Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	14. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES 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 in the following discussion 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. In addition to the matter described below, these actions include putative class actions seeking certification of a state or national class. Such putative class actions have alleged, for example, underpayment of claims or improper sales or underwriting practices in connection with various kinds of insurance policies, such as personal and commercial automobile, property, disability, life and inland marine. 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 or other allegedly unfair or improper business practices. 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. Run-off Asbestos and Environmental Claims The Company continues to receive A&E 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 vast majority of the Company's exposure to A&E relates to Run-off A&E, reported within the P&C Other Operations segment. In addition, since 1986, the Company has written asbestos and environmental exposures under general liability policies and pollution liability under homeowners policies, which are reported in the Commercial Lines and Personal Lines segments. Prior to 1986, the Company wrote several different categories of insurance contracts that may cover A&E claims. First, the Company wrote primary policies providing the first layer of coverage in an insured’s liability program. Second, the Company wrote excess and umbrella 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, umbrella and reinsurance coverages. Significant uncertainty limits the ability of insurers and reinsurers to estimate the ultimate reserves necessary for unpaid gross losses and expenses related to environmental and particularly asbestos claims. The degree of variability of gross 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 A&E 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 A&E 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 A&E 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 A&E exposures. For this reason, the Company principally relies on exposure-based analysis to estimate the ultimate costs of these claims, both gross and net of reinsurance, and regularly evaluates new account information in assessing its potential A&E 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. While the Company believes that its current A&E reserves are appropriate, significant uncertainties limit the ability of insurers and reinsurers to estimate the ultimate reserves necessary for unpaid losses and related expenses. The ultimate liabilities, thus, could exceed the currently recorded reserves, and any such additional liability, while not estimable now, could be material to The Hartford’s consolidated operating results and liquidity. For its Run-off A&E, as of December 31, 2019, the Company reported $874 of net asbestos reserves and $120 of net environmental reserves. While the Company believes that its current Run-off A&E reserves are appropriate, significant uncertainties limit our ability to estimate the ultimate reserves necessary for unpaid losses and related expenses. The ultimate liabilities, thus, could exceed the currently recorded reserves, and any such additional liability, while not reasonably estimable now, could be material to The Hartford's consolidated operating results and liquidity. The Company’s A&E ADC reinsurance agreement with NICO reinsures substantially all A&E reserve development for 2016 and prior accident years, including Run-off A&E and A&E reserves included in Commercial Lines and Personal Lines. The A&E ADC has a coverage limit of $1.5 billion above the Company’s existing net A&E reserves as of December 31, 2016 of approximately $1.7 billion. As of December 31, 2019, the Company has incurred $640 in cumulative adverse development on A&E reserves that have been ceded under the A&E ADC treaty with NICO, leaving $860 of coverage available for future adverse net reserve development, if any. Cumulative adverse development of A&E claims for accident years 2016 and prior could ultimately exceed the $1.5 billion treaty limit in which case any adverse development in excess of the treaty limit would be absorbed as a charge to earnings by the Company. In these scenarios, the effect of these charges could be material to the Company’s consolidated operating results and liquidity. For more information on the A&E ADC, refer to Note 11, Reserve for Unpaid Losses and Loss Adjustment Expenses of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. Management evaluates each contingent matter separately. A loss is recorded if probable and reasonably estimable. Management establishes liabilities 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 liability at the low end of the range of losses. Unfunded Commitments As of December 31, 2019, the Company has outstanding commitments totaling $1,258, of which $852 is committed to fund limited partnership and other alternative investments, which may be called by the partnership during the commitment period to fund the purchase of new investments and partnership expenses. Additionally, $191 of the outstanding commitments relate to various funding obligations associated with private debt and equity securities. The remaining outstanding commitments of $215 relate to mortgage loans. Of the $1,258 in total outstanding commitments, $130 are related to mortgage loan commitments which the Company can cancel unconditionally. Guaranty Funds 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, the guaranty funds may assess its members to pay covered claims of the insolvent insurers. Assessments are based on each member's proportionate share of 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. Some states permit member insurers to recover assessments paid through surcharges on policyholders or through full or partial premium tax offsets, while other states permit recovery of assessments through the rate filing process. 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, 2019 and 2018 the liability balance was $89 and $97, respectively. As of December 31, 2019 and 2018 amounts related to premium tax offsets of $2 and $2, respectively, were included in other assets. Derivative Commitments Certain of the Company’s derivative agreements contain provisions that are tied to the financial strength ratings, as set by nationally recognized statistical agencies, of the individual legal entity that entered into the derivative agreement. 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, enable the counterparties to terminate the agreements and 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, 2019 was $81. For this $81, the legal entities have posted collateral of $77 in the normal course of business. Based on derivative market values as of December 31, 2019, a downgrade of one level below the current financial strength ratings by either Moody’s or S&P would not require additional assets to be posted as collateral. Based on derivative market values as of December 31, 2019, a downgrade of two levels below the current financial strength ratings by either Moody’s or S&P would require an additional $5 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 additional collateral that we would post, if required, would be primarily in the form of U.S. Treasury bills, U.S. Treasury notes and government agency securities. Guarantees In the ordinary course of selling businesses or entities to third parties, the Company has agreed to indemnify purchasers for losses arising subsequent to the closing due to breaches of representations and warranties with respect to the business or entity being sold or with respect to covenants and obligations of the Company and/or its subsidiaries. These obligations are typically subject to various time limitations, defined by the contract or by operation of law, such as statutes of limitation. In some cases, the maximum potential obligation is subject to contractual limitations, while in other cases such limitations are not specified or applicable. The Company does not expect to make any payments on these guarantees and is not carrying any liabilities associated with these guarantees. The Hartford has guaranteed the obligations of certain life, accident and health and annuity contracts of the life and annuity business written by Hartford Life Insurance Company between 1990 and 1997 and written by Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance Company between 1993 and 2009. After the sale of this business in May 2018, the purchaser indemnified the Company for any liability arising under the guarantees. The guarantees have no limitation as to maximum potential future payments. The Hartford has not recorded a liability and the likelihood for any payments under these guarantees is remote.

