XML 119 R22.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.0.6
Commitments and Contingencies
 12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies
Contingencies Relating to Corporate Litigation and Regulatory Matters
Management evaluates each contingent matter separately. A loss is recorded if probable and reasonably estimable. Management establishes reserves for these contingencies at its “best estimate,” or, if no one number within the range of possible losses is more probable than any other, the Company records an estimated reserve at the low end of the range of losses.
Litigation
The Hartford is involved in claims litigation arising in the ordinary course of business, both as a liability insurer defending or providing indemnity for third-party claims brought against insureds and as an insurer defending coverage claims brought against it. The Hartford accounts for such activity through the establishment of unpaid loss and loss adjustment expense reserves. Subject to the uncertainties discussed below under the caption “Asbestos and Environmental Claims,” management expects that the ultimate liability, if any, with respect to such ordinary-course claims litigation, after consideration of provisions made for potential losses and costs of defense, will not be material to the consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows of The Hartford.

The Hartford is also involved in other kinds of legal actions, some of which assert claims for substantial amounts. These actions include, among others, and in addition to the matters described below, putative state and federal class actions seeking certification of a state or national class. Such putative class actions have alleged, for example, underpayment of claims or improper underwriting practices in connection with various kinds of insurance policies, such as personal and commercial automobile, property, life and inland marine; improper sales practices in connection with the sale of life insurance and other investment products; and improper fee arrangements in connection with investment products. The Hartford also is involved in individual actions in which punitive damages are sought, such as claims alleging bad faith in the handling of insurance claims. Like many other insurers, The Hartford also has been joined in actions by asbestos plaintiffs asserting, among other things, that insurers had a duty to protect the public from the dangers of asbestos and that insurers committed unfair trade practices by asserting defenses on behalf of their policyholders in the underlying asbestos cases. Management expects that the ultimate liability, if any, with respect to such lawsuits, after consideration of provisions made for estimated losses, will not be material to the consolidated financial condition of The Hartford. Nonetheless, given the large or indeterminate amounts sought in certain of these actions, and the inherent unpredictability of litigation, the outcome in certain matters could, from time to time, have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations or cash flows in particular quarterly or annual periods.

Apart from the inherent difficulty of predicting litigation outcomes, the Mutual Funds Litigation identified below purports to seek substantial damages for unsubstantiated conduct spanning a multi-year period based on novel applications of complex legal theories. The alleged damages are not quantified or factually supported in the complaint, and, in any event, the Company's experience shows that demands for damages often bear little relation to a reasonable estimate of potential loss. The matter is in the earliest stages of litigation, with no discovery having been taken and no substantive legal decisions by the court defining the scope of the potentially available damages. Accordingly, management cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, or predict the timing of the eventual resolution of this matter.

Mutual Funds Litigation - In February 2011, a derivative action was brought on behalf of six Hartford retail mutual funds in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that Hartford Investment Financial Services, LLC (“HIFSCO”), an indirect subsidiary of the Company, received excessive advisory and distribution fees in violation of its statutory fiduciary duty under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940.  HIFSCO moved to dismiss and, in September 2011, the motion was granted in part and denied in part, with leave to amend the complaint. In November 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on behalf of The Hartford Global Health Fund, The Hartford Conservative Allocation Fund, The Hartford Growth Opportunities Fund, The Hartford Inflation Plus Fund, The Hartford Advisors Fund, and The Hartford Capital Appreciation Fund. Plaintiffs seek to rescind the investment management agreements and distribution plans between HIFSCO and these funds and to recover the total fees charged thereunder or, in the alternative, to recover any improper compensation HIFSCO received, in addition to lost earnings. HIFSCO filed a partial motion to dismiss the amended complaint and, in December 2012, the court dismissed without prejudice the claims regarding distribution fees and denied the motion with respect to the advisory fees claims. HIFSCO disputes the allegations and intends to defend vigorously.
  

