Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2014
Text Block [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 21: Commitments and Contingencies MBIA has received subpoenas or informal inquiries from a variety of regulators, regarding a variety of subjects. MBIA has cooperated fully with each of these regulators and has or is in the process of satisfying all such requests. MBIA may receive additional inquiries from these or other regulators and expects to provide additional information to such regulators regarding their inquiries in the future. On December 14, 2009, MBIA Corp. commenced an action in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, against Credit Suisse. The complaint seeks damages for fraud and breach of contractual obligations in connection with the procurement of financial guarantee insurance on the HEMT Series 2007-2 securitization. On January 30, 2013, MBIA Corp. filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint alleges, among other claims, that Credit Suisse falsely represented: (i) the attributes of the securitized loans; (ii) that the loans complied with the governing underwriting guidelines; and (iii) that Credit Suisse had conducted extensive due diligence on and quality control reviews of the securitized loans to ensure compliance with the underwriting guidelines. The complaint further alleges that the defendants breached their contractual obligations to cure or repurchase loans found to be in breach of the representations and warranties applicable thereto and denied MBIA the requisite access to all records and documents regarding the securitized loans. On August 13, 2014, the court issued an order scheduling expert discovery to run through the middle of 2015. On September 14, 2012, MBIA Insurance Corporation filed a complaint alleging fraud against J.P. Morgan Securities LLC (f/k/a Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.) relating to Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.’s role as lead securities underwriter on the GMAC Mortgage Corporation Home Equity Loan Trust 2006-HE4. MBIA filed its amended complaint on September 29, 2014. J.P. Morgan filed its answer to the amended complaint on October 10, 2014. On July 23, 2008, the City of Los Angeles filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, against a number of financial guarantee insurers, including MBIA. At the same time and subsequently, additional complaints against MBIA and nearly all of the same co-defendants were filed by various municipal entities and quasi-municipal entities, mostly in California. These cases are part of a coordination proceeding in Superior Court, San Francisco County, before Judge Richard A. Kramer, referred to as the Ambac Bond Insurance Cases. In August of 2011, the plaintiffs filed amended versions of their respective complaints. The claims allege violation of California’s antitrust laws through maintaining a dual credit rating scale that misstated the credit default risk of certain issuers, thereby creating market demand for bond insurance. The plaintiffs also allege that the individual bond insurers participated in risky financial transactions in other lines of business that damaged each bond insurer’s financial condition, and failure to adequately disclose the impact of those transactions on their financial condition. The plaintiffs also assert common law claims of breach of contract and fraud. The non-municipal plaintiffs also allege a California unfair competition cause of action. An appeal of the dismissal of the plaintiff’s antitrust claim under California’s Cartwright Act is pending. An appeal is also pending of the March 26, 2014 decision granting in part the Bond Insurer defendants’ motions for reimbursement of legal fees incurred in connection with the motion to strike pursuant to California’s Anti-SLAPP statute. On July 23, 2008, the City of Los Angeles filed a complaint in the Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, naming as defendants MBIA and other financial institutions, and alleging fraud and violations of California’s antitrust laws through bid-rigging in the sale of guaranteed investment contracts and what plaintiffs call “municipal derivatives” to municipal bond issuers. The case was removed to federal court and transferred by order dated November 26, 2008 to the Southern District of New York for inclusion in the multidistrict litigation, Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation, M.D.L. No. 1950. Complaints making the same allegations against MBIA and nearly all of the same co-defendants were then, or subsequently, filed by municipal entities and quasi-municipal entities, mostly in California, and three not-for-profit retirement community operators. These cases have all been added to the multidistrict litigation. The plaintiffs in all of the cases assert federal and either California, West Virginia or New York state antitrust claims. As of May 31, 2011, MBIA has answered all of the existing complaints. National and Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp. commenced an adversary proceeding against the City of Detroit and certain individuals employees/managers in the City of Detroit’s Chapter 9 case. The amended complaint sought a declaratory judgment that the City of Detroit and its employees comply with Michigan law in the collection, segregation and use of ad valorem tax proceeds pledged to repay several series of unlimited tax general obligation bonds as well as declaratory relief with respect to National’s and Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp.’s rights and interests in the ad valorem tax proceeds. In April of 2014, National reached a settlement with the City of Detroit regarding its enhanced Unlimited Tax General Obligation bonds, which was approved when the City of Detroit’s Eighth Amended Plan went effective on December 10, 2014. On January 30, 2013, MBIA Insurance Corporation and National filed a petition in Texas state court seeking an order requiring the Harris County-Houston Sports Authority to impose higher taxes as well as damages for other alleged breaches of contract. On December 30, 2014, the litigation was resolved in connection with a refinancing transaction. The Company is defending against the aforementioned actions in which it is a defendant and expects ultimately to prevail on the merits. There is no assurance, however, that the Company will prevail in these actions. Adverse rulings in these actions could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s ability to implement its strategy and on its business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition. At this stage of the litigation, there has not been a determination as to the amount, if any, of damages. Accordingly, the Company is not able to estimate any amount of loss or range of loss. There are no other material lawsuits pending or, to the knowledge of the Company, threatened, to which the Company or any of its subsidiaries is a party. Headquarters Lease Agreement In September of 2014, the Company moved its headquarters to Purchase, New York, for which the Company had previously entered into a lease agreement as part of the Company’s cost reduction measures that included the plan to sell the Armonk, New York facility. The initial lease term expires in 2030 with the option to terminate the lease in 2025 upon the payment of a termination amount. At the end of the initial lease term, the Company has the option to extend the term of the lease for two additional terms of five years at a fixed annual rent based on the fair market rent at the time of any extension. The total future minimum lease payments over the initial lease term are $42 million. The Company received a lease incentive amount of $6 million from the property owner to fund certain leasehold improvements. The total future minimum lease payments include annual rent escalation amounts and a free rent period and exclude the lease incentive amount. The lease agreement has been classified as an operating lease, and operating rent expense has been recognized on a straight-line basis since the second quarter of 2014.

