Contingencies, Commitments and Guarantees	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2015
Contingencies, Commitments and Guarantees disclosure
Contingencies, Commitments and Guarantees disclosure [Text Block]	16. CONTINGENCIES, COMMITMENTS AND GUARANTEES Contingencies The major pending legal proceedings, other than ordinary routine litigation incidental to the business, to which the Company or any of its subsidiaries is a party or to which any of the Company's properties is subject are described below. Asbestos and Environmental Claims and Litigation In the ordinary course of its insurance business, the Company has received and continues to receive claims for insurance arising under policies issued by the Company asserting alleged injuries and damages from asbestos- and environmental-related exposures that are the subject of related coverage litigation. The Company is defending asbestos- and environmental-related litigation vigorously and believes that it has meritorious defenses; however, the outcomes of these disputes are uncertain. In this regard, the Company employs dedicated specialists and aggressive resolution strategies to manage asbestos and environmental loss exposure, including settling litigation under appropriate circumstances. Currently, it is not possible to predict legal outcomes and their impact on the future development of claims and litigation relating to asbestos and environmental claims. Any such development will be affected by future court decisions and interpretations, as well as changes in applicable legislation. Because of these uncertainties, additional liabilities may arise for amounts in excess of the Company's current reserves. In addition, the Company's estimate of ultimate claims and claim adjustment expenses may change. These additional liabilities or increases in estimates, or a range of either, cannot now be reasonably estimated and could result in income statement charges that could be material to the Company's results of operations in future periods. *Settlement of Asbestos Direct Action Litigation* In October 2001 and April 2002, two purported class action suits (Wise v. Travelers and Meninger v. Travelers) were filed against Travelers Property Casualty Corp. (TPC), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, and other insurers (not including The St. Paul Companies, Inc. (SPC), which was acquired by TPC in 2004) in state court in West Virginia. These and other cases subsequently filed in West Virginia were consolidated into a single proceeding in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia. The plaintiffs alleged that the insurer defendants engaged in unfair trade practices in violation of state statutes by inappropriately handling and settling asbestos claims. The plaintiffs sought to reopen large numbers of settled asbestos claims and to impose liability for damages, including punitive damages, directly on insurers. Similar lawsuits alleging inappropriate handling and settling of asbestos claims were filed in Massachusetts and Hawaii state courts. These suits are collectively referred to as the Statutory and Hawaii Actions. In March 2002, the plaintiffs in consolidated asbestos actions pending before a mass tort panel of judges in West Virginia state court amended their complaint to include TPC as a defendant, alleging that TPC and other insurers breached alleged duties to certain users of asbestos products. The plaintiffs sought damages, including punitive damages. Lawsuits seeking similar relief and raising similar allegations, primarily violations of purported common law duties to third parties, were also asserted in various state courts against TPC and SPC. The claims asserted in these suits are collectively referred to as the Common Law Claims. In response to these claims, TPC moved to enjoin the Statutory Actions and the Common Law Claims in the federal bankruptcy court that had presided over the bankruptcy of TPC's former policyholder Johns-Manville Corporation on the ground that the suits violated injunctions entered in connection with confirmation of the Johns-Manville bankruptcy (the 1986 Orders). The bankruptcy court issued a temporary restraining order and referred the parties to mediation. In November 2003, the parties reached a settlement of the Statutory and Hawaii Actions, which included a lump-sum payment of up to $412 million by TPC, subject to a number of significant contingencies. In May 2004, the parties reached a settlement resolving substantially all pending and similar future Common Law Claims against TPC, which included a payment of up to $90 million by TPC, subject to similar contingencies. After the parties reached the settlements of the Statutory and Hawaiian Actions and the Common Law Claims (collectively "the Settlements"), numerous proceedings took place in the bankruptcy, district and appellate courts concerning the approval of the Settlements and their effect on other parties. As a result of certain rulings in those proceedings, TPC concluded that it was not obligated to go forward with the Settlements because certain conditions precedent to the Settlements had not been met. The plaintiffs in the Statutory and Hawaii Actions and the Common Law Claims actions thereafter filed motions in the bankruptcy court to compel TPC to make payment under the settlement agreements, arguing that all conditions precedent to the Settlements had been met. On December 16, 2010, the bankruptcy court granted the plaintiffs' motions and ruled that TPC was required to fund the Settlements. The court entered judgment against TPC on January 20, 2011 in accordance with this ruling and ordered TPC to pay the Settlements plus prejudgment interest. The bankruptcy court's judgment was reversed by the district court on March 1, 2012, the district court having found that the conditions to the Settlements had not been met. The plaintiffs appealed the district court's March 1, 2012 decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. On July 22, 2014, the Second Circuit issued an opinion reversing the district court's decision and reinstating the bankruptcy court's January 20, 2011 order which ordered TPC to pay the Settlements plus prejudgment interest. On August 5, 2014, TPC filed a Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc with the Second Circuit, which was denied on January 5, 2015. On January 15, 2015, the bankruptcy court entered an order directing TPC to pay $579 million to the plaintiffs, comprising the $502 million settlement amount described above, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest totaling $77 million, and the Company made that payment in January 2015. The payment was fully accrued in the Company's financial statements at December 31, 2014. Other