Commitments and Contingent Liabilities	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingent Liabilities	Commitments and Contingent Liabilities: Legal proceedings against the Company and its subsidiaries routinely arise in the normal course of business and usually pertain to claim matters related to insurance policies and contracts issued by its insurance subsidiaries. Other, non-routine legal proceedings which may prove to be material to the Company or a subsidiary are discussed below. Purported class action lawsuits are pending against the Company's principal title insurance subsidiary, Old Republic National Title Insurance Company ("ORNTIC"), in federal courts in two states - Pennsylvania (Markocki et al. v. ORNTIC, U.S. District Court, Eastern District, Pennsylvania, filed June 8, 2006), and Texas (Ahmad et al. v. ORNTIC, U.S. District Court, Northern District, Texas, Dallas Division, filed February 8, 2008). The plaintiffs allege that ORNTIC failed to give consumers reissue and/or refinance credits on the premiums charged for title insurance covering mortgage refinancing transactions, as required by rate schedules filed by ORNTIC or by state rating bureaus with the state insurance regulatory authorities. The Pennsylvania suit also alleges violations of the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"). The Court in the Texas suit dismissed similar RESPA allegations. Classes have been certified in the Pennsylvania suit, but the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed the earlier class certification in the Texas case. On May 22, 2009, a purported national class action suit was filed against the Company's subsidiary, Old Republic Home Protection Company, Inc. ("ORHP"), in the U.S. District Court in Birmingham, Alabama (Barker v. Old Republic Home Protection Company, Inc.) alleging that ORHP paid fees to real estate brokers to market its home warranty contracts and that the payment of such fees was in violation of Sections 8(a) and 8(b) of RESPA. The suit seeks unspecified damages, including treble damages under RESPA. No class has been certified, and the action is not expected to result in any material liability to the Company. On December 19, 2008, Old Republic Insurance Company and Old Republic Insured Credit Services, Inc., ("Old Republic") filed suit against Countrywide Bank FSB, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. ("Countrywide") and Bank of New York Mellon, BNY Mellon Trust of Delaware in the Circuit Court, Cook County, Illinois (Old Republic Insurance Company, et al. v. Countrywide Bank FSB, et al.) seeking rescission of various credit indemnity policies issued to insure home equity loans and home equity lines of credit which Countrywide had securitized or held for its own account, and a declaratory judgment and money damages based upon material misrepresentations either by Countrywide as to the credit characteristics of the loans or by the borrowers in their loan applications. Countrywide filed a counterclaim alleging a breach of contract, bad faith, and is seeking a declaratory judgment challenging the factual and procedural bases that Old Republic had relied upon to deny or rescind coverage for individual defaulted loans under those policies, as well as unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. On November 3, 2010, Bank of America, N.A. ("B of A") filed suit against Old Republic Insurance Company ("ORIC") in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (Bank of America, N.A. v. Old Republic Insurance Company) alleging breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and bad faith with respect to ORIC's handling of certain claims under a policy of credit indemnity insurance issued to B of A. The policy is not related to those issued to Countrywide, which are the subject of the above-noted separate litigation. The B of A suit seeks a declaratory judgment with respect to the interpretation of certain policy terms, B of A's compliance with certain terms and conditions of the policy, and the propriety of certain positions and procedures taken by ORIC in response to claims filed by B of A. The suit also seeks money damages in excess of $320, pre-and post-judgment interest, and unspecified punitive damages. On January 23, 2012, ORIC filed a counterclaim seeking damages based on B of A's alleged interference with ORIC's subrogation rights. On December 31, 2009, two of the Company's mortgage insurance subsidiaries, Republic Mortgage Insurance Company and Republic Mortgage Insurance Company of North Carolina (together "RMIC") filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, against Countrywide Financial Corporation, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, and Bank of America N.A. as successor in interest to Countrywide Bank, N.A. (together "Countrywide") (Republic Mortgage Insurance Company, et al. v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al.). The suit relates to five mortgage insurance master policies (the "Policies") issued by RMIC to Countrywide or to the Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company as co-trustee for trusts containing securitized mortgage loans that were originated or purchased by Countrywide. RMIC has rescinded its mortgage insurance coverage on over 1,500 of the loans originally covered under the Policies based upon material misrepresentations of the borrowers in their loan applications or the negligence of Countrywide in its loan underwriting practices or procedures. Each of the coverage rescissions occurred after a borrower had defaulted and RMIC reviewed the claim and loan file submitted by Countrywide. The suit seeks the Court's review and interpretation of the Policies' incontestability provisions and its validation of RMIC's investigation procedures with respect to the claims and underlying loan files. On January 29, 2010, in response to RMIC's suit, Countrywide served RMIC with a demand for arbitration under the arbitration clauses of the same Policies. The demand raises largely the same issues as those raised in RMIC's suit against Countrywide, but from Countrywide's perspective, as well as Countrywide's and RMIC's compliance with the terms, provisions and conditions of the Policies. The demand includes a prayer for punitive, compensatory and consequential damages. RMIC filed a motion to stay the arbitration, and Countrywide filed a motion to dismiss RMIC's lawsuit and to compel the arbitration. On July 26, 2010, the Court granted Countrywide's motion, ordering the matters be submitted to arbitration and dismissing the lawsuit. The arbitration is proceeding. After