) reflects a decrease in net gains on sales of fixed maturity securities.

The current period includes a $66 million ($57 million, net of income tax) non-cash charge for goodwill impairment associated with our U.S. Retail Life & Other business. The prior period included a $394 million ($147 million, net of income tax) non-cash charge for goodwill impairment associated with our U.S. Retail annuities business. During 2013, the actuarial assumptions review process was accelerated from the fourth quarter to the third quarter to be in line with the annual goodwill testing. As such, we performed our annual review of actuarial assumptions during the current period. The results of the current period include a $31 million ($20 million, net of income tax) charge associated with the global review of assumptions related to reserves and DAC, of which $65 million ($43 million, net of income tax) was recognized in net derivative gains (losses). Of the $31 million charge, $96 million ($62 million, net of income tax) is related to reserves, offset by $64 million ($42 million, net of income tax) associated with DAC. With respect to the $65 million charge recorded in net derivative gains (losses) a $73 million loss on direct variable annuity embedded derivatives was included within the other risks caption and a $8 million gain on ceded reinsurance embedded derivatives was included within the market and other risks caption in the table above.

As a result of the global review of assumptions, changes were made to policyholder behavior and mortality assumptions, as well as to economic assumptions. The most significant impacts were in Retail annuities and Retail life.

• Changes to policyholder behavior and mortality assumptions resulted in reserve increases offset by favorable DAC for a net loss of $51 million ($33 million, net of income tax).

• Changes in economic assumptions resulted in a decrease in reserves and favorable DAC for a net benefit of $20 million ($13 million, net of income tax).

85

Income tax expense for the nine months ended September 30, 2013 was $266 million, or 30% of income (loss) before provision for income tax, compared with $38 million, or 7% of income (loss) provision for income tax for the prior period. The Company’s 2013 and 2012 effective tax rates differ from the U.S. statutory rate of 35% primarily due to non-taxable investment income and income tax accounting for goodwill.

As more fully described in “— Non-GAAP and Other Financial Disclosures,” we use operating earnings, which does not equate to net income (loss), as determined in accordance with GAAP, to analyze our performance, evaluate segment performance, and allocate resources. We believe that the presentation of operating earnings, as we measure it for management purposes, enhances the understanding of our performance by highlighting the results of operations and the underlying profitability drivers of the business. Operating earnings should not be viewed as a substitute for net income (loss). Operating earnings increased $207 million, net of income tax, to $945 million, net of income tax, in the current period from $738 million, net of income tax, in the prior period.

Reconciliation of net income (loss) to operating earnings

	Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2013			2012
	(In millions)
Net income (loss)	$	634		$	513
Less: Net investment gains (losses)	31			79
Less: Net derivative gains (losses)	(581		)	45
Less: Goodwill impairment	(66		)	(394		)
Less: Other adjustments to net income (1)	164			(211		)
Less: Provision for income tax (expense) benefit	141			256
Operating earnings	$	945		$	738

____________

(1) See definitions of operating revenues and operating expenses under “— Non-GAAP and Other Financial Disclosures” for the components of such adjustments.

Reconciliation of GAAP revenues to operating revenues and GAAP expenses to operating expenses

	Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2013			2012
	(In millions)
Total revenues	$	4,193		$	5,493
Less: Net investment gains (losses)	31			79
Less: Net derivative gains (losses)	(581		)	45
Less: Adjustments related to net investment gains (losses) and net derivative gains (losses)	(6		)	(1		)
Less: Other adjustments to revenues (1)	88			184
Total operating revenues	$	4,661		$	5,186
Total expenses	$	3,293		$	4,942
Less: Adjustments related to net investment gains (losses) and net derivative gains (losses)	(308		)	81
Less: Goodwill impairment	66			394
Less: Other adjustments to expenses (1)	226			313
Total operating expenses	$	3,309		$	4,154

____________

(1) See definitions of operating revenues and operating expenses under “— Non-GAAP and Other Financial Disclosures” for the components of such adjustments.

86

Consolidated Results – Operating

	Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2013			2012
	(In millions)
OPERATING REVENUES
Premiums	$	420		$	1,070
Universal life and investment-type product policy fees	1,638			1,592
Net investment income	2,156			2,139
Other revenues	447			385
Total operating revenues	4,661			5,186
OPERATING EXPENSES
Policyholder benefits and claims	1,091			1,632
Interest credited to policyholder account balances	784			838
Capitalization of DAC	(399		)	(691		)
Amortization of DAC and VOBA	392			562
Interest expense on debt	51			51
Other expenses	1,390			1,762
Total operating expenses	3,309			4,154
Provision for income tax expense (benefit)	407			294
Operating earnings	$	945		$	738

Nine Months Ended September 30, 2013 Compared with the Nine Months Ended September 30, 2012

Unless otherwise stated, all amounts discussed below are net of income tax.

The $207 million increase in operating earnings was primarily driven by higher asset-based fee revenues, higher net investment income from portfolio growth and a decrease in expenses, partially offset by unfavorable mortality and claims experience.

Positive net flows from universal life and variable annuities products since the prior period resulted in an increase in account balances and generated higher asset-based fee revenue of $55 million. Positive net flows in our life businesses resulted in an increase in invested assets which generated higher net investment income of $27 million. Deferred annuity surrenders and withdrawals exceeded sales for the period, resulting in negative cash flows to the general account and a decrease in interest credited expense. This was partially offset by higher interest credited in our Corporate Benefit Funding segment and our life business due to growth.