Proceedings Not Arising Under Insurance Contracts or Reinsurance Agreements The Company is involved in other lawsuits, including lawsuits alleging extra-contractual damages relating to insurance contracts or reinsurance agreements, that do not arise under insurance contracts or reinsurance agreements. The legal costs associated with such lawsuits are expensed in the period in which the costs are incurred. Based upon currently available information, the Company does not believe it is reasonably possible that any such lawsuit or related lawsuits would be material to the Company's results of operations or would have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or liquidity. Gain Contingency On August 17, 2010, in a reinsurance dispute in New York state court captioned United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company v. American Re-Insurance Company, et al., the trial court granted summary judgment for United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company (USF&G), a subsidiary of the Company, and denied summary judgment for American Re-Insurance Company, a subsidiary of Munich Re (American Re), and three other reinsurers. That summary judgment was largely affirmed on appeal, but the Court of Appeals remanded the case for trial on two discrete issues. On June 3, 2015, the trial court entered orders on pretrial motions filed by all parties in advance of the August 3, 2015 trial date and determined that the issues for trial will be limited to the two discrete issues remanded by the Court of Appeals. The reinsurers appealed the trial court's orders to the Appellate Division, First Department and were granted a stay of the trial date pending the outcome of their appeal. On August 12, 2015, USF&G filed a motion to dismiss the reinsurers' appeal. On October 29, 2015, the Appellate Division denied USF&G's motion to dismiss the reinsurers' appeal, but also unanimously ruled in USF&G's favor and affirmed the rulings limiting the issues for trial to the two discrete issues remanded by the Court of Appeals. On October 30, 2015, the reinsurers appealed the Appellate Division's decision to the New York Court of Appeals. On November 9, 2015, the Clerk of the Court of Appeals directed the parties to submit letter briefs addressing whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to decide the reinsurers' appeal. On November 19, 2015, USF&G and the reinsurers filed their respective letter briefs, and the parties await a decision from the Court of Appeals as to whether the reinsurers' appeal may proceed. At December 31, 2015, the claim totaled $509 million, comprising $238 million of reinsurance recoverable plus interest amounting to $271 million as of that date. Interest will continue to accrue at an annual rate of 9% until the claim is paid. The $238 million of reinsurance recoverable owed to USF&G under the terms of the disputed reinsurance contract has been reported as part of reinsurance recoverables in the Company's consolidated balance sheet. The interest that would be owed as part of any judgment ultimately entered in favor of USF&G is treated for accounting purposes as a gain contingency in accordance with FASB Topic 450, Contingencies, and accordingly has not been recognized in the Company's consolidated financial statements. *Resolution of Gain Contingency* In 2013, the Company favorably resolved a class action lawsuit captioned Safeco Insurance Company of America, et al. v American International Group, Inc. et al. (U.S. District Court, N.D. Ill.). The plaintiffs, including the Company, alleged that the defendants had engaged in the under-reporting of workers' compensation premium in connection with a workers' compensation reinsurance pool in which several subsidiaries of the Company participated. The Company received two payments totaling approximately $93 million, comprising its allocation as a plaintiff class member from the settlement fund, less approximately $2 million remitted to another insurer, resulting in a net gain of $91 million that was reported in "Other revenues" in the Company's consolidated statement of income for the year ended December 31, 2013. Other Commitments and Guarantees Commitments Investment Commitments—The Company has unfunded commitments to private equity limited partnerships and real estate partnerships in which it invests. These commitments totaled $1.71 billion and $1.63 billion at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. Guarantees In the ordinary course of selling businesses to third parties, the Company has agreed to indemnify purchasers for losses arising out of breaches of representations and warranties with respect to the businesses being sold, covenants and obligations of the Company and/or its subsidiaries and, in certain cases, obligations arising from certain liabilities and the imposition of additional taxes due to either a change in the tax law or an adverse interpretation of the tax law. Such indemnification provisions generally are applicable from the closing date to the expiration of the relevant statutes of limitations, although, in some cases, there may be agreed upon term limitations or no term limitations. Certain of these contingent obligations are subject to deductibles which have to be incurred by the obligee before the Company is obligated to make payments. The maximum amount of the Company's contingent obligation for indemnifications related to the sale of businesses that are quantifiable was $391 million at December 31, 2015, of which $2 million was recognized on the balance sheet at that date. The Company also has contingent obligations for guarantees related to certain investments, third-party loans related to certain investments, certain insurance policy obligations of former insurance subsidiaries and various other indemnifications. The Company also provides standard indemnifications to service providers in the normal course of business. The indemnification clauses are often standard contractual terms. The maximum amount of the Company's obligation for guarantees of certain investments and third-party loans related to certain investments that are quantifiable was $150 million at December 31, 2015, approximately $75 million of which is indemnified by a third party. The maximum amount of the Company's obligation related to the guarantee of certain insurance policy obligations of a former insurance subsidiary was $480 million at December 31, 2015, all of which is indemnified by a third party. Certain of the guarantees and indemnifications described above have no stated or notional amounts or limitation to the maximum potential future payments, and, accordingly, the Company is unable to develop an estimate of the maximum potential payments for such arrangements.