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 in the following discussion 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. In addition to the matter described below, these actions include putative class actions seeking certification of a state or national class. Such putative class actions have alleged, for example, underpayment of claims or improper sales or underwriting practices in connection with various kinds of insurance policies, such as personal and commercial automobile, property, disability, life and inland marine. 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 or other allegedly unfair or improper business practices. 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.

The Company continues to receive A&E 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 vast majority of the Company's exposure to A&E relates to Run-off A&E, reported within the P&C Other Operations segment. In addition, since 1986, the Company has written asbestos and environmental exposures under general liability policies and pollution liability under homeowners policies, which are reported in the Commercial Lines and Personal Lines segments.

Prior to 1986, the Company wrote several different categories of insurance contracts that may cover A&E claims. First, the Company wrote primary policies providing the first layer of coverage in an insured’s liability program. Second, the Company wrote excess and umbrella policies providing higher layers of coverage for losses that exhaust the limits of underlying coverage.

Significant uncertainty limits the ability of insurers and reinsurers to estimate the ultimate reserves necessary for unpaid gross losses and expenses related to environmental and particularly asbestos claims. The degree of variability of gross 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 A&E 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 A&E 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.

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 A&E exposures. For this reason, the Company principally relies on exposure-based analysis to estimate the ultimate costs of these claims, both gross and net of reinsurance, and regularly evaluates new account information in assessing its potential A&E 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.

While the Company believes that its current A&E reserves are appropriate, significant uncertainties limit the ability of insurers and reinsurers to estimate the ultimate reserves necessary for unpaid losses and related expenses. The ultimate liabilities, thus, could exceed the currently recorded reserves, and any such additional liability, while not estimable now, could be material to The Hartford’s consolidated operating results and liquidity.