Asbestos and Environmental Claims
The Company continues to receive asbestos and environmental claims. Asbestos claims relate primarily to bodily injuries asserted by people who came in contact with asbestos or products containing asbestos. Environmental claims relate primarily to pollution and related clean-up costs.
The Company wrote several different categories of insurance contracts that may cover asbestos and environmental claims. First, the Company wrote primary policies providing the first layer of coverage in an insured’s liability program. Second, the Company wrote excess policies providing higher layers of coverage for losses that exhaust the limits of underlying coverage. Third, the Company acted as a reinsurer assuming a portion of those risks assumed by other insurers writing primary, excess and reinsurance coverages. Fourth, subsidiaries of the Company participated in the London Market, writing both direct insurance and assumed reinsurance business.
Significant uncertainty limits the ability of insurers and reinsurers to estimate the ultimate reserves necessary for unpaid losses and expenses related to environmental and particularly asbestos claims. The degree of variability of reserve estimates for these exposures is significantly greater than for other more traditional exposures.
In the case of the reserves for asbestos exposures, factors contributing to the high degree of uncertainty include inadequate loss development patterns, plaintiffs’ expanding theories of liability, the risks inherent in major litigation, and inconsistent emerging legal doctrines. Furthermore, over time, insurers, including the Company, have experienced significant changes in the rate at which asbestos claims are brought, the claims experience of particular insureds, and the value of claims, making predictions of future exposure from past experience uncertain. Plaintiffs and insureds also have sought to use bankruptcy proceedings, including “pre-packaged” bankruptcies, to accelerate and increase loss payments by insurers. In addition, some policyholders have asserted new classes of claims for coverages to which an aggregate limit of liability may not apply. Further uncertainties include insolvencies of other carriers and unanticipated developments pertaining to the Company’s ability to recover reinsurance for asbestos and environmental claims. Management believes these issues are not likely to be resolved in the near future.
In the case of the reserves for environmental exposures, factors contributing to the high degree of uncertainty include expanding theories of liability and damages, the risks inherent in major litigation, inconsistent decisions concerning the existence and scope of coverage for environmental claims, and uncertainty as to the monetary amount being sought by the claimant from the insured.
The reporting pattern for assumed reinsurance claims, including those related to asbestos and environmental claims, is much longer than for direct claims. In many instances, it takes months or years to determine that the policyholder’s own obligations have been met and how the reinsurance in question may apply to such claims. The delay in reporting reinsurance claims and exposures adds to the uncertainty of estimating the related reserves.
It is also not possible to predict changes in the legal and legislative environment and their effect on the future development of asbestos and environmental claims.
Given the factors described above, the Company believes the actuarial tools and other techniques it employs to estimate the ultimate cost of claims for more traditional kinds of insurance exposure are less precise in estimating reserves for certain of its asbestos and environmental exposures. For this reason, the Company principally relies on exposure-based analysis to estimate the ultimate costs of these claims and regularly evaluates new account information in assessing its potential asbestos and environmental exposures. The Company supplements this exposure-based analysis with evaluations of the Company’s historical direct net loss and expense paid and reported experience, and net loss and expense paid and reported experience by calendar and/or report year, to assess any emerging trends, fluctuations or characteristics suggested by the aggregate paid and reported activity.
As of December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the Company reported $1.8 billion and $1.9 billion of net asbestos reserves and $297 and $328 of net environmental reserves, respectively. The Company believes that its current asbestos and environmental reserves are appropriate. However, analyses of future developments could cause The Hartford to change its estimates and ranges of its asbestos and environmental reserves, and the effect of these changes could be material to the Company’s consolidated operating results, financial condition, and liquidity.

Lease Commitments
The total rental expense on operating leases was $105, $122, and $132 in 2012, 2011, and 2010, respectively, which excludes sublease rental income of $6, $13, and $4 in 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively.
Future minimum lease commitments as of December 31, 2012 are as follows:

