Litigation and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2019

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]



NOTE 17		Litigation and Contingencies

Before paying an insurance claim, we review the loan and servicing files to determine the appropriateness of the claim amount. When reviewing the files, we may determine that we have the right to rescind coverage on the loan. We refer to insurance rescissions and denials of claims collectively as “rescissions” and variations of that term. In addition, our insurance policies generally provide that we can reduce or deny a claim if the servicer did not comply with its obligations under our insurance policy. We call such reduction of claims “curtailments.” In recent quarters, an immaterial percentage of claims received in a quarter have been resolved by rescissions. In 2019 and 2018 , curtailments

reduced our average claim paid by approximately 5.0% and 5.8%, respectively.

Our loss reserving methodology incorporates our estimates of future rescissions, curtailments, and reversals of rescissions and curtailments. A variance between ultimate actual rescission, curtailment, and reversal rates and our estimates, as a result of the outcome of litigation, settlements or other factors, could materially affect our losses.

When the insured disputes our right to rescind coverage or curtail claims, we generally engage in discussions in an attempt to settle the dispute. If we are unable to reach a settlement, the outcome of a dispute ultimately may be determined by legal proceedings.

Under ASC 450-20, until a loss associated with settlement discussions or legal proceedings becomes probable and can be reasonably estimated, we consider our claim payment or rescission resolved for financial reporting purposes and do not accrue an estimated loss. When we determine that a loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated, we record our best estimate of our probable loss. In those cases, until settlement negotiations or legal proceedings are concluded (including the receipt of any necessary GSE approvals), it is reasonably possible that we will record an additional loss. In the fourth quarter of 2019, the agreement for which we had recorded a probable loss of $23.5 million, received necessary GSE approvals. There was no additional loss recognized as a result of entering into the agreement, as the settlement amount was consistent with our original estimate of the probable loss. We are currently involved in discussions and/or proceedings with insureds with respect to our claims paying practices. Although it is reasonably possible that when all of these matters are resolved we will not prevail in all cases, we are unable to make a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of the potential liability. We estimate the maximum exposure associated with matters where a loss is reasonably possible to be approximately $46 million. This estimate of maximum exposure is based upon currently available information; is subject to significant judgment, numerous assumptions and known and unknown uncertainties; will include an amount for matters for which we have recorded a probable loss until such matters are concluded; will include different matters from time to time; and does not include interest or consequential or exemplary damages.

Mortgage insurers, including MGIC, have in the past been involved in litigation and regulatory actions related to alleged violations of the anti-referral fee provisions of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA") and the notice provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). While these proceedings in the aggregate did not result in material liability for MGIC, there can be no assurance that the outcome of future proceedings, if any, under these laws would not have a material adverse

effect on us. To the extent that we are construed to make independent credit decisions in connection with our contract underwriting activities, we also could be subject to increased regulatory requirements under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“EOCA”), FCRA, and other laws. Under ECOA, examination may also be made of whether a mortgage insurer’s underwriting decisions have a disparate impact on persons belonging to a protected class in violation of the law.

Through a non-insurance subsidiary, we utilize our underwriting skills to provide an outsourced underwriting service to our customers known as contract underwriting. As part of the contract underwriting activities, that subsidiary is responsible for the quality of the underwriting decisions in accordance with the terms of the contract underwriting agreements with customers. That subsidiary may be required to provide certain remedies to its customers if certain standards relating to the quality of our underwriting work are not met, and we have an established reserve for such future obligations. Claims for remedies may be made a number of years after the underwriting work was performed. The related contract underwriting remedy expense for each of the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018, and 2017, was immaterial to our consolidated financial statements.

In addition to the matters described above, we are involved in other legal proceedings in the ordinary course of business. In our opinion, based on the facts known at this time, the ultimate resolution of these ordinary course legal proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position or consolidated results of operations.