its First Amended Complaint was dismissed on May 4, 2011, on July 19, 2011, J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. ("Chase") filed a Second Amended Complaint against RMIC in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey arising out of RMIC's rescissions of coverage on approximately 377 mortgage loans. (J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Republic Mortgage Insurance Company). The new lawsuit abandons the earlier claim, which the Court dismissed, that RMIC could not unilaterally rescind coverage. Instead, Chase alleges that RMIC's rescissions were improper either because the coverage had become incontestable; or the rescissions relied upon evidence that was either improperly obtained or insufficient, unreliable or immaterial; or the rescissions were not permitted by applicable law. Based on these allegations, Chase asserts claims for breach of contract, breach of good faith and fiduciary duties, negligence and violations of Colorado and Louisiana insurance laws and seeks declaratory relief and unspecified compensatory, treble and punitive damages. On September 26, 2011, RMIC filed a motion for entry of an order dismissing various claims in the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice and requiring Chase to provide a more definitive statement of any remaining claims. That motion is awaiting the Court's actions. Nine purported class action suits alleging RESPA violations have been filed in the Federal District Courts, two in the Central District of California, one in the Eastern District of California, four in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and two in the Western District of Pennsylvania, respectively, between December 9, 2011 and October 3, 2012. The suits target J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., the PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. as successor to National City Bank, N.A., Citibank, N.A., HSBC Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A., Fifth Third Bank, N.A., Flagstar Bank, FSB, First Tennessee Bank, N.A., and Wachovia Bank, N.A., each of their wholly-owned captive insurance subsidiaries and most or all of the mortgage guaranty insurance companies, including RMIC. (Samp, Komarchuk, Whitaker v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al.; White, Hightower v. The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., et al.; Menichino v. Citibank, N.A., et al.; McCarn v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al.; Riddle v. Bank of America, et al.; Manners v. Fifth Third Bank, et al.; Hill, et al. v. Flagstar Bank, FSB. et al.; Barlee v. First Tennessee Bank, N.A., et al.; and Orange v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., et al.) The lawsuits, filed by the same law firms, are substantially identical in alleging that the mortgage guaranty insurers had reinsurance arrangements with the defendant banks' captive insurance subsidiaries under which payments were made in violation of the anti-kickback and fee splitting prohibitions of Sections 8(a) and 8(b) of RESPA. Each of the suits seeks unspecified damages, costs, fees and the return of the allegedly improper payments. A class has not been certified in any of the suits. A purported state class action suit was filed against Old Republic Title Company in the Superior Court of California for Orange County on January 7, 2011, on behalf of the Company's escrow officers and escrow assistants in the State of California. (Hinrichs v. Old Republic Title Company). The Company filed a demur to the complaint, and in response, plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on January 5, 2012 adding another named plaintiff. The suit alleges that the Company failed to pay overtime, failed to calculate overtime properly, denied meal breaks and rest breaks, and failed to itemize pay statements, in violation of the California Labor Code and seeks compensatory damages, statutory penalties, interest, costs and attorneys' fees. The putative class period is from January 7, 2007 to the present. The law firm representing the plaintiffs has filed similar suits against a number of other title companies in the state. The Company believes it has strong defenses to the allegations and to the certification of a class in the matter. On September 26, 2012, a purported national class action suit was filed against Old Republic Home Protection Company in the Superior Court of California for Riverside County. (Friedman v. Old Republic Home Protection Company, Inc.). The suit alleges that the Company operates in breach of its home warranty contracts, in breach of implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, in violation of various provisions of the California Civil Code and Business and Professions Code, and is guilty of false advertising. The stated class period is from November 24, 2004 through the present. The suit seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, restitution, damages, costs and attorneys' fees in unspecified amounts. The firm representing the plaintiff had previously filed similar suits against the Company, which were unsuccessful. The Company succeeded in having the case removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on October 24, 2012, and believes it has strong defenses to the allegations and to the certification of any class in this matter. PNC Bank, N.A., as successor-in-interest to National City Corporation, filed suit against RMIC on October 10, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania disputing RMIC's denials and rescissions of its mortgage guaranty insurance coverage on an unspecified number of mortgage loans. (PNC Bank, N.A. v. Republic Mortgage Insurance Company). The suit seeks certain declaratory relief and unspecified compensatory, consequential and punitive damages. Under GAAP, an estimated loss is accrued only if the loss is probable and reasonably estimable. The Company and its subsidiaries have defended and intend to continue defending vigorously against each of the aforementioned actions. The Company does not believe it probable that any of these actions will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows, though there can be no assurance in those regards. Nor is the Company able to make a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of any potential liability under these lawsuits, the counterclaim, and the arbitration, all of which seek unquantified damages, attorneys' fees, and expenses. It is also unclear what effect, if any, the run-off operations of RMIC and the depletion of its capital will have in the actions against it.