16. CONTINGENCIES, COMMITMENTS AND GUARANTEES

Contingencies

The major pending legal proceedings, other than ordinary routine litigation incidental to the business, to which the Company or any of its subsidiaries is a party or to which any of the Company's properties is subject are described below.

Asbestos and Environmental Claims and Litigation

In the ordinary course of its insurance business, the Company has received and continues to receive claims for insurance arising under policies issued by the Company asserting alleged injuries and damages from asbestos- and environmental-related exposures that are the subject of related coverage litigation. The Company is defending asbestos- and environmental-related litigation vigorously and believes that it has meritorious defenses; however, the outcomes of these disputes are uncertain. In this regard, the Company employs dedicated specialists and aggressive resolution strategies to manage asbestos and environmental loss exposure, including settling litigation under appropriate circumstances. Currently, it is not possible to predict legal outcomes and their impact on the future development of claims and litigation relating to asbestos and environmental claims. Any such development will be affected by future court decisions and interpretations, as well as changes in applicable legislation. Because of these uncertainties, additional liabilities may arise for amounts in excess of the Company's current reserves. In addition, the Company's estimate of ultimate claims and claim adjustment expenses may change. These additional liabilities or increases in estimates, or a range of either, cannot now be reasonably estimated and could result in income statement charges that could be material to the Company's results of operations in future periods.

Settlement of Asbestos Direct Action Litigation

        In October 2001 and April 2002, two purported class action suits (Wise v. Travelers and Meninger v. Travelers) were filed against Travelers Property Casualty Corp. (TPC), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, and other insurers (not including The St. Paul Companies, Inc. (SPC), which was acquired by TPC in 2004) in state court in West Virginia. These and other cases subsequently filed in West Virginia were consolidated into a single proceeding in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia. The plaintiffs alleged that the insurer defendants engaged in unfair trade practices in violation of state statutes by inappropriately handling and settling asbestos claims. The plaintiffs sought to reopen large numbers of settled asbestos claims and to impose liability for damages, including punitive damages, directly on insurers. Similar lawsuits alleging inappropriate handling and settling of asbestos claims were filed in Massachusetts and Hawaii state courts. These suits are collectively referred to as the Statutory and Hawaii Actions.