Operating Leases
2013
$
61

2014
45

2015
37

2016
30

2017
21

Thereafter
43

Total minimum lease payments [1]
$
237

[1]
Excludes expected future minimum sublease income of approximately $4 and $2 in 2013 and 2014, respectively.
The Company’s lease commitments consist primarily of lease agreements for office space, data processing, furniture and fixtures, office equipment, and transportation equipment that expire at various dates. Capital lease assets are included in property and equipment.
Unfunded Commitments
As of December 31, 2012, the Company has outstanding commitments totaling $598, of which $562 is committed to fund limited partnership and other alternative investments, which may be called by the partnership during the commitment period (on average 2 to 4 years) to fund the purchase of new investments and partnership expenses. Once the commitment period expires, the Company is under no obligation to fund the remaining unfunded commitment but may elect to do so. Additionally, $30 is largely related to commercial whole loans expected to fund in the first half of 2013. The remaining outstanding commitments are related to various funding obligations associated with private placement securities. These have a commitment period of one month to one year.
Guaranty Fund and Other Insurance-related Assessments
In all states, insurers licensed to transact certain classes of insurance are required to become members of a guaranty fund. In most states, in the event of the insolvency of an insurer writing any such class of insurance in the state, members of the funds are assessed to pay certain claims of the insolvent insurers. A particular state’s fund assesses its members based on their respective written premiums in the state for the classes of insurance in which the insolvent insurer was engaged. Assessments are generally limited for any year to one or two percent of the premiums written per year depending on the state.
The Hartford accounts for guaranty fund and other related assessments in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification 405-30, “Insurance-Related Assessments.” Liabilities for guaranty fund and other insurance-related assessments are accrued when an assessment is probable, when it can be reasonably estimated, and when the event obligating the Company to pay an imposed or probable assessment has occurred. Liabilities for guaranty funds and other insurance-related assessments are not discounted and are included as part of other liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. As of December 31, 2012 and 2011, the liability balance was $160 and $145 respectively. As of December 31, 2012 and 2011, $34 and $31 related to premium tax offsets were included in other assets. In 2011, The Company recognized $22 for expected assessments related to the Executive Life Insurance Company of New York ("ELNY") insolvency.


Derivative Commitments
Certain of the Company’s derivative agreements contain provisions that are tied to the financial strength ratings of the individual legal entity that entered into the derivative agreement as set by nationally recognized statistical rating agencies. If the legal entity’s financial strength were to fall below certain ratings, the counterparties to the derivative agreements could demand immediate and ongoing full collateralization and in certain instances demand immediate settlement of all outstanding derivative positions traded under each impacted bilateral agreement. The settlement amount is determined by netting the derivative positions transacted under each agreement. If the termination rights were to be exercised by the counterparties; it could impact the legal entity’s ability to conduct hedging activities by increasing the associated costs and decreasing the willingness of counterparties to transact with the legal entity. The aggregate fair value of all derivative instruments with credit-risk-related contingent features that are in a net liability position as of December 31, 2012, is $643. Of this $643 the legal entities have posted collateral of $589 in the normal course of business. Based on derivative market values as of December 31, 2012, a downgrade of one level below the current financial strength ratings by either Moody’s or S&P could require approximately an additional $37 to be posted as collateral. Based on derivative market values as of December 31, 2012, a downgrade by either Moody’s or S&P of two levels below the legal entities’ current financial strength ratings could require approximately an additional $57 of assets to be posted as collateral. These collateral amounts could change as derivative market values change, as a result of changes in our hedging activities or to the extent changes in contractual terms are negotiated. The nature of the collateral that we would post, if required, would be primarily in the form of U.S. Treasury bills and U.S. Treasury notes.
On February 5, 2013 Moody's lowered its counterparty credit and insurer financial strength ratings on Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance Company to Baa2. Given this downgrade action, termination rating triggers in seven derivative counterparty relationships were impacted. The Company is in the process of re-negotiating the rating triggers which it expects to successfully complete. Accordingly, the Company does not expect the current hedging programs to be adversely impacted by the announcement of the downgrade of Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance Company. As of December 31, 2012, the notional amount and fair value related to these counterparties is $18.8 billion and $331, respectively. These counterparties have the right to terminate these relationships and would have to settle the outstanding derivatives prior to exercising their termination right. Accordingly, as of December 31, 2012 five of these counterparties combined would owe the Company the derivatives fair value of $375 and the Company would owe two counterparties combined $44. Of this $44, the legal entities have posted collateral of $33 in the normal course of business. The counterparties have not exercised this termination right. The notional and fair value amounts include a customized GMWB derivative with a notional amount of $3.9 billion and a fair value of $133, for which the Company has a contractual right to make a collateral payment in the amount of approximately $45 to prevent its termination.