The improving equity market resulted in higher fee income from increased separate account balances, which increased operating earnings by $119 million. This increase was partially offset by higher asset based commissions that are also, in part, determined by separate account balances, which decreased operating earnings by $34 million. As a result of the sustained low interest rate environment, average interest credited rates on corporate benefit products declined, increasing operating earnings by $17 million. Lower investment yields decreased operating earnings by $17 million resulting from lower returns on real estate joint ventures, and the impact of the low interest rate environment on our fixed maturity securities and mortgage loans, partially offset by improved returns on other limited partnership interests and higher income on interest rate derivatives.

Less favorable claims experience, mainly in our variable and universal life businesses, reduced operating earnings by $127 million. While there was less favorable mortality, the decrease was primarily driven by changes in affiliated reinsurance coverage and experience refunds, resulting in higher costs of reinsurance in the current period. DAC amortization decreased due to the continued favorable equity markets in the current period, partially offset by an increase due to growth in the business, resulting in a $64 million increase in operating earnings.

On an annual basis, we review and update our long-term assumptions used in our calculations of certain insurance-related liabilities and DAC. This annual update was performed in the third quarter of 2013 and resulted in a net operating earnings increase of $27 million. This favorable adjustment was primarily related to DAC unlockings in the variable annuity business, partially offset by unfavorable DAC unlockings in our universal life business. In addition to our annual updates, certain insurance-related liabilities and DAC refinements were recorded in both the current and prior periods and resulted in a slight increase in operating earnings.

Expenses declined $86 million, primarily driven by disciplined spending and reduced interest expense associated with affiliated ceded funds withheld reinsurance treaties.

87

In June 2012, the Company distributed all of the issued and outstanding shares of common stock of its wholly-owned subsidiary, MetLife Europe, to its stockholders as an in-kind dividend. This transaction resulted in a $21 million increase in operating earnings in the current period compared to the prior period.

Adoption of New Accounting Pronouncements

See Note 1 of the Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

Future Adoption of New Accounting Pronouncements

See Note 1 of the Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

Non-GAAP and Other Financial Disclosures

Operating earnings is defined as operating revenues less operating expenses, both net of income tax.

Operating revenues excludes net investment gains (losses) and net derivative gains (losses). Operating expenses excludes goodwill impairments.

The following additional adjustments are made to GAAP revenues, in the line items indicated, in calculating operating revenues: 

• Universal life and investment-type product policy fees excludes the amortization of unearned revenue related to net investment gains (losses) and net derivative gains (losses) and certain variable annuity GMIB fees (“GMIB Fees”); and

• Net investment income: (i) includes amounts for scheduled periodic settlement payments and amortization of premium on derivatives that are hedges of investments or that are used to replicate certain investments, but do not qualify for hedge accounting treatment, (ii) includes income from discontinued real estate operations, (iii) excludes post-tax operating earnings adjustments relating to insurance joint ventures accounted for under the equity method, (iv) excludes certain amounts related to contractholder-directed unit-linked investments, and (v) excludes certain amounts related to securitization entities that are variable interest entities (“VIEs”) consolidated under GAAP.

The following additional adjustments are made to GAAP expenses, in the line items indicated, in calculating operating expenses: 

• Policyholder benefits and claims excludes: (i) amounts associated with periodic crediting rate adjustments based on the total return of a contractually referenced pool of assets, (ii) benefits and hedging costs related to GMIBs (“GMIB Costs”), and (iii) market value adjustments associated with surrenders or terminations of contracts (“Market Value Adjustments”);

• Interest credited to policyholder account balances includes adjustments for scheduled periodic settlement payments and amortization of premium on derivatives that are hedges of PABs but do not qualify for hedge accounting treatment and excludes amounts related to net investment income earned on contractholder-directed unit-linked investments;

• Amortization of DAC and VOBA excludes amounts related to: (i) net investment gains (losses) and net derivative gains (losses), (ii) GMIB Fees and GMIB Costs, and (iii) Market Value Adjustments;

• Interest expense on debt excludes certain amounts related to securitization entities that are VIEs consolidated under GAAP; and

• Other expenses excludes costs related to implementation of new insurance regulatory requirements and acquisition and integration costs.

We believe the presentation of operating earnings, as we measure it for management purposes, enhances the understanding of our performance by highlighting the results of operations and the underlying profitability drivers of our business. Operating revenues, operating expenses and operating earnings should not be viewed as substitutes for the following financial measures calculated in accordance with GAAP: GAAP revenues, GAAP expenses and net income (loss), respectively. Reconciliations of these measures to the most directly comparable GAAP measures are included in “— Results of Operations.”

In this discussion, we sometimes refer to sales activity for various products. These sales statistics do not correspond to revenues under GAAP, but are used as relevant measures of business activity.

Subsequent Event

See Note12of the Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

88

Item 4. Controls and Procedures

Management, with the participation of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, has evaluated the effectiveness of the design and operation of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures as defined in Rule 15d-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”), as of the end of the period covered by this report. Based on that evaluation, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer have concluded that these disclosure controls and procedures are effective.

There were no changes to the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as defined in Exchange Act Rule 15d-15(f) during the quarter ended September 30, 2013 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

Part II — Other Information

Item 1.Legal Proceedings

The following should be read in conjunction with (i) Part I, Item 3, of MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012 (the “2012 Annual Report”), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”); (ii) Part II, Item 1, of MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut’s Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the quarters ended March 31, 2013 and June 30, 2013, filed with the SEC; and (iii) Note 10 of the Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements in Part I of this report.

Various litigation, claims and assessments against the Company, in addition to those discussed previously and those otherwise provided for in the Company’s consolidated financial statements, have arisen in the course of the Company’s business, including, but not limited to, in connection with its activities as an insurer, employer, investor, investment advisor and taxpayer. Further, state insurance regulatory authorities and other federal and state authorities regularly make inquiries and conduct investigations concerning the Company’s compliance with applicable insurance and other laws and regulations.