        In March 2002, the plaintiffs in consolidated asbestos actions pending before a mass tort panel of judges in West Virginia state court amended their complaint to include TPC as a defendant, alleging that TPC and other insurers breached alleged duties to certain users of asbestos products. The plaintiffs sought damages, including punitive damages. Lawsuits seeking similar relief and raising similar allegations, primarily violations of purported common law duties to third parties, were also asserted in various state courts against TPC and SPC. The claims asserted in these suits are collectively referred to as the Common Law Claims.

        In response to these claims, TPC moved to enjoin the Statutory Actions and the Common Law Claims in the federal bankruptcy court that had presided over the bankruptcy of TPC's former policyholder Johns-Manville Corporation on the ground that the suits violated injunctions entered in connection with confirmation of the Johns-Manville bankruptcy (the 1986 Orders). The bankruptcy court issued a temporary restraining order and referred the parties to mediation. In November 2003, the parties reached a settlement of the Statutory and Hawaii Actions, which included a lump-sum payment of up to $412 million by TPC, subject to a number of significant contingencies. In May 2004, the parties reached a settlement resolving substantially all pending and similar future Common Law Claims against TPC, which included a payment of up to $90 million by TPC, subject to similar contingencies.

        After the parties reached the settlements of the Statutory and Hawaiian Actions and the Common Law Claims (collectively "the Settlements"), numerous proceedings took place in the bankruptcy, district and appellate courts concerning the approval of the Settlements and their effect on other parties. As a result of certain rulings in those proceedings, TPC concluded that it was not obligated to go forward with the Settlements because certain conditions precedent to the Settlements had not been met.

        The plaintiffs in the Statutory and Hawaii Actions and the Common Law Claims actions thereafter filed motions in the bankruptcy court to compel TPC to make payment under the settlement agreements, arguing that all conditions precedent to the Settlements had been met. On December 16, 2010, the bankruptcy court granted the plaintiffs' motions and ruled that TPC was required to fund the Settlements. The court entered judgment against TPC on January 20, 2011 in accordance with this ruling and ordered TPC to pay the Settlements plus prejudgment interest. The bankruptcy court's judgment was reversed by the district court on March 1, 2012, the district court having found that the conditions to the Settlements had not been met. The plaintiffs appealed the district court's March 1, 2012 decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. On July 22, 2014, the Second Circuit issued an opinion reversing the district court's decision and reinstating the bankruptcy court's January 20, 2011 order which ordered TPC to pay the Settlements plus prejudgment interest. On August 5, 2014, TPC filed a Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc with the Second Circuit, which was denied on January 5, 2015. On January 15, 2015, the bankruptcy court entered an order directing TPC to pay $579 million to the plaintiffs, comprising the $502 million settlement amount described above, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest totaling $77 million, and the Company made that payment in January 2015. The payment was fully accrued in the Company's financial statements at December 31, 2014.

Other Proceedings Not Arising Under Insurance Contracts or Reinsurance Agreements

The Company is involved in other lawsuits, including lawsuits alleging extra-contractual damages relating to insurance contracts or reinsurance agreements, that do not arise under insurance contracts or reinsurance agreements. The legal costs associated with such lawsuits are expensed in the period in which the costs are incurred. Based upon currently available information, the Company does not believe it is reasonably possible that any such lawsuit or related lawsuits would be material to the Company's results of operations or would have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or liquidity.