Commitments and Contingent Liabilities:

Legal proceedings against the Company and its subsidiaries routinely arise in the normal course of business and usually pertain to claim matters related to insurance policies and contracts issued by its insurance subsidiaries. Other, non-routine legal proceedings which may prove to be material to the Company or a subsidiary are discussed below.

Purported class action lawsuits are pending against the Company's principal title insurance subsidiary, Old Republic National Title Insurance Company ("ORNTIC"), in federal courts in two states - Pennsylvania (Markocki et al. v. ORNTIC, U.S. District Court, Eastern District, Pennsylvania, filed June 8, 2006), and Texas (Ahmad et al. v. ORNTIC, U.S. District Court, Northern District, Texas, Dallas Division, filed February 8, 2008). The plaintiffs allege that ORNTIC failed to give consumers reissue and/or refinance credits on the premiums charged for title insurance covering mortgage refinancing transactions, as required by rate schedules filed by ORNTIC or by state rating bureaus with the state insurance regulatory authorities. The Pennsylvania suit also alleges violations of the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"). The Court in the Texas suit dismissed similar RESPA allegations. Classes have been certified in the Pennsylvania suit, but the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed the earlier class certification in the Texas case.

On May 22, 2009, a purported national class action suit was filed against the Company's subsidiary, Old Republic Home Protection Company, Inc. ("ORHP"), in the U.S. District Court in Birmingham, Alabama (Barker v. Old Republic Home Protection Company, Inc.) alleging that ORHP paid fees to real estate brokers to market its home warranty contracts and that the payment of such fees was in violation of Sections 8(a) and 8(b) of RESPA. The suit seeks unspecified damages, including treble damages under RESPA. No class has been certified, and the action is not expected to result in any material liability to the Company.