It is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of all pending investigations and legal proceedings. In some of the matters referred to previously, large and/or indeterminate amounts, including punitive and treble damages, are sought. Although, in light of these considerations it is possible that an adverse outcome in certain cases could have a material effect upon the Company’s financial position, based on information currently known by the Company’s management, in its opinion, the outcomes of such pending investigations and legal proceedings are not likely to have such an effect. However, given the large and/or indeterminate amounts sought in certain of these matters and the inherent unpredictability of litigation, it is possible that an adverse outcome in certain matters could, from time to time, have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated net income or cash flows in particular quarterly or annual periods.

Item 1A.Risk Factors

The following should be read in conjunction with, and supplements and amends, the factors that may affect the Company's business or operations described under “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1A, of the 2012 Annual Report, as supplemented and amended by the information under “Risk Factors” in Part II, Item 1A of MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut's Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the quarters ended March 31, 2013 and June 30, 2013, which are incorporated herein by reference.

89

Economic Environment and Capital Markets-Related Risks

If Difficult Conditions in the Global Capital Markets and the Economy Generally Persist, They May Materially Adversely Affect Our Business and Results of Operations

Our business and results of operations are materially affected by conditions in the global capital markets and the economy generally. Stressed conditions, volatility and disruptions in financial asset classes or various markets, including global capital markets, can have an adverse effect on us, in part because we have a large investment portfolio and our insurance liabilities are sensitive to changing market factors. Global market factors, including interest rates, credit spreads, equity prices, real estate markets, foreign currency exchange rates, consumer spending, business investment, government spending, the volatility and strength of the capital markets, deflation and inflation can all affect our financial condition, as well as the volume, profitability and results of our business operations, either directly or by virtue of their impact on the business and economic environment generally and on general levels of economic activity, employment and customer behavior specifically. Disruptions in one market or asset class can also spread to other markets or asset classes. Upheavals in the financial markets can also affect our financial condition (including our liquidity and capital levels) as a result of mismatched impacts on the value of our assets and our liabilities. While our diversified business mix and geographically diverse business operations partially mitigate these risks, correlation across regions, countries and global market factors may reduce the benefits of diversification.

At times, throughout the past few years, volatile conditions have characterized financial markets, and not all global financial markets are functioning normally. Significant market volatility, and government actions taken in response, may exacerbate some of the risks we face. Concerns about economic conditions, capital markets and the solvency of certain European Union (“EU”) member states, including Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain (“Europe’s perimeter region”), as well as Cyprus, their banking systems and of the financial institutions that have significant direct or indirect exposure to debt issued by these countries or significant exposure to their banking systems, have been a cause of elevated levels of market volatility. This market volatility has affected the performance of various asset classes at various times, and it could continue until there is an ultimate resolution of these sovereign debt and banking system-related concerns. Despite public and private support programs for Europe’s perimeter region, concerns about sovereign debt sustainability subsequently expanded to other EU member states. As a result, in late 2011 and early 2012, several other EU member states experienced credit ratings downgrades or had their credit ratings outlook changed to negative. The financial markets have also been affected by concerns that one or more countries may exit the Euro zone. Moreover, the financial markets have been affected by questions over the direction of U.S. fiscal policy, including those relating to the levels of the debt ceiling and the federal deficit. Any of these concerns could have significant adverse effects on the economic and financial markets.

To the extent these uncertain financial market conditions persist, our revenues and net investment income are likely to remain under pressure. Similarly, sustained periods of low interest rates could cause our profit margins to erode. See “Risk Factors — Economic Environment and Capital Markets-Related Risks — We Are Exposed to Significant Financial and Capital Markets Risks Which May Adversely Affect Our Results of Operations, Financial Condition and Liquidity, and May Cause Our Net Investment Income to Vary From Period to Period” included in the 2012 Annual Report. Also, in the event of extreme prolonged market events, such as the recent global credit crisis, we could incur significant capital and/or operating losses due to, among other reasons, losses incurred in our general account and as a result of the impact on us of guarantees and/or collateral requirements associated with affiliated captive reinsurers and other similar arrangements. Even in the absence of a market downturn, we are exposed to substantial risk of loss due to market volatility.

We are a significant writer of variable insurance products and certain other products issued through separate accounts. The account values of these products decrease as a result of declining equity markets. Decreases in account values reduce fees generated by these products, cause the amortization of deferred policy acquisition costs to accelerate, could increase the level of insurance liabilities we must carry to support such products issued with any associated guarantees and could require us to provide additional funding to affiliated captive reinsurers.

In an economic downturn characterized by higher unemployment, lower family income, lower corporate earnings, lower business investment and lower consumer spending, the demand for our financial and insurance products could be adversely affected. Group insurance, in particular, is affected by higher unemployment rates. In addition, we may experience an elevated incidence of claims and lapses or surrenders of policies. Furthermore, our policyholders may choose to defer paying insurance premiums or stop paying insurance premiums altogether. Such adverse changes in the economy could negatively affect our earnings and have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

90

The recent financial crisis has precipitated, and may continue to raise the possibility of, legislative, judicial, regulatory and other governmental actions. See “Risk Factors — Risks Related to Our Business — Competitive Factors May Adversely Affect Our Market Share and Profitability” included in the 2012 Annual Report and “— Regulatory and Legal Risks — Our Insurance and Brokerage Businesses Are Highly Regulated, and Changes in Regulation and in Supervisory and Enforcement Policies May Reduce Our Profitability and Limit Our Growth.”