Note 21: Commitments and Contingencies

MBIA has received subpoenas or informal inquiries from a variety of regulators, regarding a variety of subjects. MBIA has cooperated fully with each of these regulators and has or is in the process of satisfying all such requests. MBIA may receive additional inquiries from these or other regulators and expects to provide additional information to such regulators regarding their inquiries in the future.

On December 14, 2009, MBIA Corp. commenced an action in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, against Credit Suisse. The complaint seeks damages for fraud and breach of contractual obligations in connection with the procurement of financial guarantee insurance on the HEMT Series 2007-2 securitization. On January 30, 2013, MBIA Corp. filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint alleges, among other claims, that Credit Suisse falsely represented: (i) the attributes of the securitized loans; (ii) that the loans complied with the governing underwriting guidelines; and (iii) that Credit Suisse had conducted extensive due diligence on and quality control reviews of the securitized loans to ensure compliance with the underwriting guidelines. The complaint further alleges that the defendants breached their contractual obligations to cure or repurchase loans found to be in breach of the representations and warranties applicable thereto and denied MBIA the requisite access to all records and documents regarding the securitized loans. On August 13, 2014, the court issued an order scheduling expert discovery to run through the middle of 2015.

On September 14, 2012, MBIA Insurance Corporation filed a complaint alleging fraud against J.P. Morgan Securities LLC (f/k/a Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.) relating to Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.’s role as lead securities underwriter on the GMAC Mortgage Corporation Home Equity Loan Trust 2006-HE4. MBIA filed its amended complaint on September 29, 2014. J.P. Morgan filed its answer to the amended complaint on October 10, 2014.