Gain Contingency

On August 17, 2010, in a reinsurance dispute in New York state court captioned United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company v. American Re-Insurance Company, et al., the trial court granted summary judgment for United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company (USF&G), a subsidiary of the Company, and denied summary judgment for American Re-Insurance Company, a subsidiary of Munich Re (American Re), and three other reinsurers. That summary judgment was largely affirmed on appeal, but the Court of Appeals remanded the case for trial on two discrete issues. On June 3, 2015, the trial court entered orders on pretrial motions filed by all parties in advance of the August 3, 2015 trial date and determined that the issues for trial will be limited to the two discrete issues remanded by the Court of Appeals. The reinsurers appealed the trial court's orders to the Appellate Division, First Department and were granted a stay of the trial date pending the outcome of their appeal. On August 12, 2015, USF&G filed a motion to dismiss the reinsurers' appeal. On October 29, 2015, the Appellate Division denied USF&G's motion to dismiss the reinsurers' appeal, but also unanimously ruled in USF&G's favor and affirmed the rulings limiting the issues for trial to the two discrete issues remanded by the Court of Appeals. On October 30, 2015, the reinsurers appealed the Appellate Division's decision to the New York Court of Appeals. On November 9, 2015, the Clerk of the Court of Appeals directed the parties to submit letter briefs addressing whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to decide the reinsurers' appeal. On November 19, 2015, USF&G and the reinsurers filed their respective letter briefs, and the parties await a decision from the Court of Appeals as to whether the reinsurers' appeal may proceed. At December 31, 2015, the claim totaled $509 million, comprising $238 million of reinsurance recoverable plus interest amounting to $271 million as of that date. Interest will continue to accrue at an annual rate of 9% until the claim is paid. The $238 million of reinsurance recoverable owed to USF&G under the terms of the disputed reinsurance contract has been reported as part of reinsurance recoverables in the Company's consolidated balance sheet. The interest that would be owed as part of any judgment ultimately entered in favor of USF&G is treated for accounting purposes as a gain contingency in accordance with FASB Topic 450, Contingencies, and accordingly has not been recognized in the Company's consolidated financial statements.

Resolution of Gain Contingency

In 2013, the Company favorably resolved a class action lawsuit captioned Safeco Insurance Company of America, et al. v American International Group, Inc. et al. (U.S. District Court, N.D. Ill.). The plaintiffs, including the Company, alleged that the defendants had engaged in the under-reporting of workers' compensation premium in connection with a workers' compensation reinsurance pool in which several subsidiaries of the Company participated. The Company received two payments totaling approximately $93 million, comprising its allocation as a plaintiff class member from the settlement fund, less approximately $2 million remitted to another insurer, resulting in a net gain of $91 million that was reported in "Other revenues" in the Company's consolidated statement of income for the year ended December 31, 2013.

Other Commitments and Guarantees

Commitments

Investment Commitments—The Company has unfunded commitments to private equity limited partnerships and real estate partnerships in which it invests. These commitments totaled $1.71 billion and $1.63 billion at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

Guarantees

In the ordinary course of selling businesses to third parties, the Company has agreed to indemnify purchasers for losses arising out of breaches of representations and warranties with respect to the businesses being sold, covenants and obligations of the Company and/or its subsidiaries and, in certain cases, obligations arising from certain liabilities and the imposition of additional taxes due to either a change in the tax law or an adverse interpretation of the tax law. Such indemnification provisions generally are applicable from the closing date to the expiration of the relevant statutes of limitations, although, in some cases, there may be agreed upon term limitations or no term limitations. Certain of these contingent obligations are subject to deductibles which have to be incurred by the obligee before the Company is obligated to make payments. The maximum amount of the Company's contingent obligation for indemnifications related to the sale of businesses that are quantifiable was $391 million at December 31, 2015, of which $2 million was recognized on the balance sheet at that date.

The Company also has contingent obligations for guarantees related to certain investments, third-party loans related to certain investments, certain insurance policy obligations of former insurance subsidiaries and various other indemnifications. The Company also provides standard indemnifications to service providers in the normal course of business. The indemnification clauses are often standard contractual terms. The maximum amount of the Company's obligation for guarantees of certain investments and third-party loans related to certain investments that are quantifiable was $150 million at December 31, 2015, approximately $75 million of which is indemnified by a third party. The maximum amount of the Company's obligation related to the guarantee of certain insurance policy obligations of a former insurance subsidiary was $480 million at December 31, 2015, all of which is indemnified by a third party.

Certain of the guarantees and indemnifications described above have no stated or notional amounts or limitation to the maximum potential future payments, and, accordingly, the Company is unable to develop an estimate of the maximum potential payments for such arrangements.