Regulatory and Legal Risks

Our Insurance and Brokerage Businesses Are Highly Regulated, and Changes in Regulation and in Supervisory and Enforcement Policies May Reduce Our Profitability and Limit Our Growth

Our insurance operations and brokerage businesses are subject to a wide variety of insurance and other laws and regulations. See “Business — Regulation — Insurance Regulation” included in the 2012 Annual Report, as supplemented by discussions of regulatory developments in our subsequently filed Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q under the caption “Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Business — Regulatory Developments.”

Insurance Regulation — U.S.

State insurance regulators and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (“NAIC”) regularly re-examine existing laws and regulations applicable to insurance companies and their products. Changes in these laws and regulations, or in interpretations thereof, that are made for the benefit of the consumer sometimes lead to additional expense for the insurer and, thus, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Recently, the NAIC and the New York State Department of Financial Services (“Department of Financial Services”) have been scrutinizing insurance companies' use of affiliated captive reinsurers or off-shore entities, and the Department of Financial Services on June 11, 2013 issued a highly critical report setting forth its findings to date relating to its inquiry into the life insurance industry's use of captive insurance companies. In its report, the Department of Financial Services recommended that (i) the NAIC develop enhanced disclosure requirements for reserve financing transactions involving captive insurers, (ii) the Federal Insurance Office (the “FIO”), Office of Financial Research (the “OFR”), the NAIC and state insurance commissioners conduct inquiries similar to the Department of Financial Services inquiry and (iii) state insurance commissioners consider an immediate national moratorium on new reserve financing transactions involving captive insurers until these inquiries are complete. Like many life insurance companies, we utilize captive reinsurers to satisfy statutory reserve requirements. If the insurance regulators in Connecticut or Delaware restrict the use of such captive reinsurers or if we otherwise are unable to continue to use captive reinsurers in the future, our ability to write certain products, or to hedge the associated risks efficiently and/or our risk-based capital ratios could be adversely affected or we may need to increase prices on those products, which could adversely impact our competitive position and our results of operations. See “Business — Regulation — Holding Company Regulation — Insurance Regulatory Examinations” and Note 10 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in the 2012 Annual Report.

The NAIC is also reviewing life insurers' use of non-variable separate accounts that are insulated from general account claims, which might lead to a recommendation against the allowance of insulation for certain of our separate account products, particularly in the institutional markets. If the insurance regulators in Connecticut or Delaware change applicable laws or regulations in accordance with such recommendation, our use of insulation for certain products could be impaired and our ability to compete effectively or do business in certain markets may be adversely affected. In addition, our financial results may also be adversely affected. See “Business — Regulation — Holding Company Regulation — Insurance Regulatory Examinations” included in the 2012 Annual Report.

U.S. Federal Regulation Affecting Insurance

Currently, the U.S. federal government does not directly regulate the business of insurance. However, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”) establishes the FIO within the Department of the Treasury, which has the authority to participate in the negotiations of international insurance agreements with foreign regulators for the U.S., as well as to collect information about the insurance industry and recommend prudential standards. See “Business — Regulation — Holding Company Regulation — Federal Initiatives” included in the 2012 Annual Report.

91

Federal legislation and administrative policies can significantly and adversely affect insurance companies, including policies regarding financial services regulation, securities regulation, derivatives regulation, pension regulation, health care regulation, privacy, tort reform legislation and taxation. In addition, various forms of direct and indirect federal regulation of insurance have been proposed from time to time, including proposals for the establishment of an optional federal charter for insurance companies. Other aspects of our insurance operations could also be affected by Dodd-Frank. For example, under the so-called Volcker Rule, Dodd-Frank imposes additional capital requirements and quantitative limits on certain trading and activities by a non-bank systemically important financial institution (“non-bank SIFI”). MetLife, Inc. could be subject to such requirements and limits were it to be designated as a non-bank SIFI, which could adversely affect our competitive position. See “Business — Regulation — Potential Regulation of MetLife as a Non-Bank SIFI” included in the 2012 Annual Report.

Non-bank SIFIs and certain other large financial companies can be assessed under Dodd-Frank for any uncovered costs arising in connection with the resolution of a systemically important financial company and to cover the expenses of the OFR, an agency established by Dodd-Frank to improve the quality of financial data available to policymakers and facilitate more robust and sophisticated analysis of the financial system.

Federal Regulatory Agencies

Dodd-Frank established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), which supervises and regulates institutions providing certain financial products and services to consumers. Although the consumer financial services to which this legislation applies exclude insurance business of the kind in which we engage, the CFPB has authority to regulate non-insurance consumer services provided by MetLife. See “Business — Regulation — Potential Regulation of MetLife as a Non-Bank SIFI — Consumer Protection Laws” included in the 2012 Annual Report.

While MetLife, Inc. has de-registered as a bank holding company, it may, in the future, be designated by the Financial Stability Oversight Council (“FSOC”) as a non-bank SIFI, as more fully discussed below, and could once again be subject to regulation by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Federal Reserve Board”) and subject to enhanced supervision and prudential standards. Moreover, other national and international authorities have also proposed measures intended to increase the intensity of regulation of large financial institutions, requiring greater coordination among regulators and efforts to harmonize regulatory regimes. If such measures were adopted, including as a result of the designation of MetLife, Inc. as a non-bank SIFI, they could materially adversely affect our ability to conduct business and our results of operations and financial condition. See “Business — Regulation — Potential Regulation of MetLife as a Non-Bank SIFI” included in the 2012 Annual Report and “— Potential Regulation of MetLife As a Non-Bank SIFI or As Systemically Important Under Other Regulations Proposed by National or International Authorities Could Adversely Affect Our Ability to Compete and Our Business and Results of Operations.”