On December 19, 2008, Old Republic Insurance Company and Old Republic Insured Credit Services, Inc., ("Old Republic") filed suit against Countrywide Bank FSB, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. ("Countrywide") and Bank of New York Mellon, BNY Mellon Trust of Delaware in the Circuit Court, Cook County, Illinois (Old Republic Insurance Company, et al. v. Countrywide Bank FSB, et al.) seeking rescission of various credit indemnity policies issued to insure home equity loans and home equity lines of credit which Countrywide had securitized or held for its own account, and a declaratory judgment and money damages based upon material misrepresentations either by Countrywide as to the credit characteristics of the loans or by the borrowers in their loan applications. Countrywide filed a counterclaim alleging a breach of contract, bad faith, and is seeking a declaratory judgment challenging the factual and procedural bases that Old Republic had relied upon to deny or rescind coverage for individual defaulted loans under those policies, as well as unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

On November 3, 2010, Bank of America, N.A. ("B of A") filed suit against Old Republic Insurance Company ("ORIC") in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (Bank of America, N.A. v. Old Republic Insurance Company) alleging breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and bad faith with respect to ORIC's handling of certain claims under a policy of credit indemnity insurance issued to B of A. The policy is not related to those issued to Countrywide, which are the subject of the above-noted separate litigation. The B of A suit seeks a declaratory judgment with respect to the interpretation of certain policy terms, B of A's compliance with certain terms and conditions of the policy, and the propriety of certain positions and procedures taken by ORIC in response to claims filed by B of A. The suit also seeks money damages in excess of $320, pre-and post-judgment interest, and unspecified punitive damages. On January 23, 2012, ORIC filed a counterclaim seeking damages based on B of A's alleged interference with ORIC's subrogation rights.

On December 31, 2009, two of the Company's mortgage insurance subsidiaries, Republic Mortgage Insurance Company and Republic Mortgage Insurance Company of North Carolina (together "RMIC") filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, against Countrywide Financial Corporation, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, and Bank of America N.A. as successor in interest to Countrywide Bank, N.A. (together "Countrywide") (Republic Mortgage Insurance Company, et al. v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al.). The suit relates to five mortgage insurance master policies (the "Policies") issued by RMIC to Countrywide or to the Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company as co-trustee for trusts containing securitized mortgage loans that were originated or purchased by Countrywide. RMIC has rescinded its mortgage insurance coverage on over 1,500 of the loans originally covered under the Policies based upon material misrepresentations of the borrowers in their loan applications or the negligence of Countrywide in its loan underwriting practices or procedures. Each of the coverage rescissions occurred after a borrower had defaulted and RMIC reviewed the claim and loan file submitted by Countrywide. The suit seeks the Court's review and interpretation of the Policies' incontestability provisions and its validation of RMIC's investigation procedures with respect to the claims and underlying loan files.

On January 29, 2010, in response to RMIC's suit, Countrywide served RMIC with a demand for arbitration under the arbitration clauses of the same Policies. The demand raises largely the same issues as those raised in RMIC's suit against Countrywide, but from Countrywide's perspective, as well as Countrywide's and RMIC's compliance with the terms, provisions and conditions of the Policies. The demand includes a prayer for punitive, compensatory and consequential damages. RMIC filed a motion to stay the arbitration, and Countrywide filed a motion to dismiss RMIC's lawsuit and to compel the arbitration. On July 26, 2010, the Court granted Countrywide's motion, ordering the matters be submitted to arbitration and dismissing the lawsuit. The arbitration is proceeding.

After its First Amended Complaint was dismissed on May 4, 2011, on July 19, 2011, J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. ("Chase") filed a Second Amended Complaint against RMIC in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey arising out of RMIC's rescissions of coverage on approximately 377 mortgage loans. (J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Republic Mortgage Insurance Company). The new lawsuit abandons the earlier claim, which the Court dismissed, that RMIC could not unilaterally rescind coverage. Instead, Chase alleges that RMIC's rescissions were improper either because the coverage had become incontestable; or the rescissions relied upon evidence that was either improperly obtained or insufficient, unreliable or immaterial; or the rescissions were not permitted by applicable law. Based on these allegations, Chase asserts claims for breach of contract, breach of good faith and fiduciary duties, negligence and violations of Colorado and Louisiana insurance laws and seeks declaratory relief and unspecified compensatory, treble and punitive damages. On September 26, 2011, RMIC filed a motion for entry of an order dismissing various claims in the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice and requiring Chase to provide a more definitive statement of any remaining claims. That motion is awaiting the Court's actions.