On July 23, 2008, the City of Los Angeles filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, against a number of financial guarantee insurers, including MBIA. At the same time and subsequently, additional complaints against MBIA and nearly all of the same co-defendants were filed by various municipal entities and quasi-municipal entities, mostly in California. These cases are part of a coordination proceeding in Superior Court, San Francisco County, before Judge Richard A. Kramer, referred to as the Ambac Bond Insurance Cases. In August of 2011, the plaintiffs filed amended versions of their respective complaints. The claims allege violation of California’s antitrust laws through maintaining a dual credit rating scale that misstated the credit default risk of certain issuers, thereby creating market demand for bond insurance. The plaintiffs also allege that the individual bond insurers participated in risky financial transactions in other lines of business that damaged each bond insurer’s financial condition, and failure to adequately disclose the impact of those transactions on their financial condition. The plaintiffs also assert common law claims of breach of contract and fraud. The non-municipal plaintiffs also allege a California unfair competition cause of action. An appeal of the dismissal of the plaintiff’s antitrust claim under California’s Cartwright Act is pending. An appeal is also pending of the March 26, 2014 decision granting in part the Bond Insurer defendants’ motions for reimbursement of legal fees incurred in connection with the motion to strike pursuant to California’s Anti-SLAPP statute.

On July 23, 2008, the City of Los Angeles filed a complaint in the Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, naming as defendants MBIA and other financial institutions, and alleging fraud and violations of California’s antitrust laws through bid-rigging in the sale of guaranteed investment contracts and what plaintiffs call “municipal derivatives” to municipal bond issuers. The case was removed to federal court and transferred by order dated November 26, 2008 to the Southern District of New York for inclusion in the multidistrict litigation, Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation, M.D.L. No. 1950. Complaints making the same allegations against MBIA and nearly all of the same co-defendants were then, or subsequently, filed by municipal entities and quasi-municipal entities, mostly in California, and three not-for-profit retirement community operators. These cases have all been added to the multidistrict litigation. The plaintiffs in all of the cases assert federal and either California, West Virginia or New York state antitrust claims. As of May 31, 2011, MBIA has answered all of the existing complaints.

National and Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp. commenced an adversary proceeding against the City of Detroit and certain individuals employees/managers in the City of Detroit’s Chapter 9 case. The amended complaint sought a declaratory judgment that the City of Detroit and its employees comply with Michigan law in the collection, segregation and use of ad valorem tax proceeds pledged to repay several series of unlimited tax general obligation bonds as well as declaratory relief with respect to National’s and Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp.’s rights and interests in the ad valorem tax proceeds. In April of 2014, National reached a settlement with the City of Detroit regarding its enhanced Unlimited Tax General Obligation bonds, which was approved when the City of Detroit’s Eighth Amended Plan went effective on December 10, 2014.

On January 30, 2013, MBIA Insurance Corporation and National filed a petition in Texas state court seeking an order requiring the Harris County-Houston Sports Authority to impose higher taxes as well as damages for other alleged breaches of contract. On December 30, 2014, the litigation was resolved in connection with a refinancing transaction.

The Company is defending against the aforementioned actions in which it is a defendant and expects ultimately to prevail on the merits. There is no assurance, however, that the Company will prevail in these actions. Adverse rulings in these actions could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s ability to implement its strategy and on its business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition. At this stage of the litigation, there has not been a determination as to the amount, if any, of damages. Accordingly, the Company is not able to estimate any amount of loss or range of loss.

There are no other material lawsuits pending or, to the knowledge of the Company, threatened, to which the Company or any of its subsidiaries is a party.

Headquarters Lease Agreement

In September of 2014, the Company moved its headquarters to Purchase, New York, for which the Company had previously entered into a lease agreement as part of the Company’s cost reduction measures that included the plan to sell the Armonk, New York facility. The initial lease term expires in 2030 with the option to terminate the lease in 2025 upon the payment of a termination amount. At the end of the initial lease term, the Company has the option to extend the term of the lease for two additional terms of five years at a fixed annual rent based on the fair market rent at the time of any extension. The total future minimum lease payments over the initial lease term are $42 million. The Company received a lease incentive amount of $6 million from the property owner to fund certain leasehold improvements. The total future minimum lease payments include annual rent escalation amounts and a free rent period and exclude the lease incentive amount. The lease agreement has been classified as an operating lease, and operating rent expense has been recognized on a straight-line basis since the second quarter of 2014.