Regulation of Brokers and Dealers

Dodd-Frank also authorizes the SEC to establish a standard of conduct applicable to brokers and dealers when providing personalized investment advice to retail and other customers. This standard of conduct would be to act in the best interest of the customer without regard to the financial or other interest of the broker or dealer providing the advice. See “Business — Regulation — Securities, Broker-Dealer and Investment Adviser Regulation” and “Risk Factors — Regulatory and Legal Risks — Changes in U.S. Federal and State Securities Laws and Regulations, and State Insurance Regulations Regarding Suitability of Annuity Product Sales, May Affect Our Operations and Our Profitability” included in the 2012 Annual Report.

Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) Considerations

We provide products and services to certain employee benefit plans that are subject to ERISA or the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). Consequently, our activities are likewise subject to the restrictions imposed by ERISA and the Code, including the requirement that fiduciaries must perform their duties solely in the interests of ERISA plan participants and beneficiaries, and not cause a plan to engage in prohibited transactions with persons who have certain relationships with respect to those plans.

92

The prohibited transaction rules generally restrict the provision of investment advice to ERISA plans and participants and Individual Retirement Accounts (“IRAs”) if the investment recommendation results in fees paid to the individual advisor, the firm or affiliate that vary according to the recommendation chosen. Recently adopted regulations in this area provide some relief from these investment advice restrictions. If additional relief is not provided, the ability of our affiliated broker-dealers and their registered representatives to provide investment advice to ERISA plans and participants and IRAs would likely be significantly restricted. Other proposed regulations in this area may negatively impact the current business model of our broker-dealers, including proposed changes to broaden the definition of “fiduciary,” thereby increasing the regulation of persons providing investment advice to ERISA plans and IRAs. These proposed regulations are expected in 2014. See “Business — Regulation — Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) Considerations” included in the 2012 Annual Report.

International Regulation

Our international insurance operations are principally regulated by insurance regulatory authorities in the jurisdictions in which they are located or operate. The authority of our international operations to conduct business is subject to licensing requirements, permits and approvals, and these authorizations are subject to modification and revocation. See “Risk Factors - Risks Related to Our Business — Our International Operations Face Political, Legal, Operational and Other Risks, Including Exposure to Local and Regional Economic Conditions, That Could Negatively Affect Those Operations or Our Profitability” included in the 2012 Annual Report. Our international operations may be materially adversely affected by the actions and decisions of foreign authorities and regulators, such as any nationalization or expropriation of assets, the imposition of limits on foreign ownership of local companies, changes in laws (including tax laws and regulations), their application or interpretation, political instability, dividend limitations, price controls, changes in applicable currency, currency exchange controls or other restrictions that prevent us from transferring funds from these operations out of the countries in which they operate or converting local currencies we hold to U.S. dollars or other currencies. This may also impact many of our customers and independent sales intermediaries. Changes in the laws and regulations that affect these customers and independent sales intermediaries also may affect our business relationships with them and their ability to purchase or distribute our products. Accordingly, these changes and actions may negatively affect our business in these jurisdictions. We expect the scope and extent of regulation outside of the U.S., as well as general regulatory oversight, to continue to increase. The regulatory environment in the countries in which we operate and changes in laws could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations. See “Risk Factors — Risks Related to Our Business — Our International Operations Face Political, Legal, Operational and Other Risks, Including Exposure to Local and Regional Economic Conditions, That Could Negatively Affect Those Operations or Our Profitability” included in the 2012 Annual Report.

We are also subject to the evolving Solvency II insurance regulatory directive for our insurance business throughout the European Economic Area, and may be subject to similar solvency regulations in other regions. As requirements are finalized by the regulators, capital requirements might be impacted in a number of jurisdictions. In addition, our legal entity structure throughout Europe may impact our capital requirements, risk management infrastructure and reporting by country.

General

From time to time, regulators raise issues during examinations or audits of us and regulated subsidiaries that could, if determined adversely, have a material impact on us. In addition, the interpretations of regulations by regulators may change and statutes may be enacted with retroactive impact, particularly in areas such as accounting or statutory reserve requirements. We are also subject to other regulations and may in the future become subject to additional regulations. See “Business — Regulation” included in the 2012 Annual Report. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations is time consuming and personnel-intensive, and changes in these laws and regulations may materially increase our direct and indirect compliance and other expenses of doing business, thus having a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Potential Regulation of MetLife As a Non-Bank SIFI or As Systemically Important Under Other Regulations Proposed by National or International Authorities Could Adversely Affect Our Ability to Compete and Our Business and Results of Operations

While MetLife has de-registered as a bank holding company, it may, in the future be designated by the FSOC as a non-bank SIFI. This would subject MetLife to enhanced supervision and prudential standards which could adversely affect our ability to compete with other insurers that are not subject to those requirements and adversely affect our business and results of operations. See “Business — Regulation — Potential Regulation of MetLife as a Non-Bank SIFI” included in the 2012 Annual Report, as supplemented by discussions of regulatory developments in our subsequently filed Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q under the caption “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Business — Regulatory Developments.”

93

The FSOC issued final rules in April 2012 outlining a three-stage process it will follow and the criteria it will use to assess whether a non-bank financial company should be subject to enhanced supervision by the Federal Reserve Board as a non-bank SIFI. On July 16, 2013, MetLife, Inc. was notified by the FSOC that it had reached Stage 3 in the process to determine whether MetLife would be designated a non-bank SIFI. Regulation of MetLife, Inc. as a non-bank SIFI could materially and adversely affect our business. The Federal Reserve Board has proposed a set of prudential standards that would apply to non-bank SIFIs, including enhanced risk-based capital requirements, leverage limits, liquidity requirements, single counterparty exposure limits, governance requirements for risk management, stress test requirements, special debt-to-equity limits for certain companies, early remediation procedures and recovery and resolution planning through international crisis management groups and under federal regulation. The Federal Reserve Board’s proposal contemplates that these standards would be subject to the authority of the Federal Reserve Board to determine, on its own or in response to a recommendation by the FSOC, to tailor the application of the enhanced standards to different companies on an individual basis or by category, taking into consideration their capital structure, riskiness, complexity, financial activities, size, and any other risk-related factors that the Federal Reserve Board deems appropriate. Accordingly, the manner in which these proposed standards might apply to MetLife, Inc. remains unclear. The Federal Reserve Board has stated that it believes other provisions of Dodd-Frank, known as the Collins Amendment, constrain its ability to tailor capital standards for non-bank SIFIs.