Nine purported class action suits alleging RESPA violations have been filed in the Federal District Courts, two in the Central District of California, one in the Eastern District of California, four in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and two in the Western District of Pennsylvania, respectively, between December 9, 2011 and October 3, 2012. The suits target J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., the PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. as successor to National City Bank, N.A., Citibank, N.A., HSBC Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A., Fifth Third Bank, N.A., Flagstar Bank, FSB, First Tennessee Bank, N.A., and Wachovia Bank, N.A., each of their wholly-owned captive insurance subsidiaries and most or all of the mortgage guaranty insurance companies, including RMIC. (Samp, Komarchuk, Whitaker v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al.; White, Hightower v. The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., et al.; Menichino v. Citibank, N.A., et al.; McCarn v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al.; Riddle v. Bank of America, et al.; Manners v. Fifth Third Bank, et al.; Hill, et al. v. Flagstar Bank, FSB. et al.; Barlee v. First Tennessee Bank, N.A., et al.; and Orange v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., et al.) The lawsuits, filed by the same law firms, are substantially identical in alleging that the mortgage guaranty insurers had reinsurance arrangements with the defendant banks' captive insurance subsidiaries under which payments were made in violation of the anti-kickback and fee splitting prohibitions of Sections 8(a) and 8(b) of RESPA. Each of the suits seeks unspecified damages, costs, fees and the return of the allegedly improper payments. A class has not been certified in any of the suits.

A purported state class action suit was filed against Old Republic Title Company in the Superior Court of California for Orange County on January 7, 2011, on behalf of the Company's escrow officers and escrow assistants in the State of California. (Hinrichs v. Old Republic Title Company). The Company filed a demur to the complaint, and in response, plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on January 5, 2012 adding another named plaintiff. The suit alleges that the Company failed to pay overtime, failed to calculate overtime properly, denied meal breaks and rest breaks, and failed to itemize pay statements, in violation of the California Labor Code and seeks compensatory damages, statutory penalties, interest, costs and attorneys' fees. The putative class period is from January 7, 2007 to the present. The law firm representing the plaintiffs has filed similar suits against a number of other title companies in the state. The Company believes it has strong defenses to the allegations and to the certification of a class in the matter.

On September 26, 2012, a purported national class action suit was filed against Old Republic Home Protection Company in the Superior Court of California for Riverside County. (Friedman v. Old Republic Home Protection Company, Inc.). The suit alleges that the Company operates in breach of its home warranty contracts, in breach of implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, in violation of various provisions of the California Civil Code and Business and Professions Code, and is guilty of false advertising. The stated class period is from November 24, 2004 through the present. The suit seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, restitution, damages, costs and attorneys' fees in unspecified amounts. The firm representing the plaintiff had previously filed similar suits against the Company, which were unsuccessful. The Company succeeded in having the case removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on October 24, 2012, and believes it has strong defenses to the allegations and to the certification of any class in this matter.

PNC Bank, N.A., as successor-in-interest to National City Corporation, filed suit against RMIC on October 10, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania disputing RMIC's denials and rescissions of its mortgage guaranty insurance coverage on an unspecified number of mortgage loans. (PNC Bank, N.A. v. Republic Mortgage Insurance Company). The suit seeks certain declaratory relief and unspecified compensatory, consequential and punitive damages.

Under GAAP, an estimated loss is accrued only if the loss is probable and reasonably estimable. The Company and its subsidiaries have defended and intend to continue defending vigorously against each of the aforementioned actions. The Company does not believe it probable that any of these actions will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows, though there can be no assurance in those regards. Nor is the Company able to make a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of any potential liability under these lawsuits, the counterclaim, and the arbitration, all of which seek unquantified damages, attorneys' fees, and expenses. It is also unclear what effect, if any, the run-off operations of RMIC and the depletion of its capital will have in the actions against it.