For its Run-off A&E, as of December 31, 2019, the Company reported $874 of net asbestos reserves and $120 of net environmental reserves. While the Company believes that its current Run-off A&E reserves are appropriate, significant uncertainties limit our ability to estimate the ultimate reserves necessary for unpaid losses and related expenses. The ultimate liabilities, thus, could exceed the currently recorded reserves, and any such additional liability, while not reasonably estimable now, could be material to The Hartford's consolidated operating results and liquidity.

The Company’s A&E ADC reinsurance agreement with NICO reinsures substantially all A&E reserve development for 2016 and prior accident years, including Run-off A&E and A&E reserves included in Commercial Lines and Personal Lines. The A&E ADC has a coverage limit of $1.5 billion above the Company’s existing net A&E reserves as of December 31, 2016 of approximately $1.7 billion. As of December 31, 2019, the Company has incurred $640 in cumulative adverse development on A&E reserves that have been ceded under the A&E ADC treaty with NICO, leaving $860 of coverage available for future adverse net reserve development, if any. Cumulative adverse development of A&E claims for accident years 2016 and prior could ultimately exceed the $1.5 billion treaty limit in which case any adverse development in excess of the treaty limit would be absorbed as a charge to earnings by the Company. In these scenarios, the effect of these charges could be material to the Company’s consolidated operating results and liquidity. For more information on the A&E ADC, refer to Note 11, Reserve for Unpaid Losses and Loss Adjustment Expenses of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

Management evaluates each contingent matter separately. A loss is recorded if probable and reasonably estimable. Management establishes liabilities 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 liability at the low end of the range of losses.

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, the guaranty funds may assess its members to pay covered claims of the insolvent

insurers. Assessments are based on each member's proportionate share of 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. Some states permit member insurers to recover assessments paid through surcharges on policyholders or through full or partial premium tax offsets, while other states permit recovery of assessments through the rate filing process.

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, 2019 and 2018 the liability balance was $89 and $97, respectively. As of December 31, 2019 and 2018 amounts related to premium tax offsets of $2 and $2, respectively, were included in other assets.

Certain of the Company’s derivative agreements contain provisions that are tied to the financial strength ratings, as set by nationally recognized statistical agencies, of the individual legal entity that entered into the derivative agreement. 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, enable the counterparties to terminate the agreements and 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, 2019 was $81. For this $81, the legal entities have

posted collateral of $77 in the normal course of business. Based on derivative market values as of December 31, 2019, a downgrade of one level below the current financial strength ratings by either Moody’s or S&P would not require additional assets to be posted as collateral. Based on derivative market values as of December 31, 2019, a downgrade of two levels below the current financial strength ratings by either Moody’s or S&P would require an additional $5 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 additional collateral that we would post, if required, would be primarily in the form of U.S. Treasury bills, U.S. Treasury notes and government agency securities.

In the ordinary course of selling businesses or entities to third parties, the Company has agreed to indemnify purchasers for losses arising subsequent to the closing due to breaches of representations and warranties with respect to the business or entity being sold or with respect to covenants and obligations of the Company and/or its subsidiaries. These obligations are typically subject to various time limitations, defined by the contract or by operation of law, such as statutes of limitation. In some cases, the maximum potential obligation is subject to contractual limitations, while in other cases such limitations are not specified or applicable. The Company does not expect to make any payments on these guarantees and is not carrying any liabilities associated with these guarantees.

The Hartford has guaranteed the obligations of certain life, accident and health and annuity contracts of the life and annuity business written by Hartford Life Insurance Company between 1990 and 1997 and written by Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance Company between 1993 and 2009. After the sale of this business in May 2018, the purchaser indemnified the Company for any liability arising under the guarantees. The guarantees have no limitation as to maximum potential future payments. The Hartford has not recorded a liability and the likelihood for any payments under these guarantees is remote.