In the wake of the recent financial crisis, other national and international authorities have also proposed measures intended to increase the intensity of regulation of large financial institutions, requiring greater coordination among regulators and efforts to harmonize regulatory regimes. For example, the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (“IAIS”) is participating in the initiative of the Financial Stability Board (“FSB”) to identify global systemically important financial institutions by devising a process for designating global systemically important insurers (“G-SIIs”). On July 18, 2013, the FSB published its initial list of nine G-SIIs, which includes MetLife, Inc. For G-SIIs which engage in activities deemed to be systemically risky, the framework of policy measures calls for imposition of additional capital requirements on those activities. G-SII backstop capital requirements for the calculation of additional capital are to be developed by the end of 2014, for application beginning in 2019. In addition, the IAIS has confirmed that it will develop a risk-based global insurance capital standard by 2016. This global insurance capital standard will apply to all internationally active insurance groups, including G-SIIs, with implementation to begin in 2019 after two years of testing and refinement. Any such measures would have to be implemented by legislation or regulation in each applicable jurisdiction, and the impact on MetLife, Inc. and other designated G-SIIs in the U.S. is uncertain.

If such measures were adopted, including as a result of the potential designation of MetLife, Inc. as a non-bank SIFI, they could materially adversely affect our ability to conduct business and our results of operations and financial condition. Enhanced capital requirements could adversely affect our ability to compete with other insurers that are not subject to those requirements, and our ability to issue guarantees could be constrained. We could have to raise the price of the products we offer, reduce the amount of risk we take on, or stop offering certain products altogether. Further, counterparty exposure limits could affect our ability to engage in hedging activities. The Federal Reserve Board could also have the right to require that we or our insurance company affiliates take prompt action to correct any financial weaknesses. See “Business — Regulation” included in the 2012 Annual Report.

In the event that MetLife, Inc. is designated as a non-bank SIFI, it may elect to contest such designation using all available remedies under Dodd-Frank or otherwise. If ultimately designated as a non-bank SIFI, MetLife, Inc. may consider such structural and other business alternatives that may be available to it in response to such a designation, and we cannot predict the impact that any such alternatives, if implemented, may have on the Company.

94

Investments-Related Risks

Our Requirements to Pledge Collateral or Make Payments Related to Declines in Estimated Fair Value of Derivatives Transactions or Specified Assets in Connection with Over-the-Counter (“OTC”) Derivatives Cleared and Settled Through Central Clearing Counterparties (“OTC Cleared”) and Traded Bi-laterally with Dealer Counterparties (“OTC Uncleared”), May Adversely Affect Our Liquidity, Expose Us to Central Clearinghouse and Counterparty Credit Risk, and Increase our Costs of Hedging

Substantially all of our derivatives transactions require us to pledge collateral related to any decline in the net estimated fair value of such derivatives transactions executed through a specific broker at a clearinghouse or entered into with a specific counterparty on a bi-lateral basis. Certain derivatives financing transactions require us to pledge collateral or make payments related to declines in the estimated fair value of the specified assets under certain circumstances to central clearinghouses or our counterparties. The amount of collateral we may be required to pledge and the payments we may be required to make under our derivatives transactions may increase under certain circumstances and will likely increase under Dodd-Frank as a result of the requirement to pledge initial margin for OTC Cleared transactions entered into after June 10, 2013 and for OTC Uncleared transactions entered into after the phase-in period, which would be applicable to us in 2019 if the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the SEC adopt the final margin requirements for non-centrally cleared derivatives published by the Bank of International Settlements and International Organization of Securities Commissions in September 2013. Each of these items could also adversely affect our liquidity. Central clearinghouses and counterparties may also restrict or eliminate certain types of previously eligible collateral, which could also adversely affect our liquidity or charge us to pledge such collateral which would increase our costs. See “Business — Regulation — Holding Company Regulation — Regulation of Over-the-Counter Derivatives,” “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Liquidity and Capital Resources — Liquidity Management — Derivatives and Collateral” in the 2012 Annual Report and Note 5 of the Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

Risks Related to Our Business

Reinsurance May Not Be Available, Affordable or Adequate to Protect Us Against Losses

As part of our overall risk management strategy, we purchase reinsurance for certain risks underwritten by our various business segments. While reinsurance agreements generally bind the reinsurer for the life of the business reinsured at generally fixed pricing, market conditions beyond our control determine the availability and cost of the reinsurance protection for new business. In certain circumstances, the price of reinsurance for business already reinsured may also increase. For most of our traditional life reinsurance arrangements, it is common for the reinsurer to have a right to increase reinsurance rates on in-force business if there is a systematic deterioration of mortality in the market as a whole. Any decrease in the amount of reinsurance will increase our risk of loss and any increase in the cost of reinsurance will, absent a decrease in the amount of reinsurance, reduce our earnings. Accordingly, we may be forced to incur additional expenses for reinsurance or may not be able to obtain sufficient reinsurance on acceptable terms, which could adversely affect our ability to write future business or result in the assumption of more risk with respect to those policies we issue. See “Business — Reinsurance Activity” in the 2012 Annual Report and “Risk Factors — Risks Related to Our Business — If the Counterparties to Our Reinsurance or Indemnification Arrangements or to the Derivatives We Use to Hedge Our Business Risks Default or Fail to Perform, We May Be Exposed to Risks We Had Sought to Mitigate, Which Could Materially Adversely Affect Our Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarter Ended June 30, 2013.

95

Acquisition and Disposition of Businesses and Legal Entity Reorganization-Related Risks

We Could Face Difficulties, Unforeseen Liabilities, Asset Impairments or Rating Actions Arising from Business Acquisitions or Integrating and Managing Growth of Such Businesses, Dispositions of Businesses, or Legal Entity Reorganizations

We have engaged in dispositions and acquisitions of businesses in the past, and expect to continue to do so in the future. Such activity exposes us to a number of risks. For example, there could be unforeseen liabilities or asset impairments, including goodwill impairments, that arise in connection with the businesses that we may sell or the businesses that we may acquire in the future.

In addition, there may be liabilities or asset impairments that we fail, or are unable, to discover in the course of performing acquisition-related due diligence investigations. Furthermore, even for obligations and liabilities that we do discover during the due diligence process, neither the valuation adjustment nor the contractual protections we negotiate may be sufficient to fully protect us from losses. Although we generally have rights to indemnification for certain losses, our rights are limited by survival periods for bringing claims and limitations on the nature and amount of losses we may recover, and we cannot be certain that indemnification will be, among other things, collectible or sufficient in amount, scope or duration to fully offset any loss we may suffer. Likewise, when we dispose of subsidiaries or operations, we may remain liable to the acquiror or to third parties for certain losses or costs arising from the divested business. We may also incur a loss on the disposition.

The use of our own funds as consideration in any acquisition would consume capital resources, which could affect our capital plan and render those funds unavailable for other corporate purposes. We also may not be able to raise sufficient funds to consummate an acquisition if, for example, we are unable to sell our securities or close related bridge credit facilities. Moreover, as a result of uncertainty and risks associated with potential acquisitions and dispositions of businesses, rating agencies may take certain actions with respect to the ratings assigned to MetLife, Inc. and/or its subsidiaries.

Our ability to achieve certain benefits we anticipate from any acquisitions of businesses will depend in large part upon our ability to successfully integrate such businesses in an efficient and effective manner. We may not be able to integrate such businesses smoothly or successfully, and the process may take longer than expected. The integration of operations and differences in operational culture may require the dedication of significant management resources, which may distract management’s attention from day-to-day business. If we are unable to successfully integrate the operations of such acquired businesses, we may be unable to realize the benefits we expect to achieve as a result of such acquisitions and our business and results of operations may be less than expected.

The success with which we are able to integrate acquired operations will depend on our ability to manage a variety of issues, including the following:

• Loss of key personnel or higher than expected employee attrition rates could adversely affect the performance of the acquired business and our ability to integrate it successfully.

• Customers of the acquired business may reduce, delay or defer decisions concerning their use of its products and services as a result of the acquisition or uncertainty related to the consummation of the acquisition, including, for example, potential unfamiliarity with the MetLife brand in regions where we did not have a market presence prior to the acquisition.

• If the acquired business relies upon independent distributors to distribute its products, these distributors may not continue to generate the same volume of business for us after the acquisition. Independent distributors may reexamine the scope of their relationship with the acquired business or us as a result of the acquisition and decide to curtail or eliminate distribution of our products.

• Integrating acquired operations with our existing operations may require us to coordinate geographically separated organizations, address possible differences in corporate culture and management philosophies, merge financial processes and risk and compliance procedures, combine separate information technology platforms and integrate operations that were previously closely tied to the former parent of the acquired business or other service providers.

• In cases where we or an acquired business operates in certain markets through joint ventures, the acquisition may affect the continued success and prospects of the joint venture. Our ability to exercise management control or influence over these joint venture operations and our investment in them will depend on the continued cooperation between the joint venture participants and on the terms of the joint venture agreements, which allocate control among the joint venture participants. We may face financial or other exposure in the event that any of these joint venture partners fail to meet their obligations under the joint venture, encounter financial difficulty or elect to alter, modify or terminate the relationship.

96

• We may incur significant costs in connection with any acquisition and the related integration. The costs and liabilities actually incurred in connection with an acquisition and subsequent integration process may exceed those anticipated.

The prospects of our business also may be materially and adversely affected if we are not able to manage the growth of any acquired business successfully. In particular, there may be difficulties in hiring and training sufficient numbers of customer service personnel and agents to keep pace with any future growth in the number of customers in our developing or developed markets. In addition, we may experience difficulties in upgrading, developing and expanding information technology systems quickly enough to accommodate any future growth. If we are unable to manage future growth, our prospects may be materially and adversely affected.

In addition, we may reorganize or consolidate the legal entities through which we conduct business. For example, in the second quarter of 2013, MetLife, Inc. announced its plans to merge into MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut, as the surviving entity, two U.S.-based life insurance companies and an offshore reinsurance subsidiary to create one larger U.S.-based and U.S.-regulated life insurance company. The implementation of legal entity reorganizations is a complex undertaking and involves a number of risks similar to those that are present in the case of an acquisition. Many aspects of these transactions are subject to regulatory approvals from a number of different jurisdictions. We may not obtain needed regulatory approvals in the timeframe anticipated or at all, which could reduce or prevent us from realizing the anticipated benefits of these transactions. These transactions or the related regulatory approvals may entail modifications of certain aspects of our operations or the composition of certain of our investment portfolios, which could result in additional costs or reduce net investment income. We may also incur additional expenses in connection with planning and effectuating these mergers and related transactions. We may encounter delays or unforeseen problems in making changes to our information technology systems that are needed to reflect the mergers. Loss of key personnel could adversely affect our ability to carry out these transactions. In addition, these transactions may absorb significant attention from our management, which could reduce management’s focus on other aspects of our business. Any of these risks, if realized, could result in a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

General Risks

The Failure in Cyber- or Other Information Security Systems, as well as the Occurrence of Events Unanticipated in MetLife’s Disaster Recovery Systems and Management Continuity Planning Could Result in a Loss or Disclosure of Confidential Information, Damage to Our Reputation and Impairment of Our Ability to Conduct Business Effectively

Our business is highly dependent upon the effective operation of MetLife’s computer systems. We rely on these systems throughout our business for a variety of functions, including processing claims and applications, providing information to customers and distributors, performing actuarial analyses and maintaining financial records. We also retain confidential and proprietary information on our computer systems and we rely on sophisticated technologies to maintain the security of that information. MetLife’s computer systems have been, and will likely continue to be, subject to computer viruses or other malicious codes, unauthorized access, cyber-attacks or other computer-related penetrations. While, to date, MetLife has not experienced a material breach of cybersecurity, administrative and technical controls and other preventive actions we take to reduce the risk of cyber-incidents and protect our information technology may be insufficient to prevent physical and electronic break-ins, cyber-attacks or other security breaches to our computer systems.

In the event of a disaster such as a natural catastrophe, epidemic, industrial accident, blackout, computer virus, terrorist attack, cyberattack or war, unanticipated problems with our disaster recovery systems could have a material adverse impact on our ability to conduct business and on our results of operations and financial position, particularly if those problems affect our computer-based data processing, transmission, storage and retrieval systems and destroy valuable data. In addition, in the event that a significant number of our managers were unavailable following a disaster, our ability to effectively conduct business could be severely compromised. These interruptions also may interfere with our suppliers’ ability to provide goods and services and our employees’ ability to perform their job responsibilities.

The failure of our computer systems and/or our disaster recovery plans for any reason could cause significant interruptions in our operations and result in a failure to maintain the security, confidentiality or privacy of sensitive data, including personal information relating to our customers. Such a failure could harm our reputation, subject us to regulatory sanctions and legal claims, lead to a loss of customers and revenues and otherwise adversely affect our business and financial results. While MetLife maintains cyber liability insurance that provides both third-party liability and first party liability coverages, this insurance may not be sufficient to protect us against all losses. MetLife, Inc. and its subsidiaries maintain a cybersecurity and privacy liability insurance policy with a limit of $15 million.

97

Item 6. Exhibits

(Note Regarding Reliance on Statements in Our Contracts: In reviewing the agreements included as exhibits to this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, please remember that they are included to provide you with information regarding their terms and are not intended to provide any other factual or disclosure information about MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut and its subsidiaries, or the other parties to the agreements. The agreements contain representations and warranties by each of the parties to the applicable agreement. These representations and warranties have been made solely for the benefit of the other parties to the applicable agreement and (i) should not in all instances be treated as categorical statements of fact, but rather as a way of allocating the risk to one of the parties if those statements prove to be inaccurate; (ii) have been qualified by disclosures that were made to the other party in connection with the negotiation of the applicable agreement, which disclosures are not necessarily reflected in the agreement; (iii) may apply standards of materiality in a way that is different from what may be viewed as material to investors; and (iv) were made only as of the date of the applicable agreement or such other date or dates as may be specified in the agreement and are subject to more recent developments. Accordingly, these representations and warranties may not describe the actual state of affairs as of the date they were made or at any other time. Additional information about MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut and its subsidiaries may be found elsewhere in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q and MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut’s other public filings, which are available without charge through the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov.)

Exhibit No.	Description
31.1	Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
31.2	Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
32.1	Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
32.2	Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
101.INS	XBRL Instance Document.
101.SCH	XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema Document.
101.CAL	XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase Document.
101.LAB	XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase Document.
101.PRE	XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase Document.
101.DEF	XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase Document.

98

Signatures

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

METLIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT
By:	/s/	Peter M. Carlson
	Name:	Peter M. Carlson
	Title:	Executive Vice President
		and Chief Accounting Officer
		(Authorized Signatory and Principal Accounting Officer)

Date: November 13, 2013

99

Exhibit Index

(Note Regarding Reliance on Statements in Our Contracts: In reviewing the agreements included as exhibits to this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, please remember that they are included to provide you with information regarding their terms and are not intended to provide any other factual or disclosure information about MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut and its subsidiaries, or the other parties to the agreements. The agreements contain representations and warranties by each of the parties to the applicable agreement. These representations and warranties have been made solely for the benefit of the other parties to the applicable agreement and (i) should not in all instances be treated as categorical statements of fact, but rather as a way of allocating the risk to one of the parties if those statements prove to be inaccurate; (ii) have been qualified by disclosures that were made to the other party in connection with the negotiation of the applicable agreement, which disclosures are not necessarily reflected in the agreement; (iii) may apply standards of materiality in a way that is different from what may be viewed as material to investors; and (iv) were made only as of the date of the applicable agreement or such other date or dates as may be specified in the agreement and are subject to more recent developments. Accordingly, these representations and warranties may not describe the actual state of affairs as of the date they were made or at any other time. Additional information about MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut and its subsidiaries may be found elsewhere in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q and MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut’s other public filings, which are available without charge through the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov.)

Exhibit No.	Description
31.1	Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
31.2	Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
32.1	Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
32.2	Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
101.INS	XBRL Instance Document.
101.SCH	XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema Document.
101.CAL	XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase Document.
101.LAB	XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase Document.
101.PRE	XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase Document.
101.DEF	XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase Document.

E-1