Guarantees and Contingent Liabilities	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2016
Guarantees and Contingent Liabilities
Guarantees and Contingent Liabilities	Guarantees and Contingent Liabilities Shared markets and state facility assessments The Company is required to participate in assigned risk plans, reinsurance facilities and joint underwriting associations in various states that provide insurance coverage to individuals or entities that otherwise are unable to purchase such coverage from private insurers. Underwriting results related to these arrangements, which tend to be adverse, have been immaterial to the Company’s results of operations. Because of the Company’s participation, it may be exposed to losses that surpass the capitalization of these facilities and/or assessments from these facilities. Guarantees The Company provides residual value guarantees on Company leased automobiles. If all outstanding leases were terminated effective March 31, 2016, the Company’s maximum obligation pursuant to these guarantees, assuming the automobiles have no residual value, would be $48 million as of March 31, 2016. The remaining term of each residual value guarantee is equal to the term of the underlying lease that ranges from less than one year to four years. Historically, the Company has not made any material payments pursuant to these guarantees. The Company owns certain investments that obligate the Company to exchange credit risk or to forfeit principal due, depending on the nature or occurrence of specified credit events for the reference entities. In the event all such specified credit events were to occur, the Company’s maximum amount at risk on these investments, as measured by the amount of the aggregate initial investment, was $4 million as of March 31, 2016. The obligations associated with these investments expire at various dates on or before March 11, 2018. In the normal course of business, the Company provides standard indemnifications to contractual counterparties in connection with numerous transactions, including acquisitions and divestitures. The types of indemnifications typically provided include indemnifications for breaches of representations and warranties, taxes and certain other liabilities, such as third party lawsuits. The indemnification clauses are often standard contractual terms and are entered into in the normal course of business based on an assessment that the risk of loss would be remote. The terms of the indemnifications vary in duration and nature. In many cases, the maximum obligation is not explicitly stated and the contingencies triggering the obligation to indemnify have not occurred and are not expected to occur. Consequently, the maximum amount of the obligation under such indemnifications is not determinable. Historically, the Company has not made any material payments pursuant to these obligations. Related to the sale of LBL on April 1, 2014, ALIC agreed to indemnify Resolution Life Holdings, Inc. in connection with certain representations, warranties and covenants of ALIC, and certain liabilities specifically excluded from the transaction, subject to specific contractual limitations regarding ALIC’s maximum obligation. Management does not believe these indemnifications will have a material effect on results of operations, cash flows or financial position of the Company. Related to the disposal through reinsurance of substantially all of Allstate Financial’s variable annuity business to Prudential in 2006, the Company and its consolidated subsidiaries, ALIC and ALNY, have agreed to indemnify Prudential for certain pre-closing contingent liabilities (including extra-contractual liabilities of ALIC and ALNY and liabilities specifically excluded from the transaction) that ALIC and ALNY have agreed to retain. In addition, the Company, ALIC and ALNY will each indemnify Prudential for certain post-closing liabilities that may arise from the acts of ALIC, ALNY and their agents, including certain liabilities arising from ALIC’s and ALNY’s provision of transition services. The reinsurance agreements contain no limitations or indemnifications with regard to insurance risk transfer, and transferred all of the future risks and responsibilities for performance on the underlying variable annuity contracts to Prudential, including those related to benefit guarantees. Management does not believe this agreement will have a material effect on results of operations, cash flows or financial position of the Company. The aggregate liability balance related to all guarantees was not material as of March 31, 2016. Regulation and Compliance The Company is subject to extensive laws, regulations, administrative directives, and regulatory actions. From time to time, regulatory authorities or legislative bodies seek to influence and restrict premium rates, require premium refunds to policyholders, require reinstatement of terminated policies, restrict the ability of insurers to cancel or non-renew policies, require insurers to continue to write new policies or limit their ability to write new policies, limit insurers’ ability to change coverage terms or to impose underwriting standards, impose additional regulations regarding agent and broker compensation, regulate the nature of and amount of investments, impose fines and penalties for unintended errors or mistakes, and otherwise expand overall regulation of insurance products and the insurance industry. In addition, the Company is subject to laws and regulations administered and enforced by federal agencies and other organizations, including but not limited to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, the Department of Labor, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the U.S. Department of Justice. The Company has established procedures and policies to facilitate compliance with laws and regulations, to foster prudent business operations, and to support financial reporting. The Company routinely reviews its practices to validate compliance with laws and regulations and with internal procedures and policies. As a result of these reviews, from time to time the Company may decide to modify some of its procedures and policies. Such modifications, and the reviews that led to them, may be accompanied by payments being made and costs being incurred. The ultimate changes and eventual effects of these actions on the Company’s business, if any, are uncertain. Legal and regulatory proceedings and inquiries The Company and certain subsidiaries are involved in a number of lawsuits, regulatory inquiries, and other legal proceedings arising out of various aspects of its business. Background These matters raise difficult and complicated factual and legal issues and are subject to many uncertainties and complexities, including the underlying facts of each matter; novel legal issues; variations between jurisdictions in which matters are being litigated, heard, or investigated; changes in assigned judges; differences or developments in applicable laws and judicial interpretations; judges reconsidering prior rulings; the length of time before many of these matters might be resolved by settlement, through litigation, or otherwise; adjustments with respect to anticipated trial schedules and other proceedings; developments in similar actions against other companies; the fact that some of the lawsuits are putative class actions in which a class has not been certified and in which the purported class may not be clearly defined; the fact that some of the lawsuits involve multi-state class actions in which the applicable law(s) for the claims at issue is in dispute and therefore unclear; and the current challenging legal environment faced by corporations and insurance companies. The outcome of these matters may be affected by decisions, verdicts, and settlements, and the timing of such decisions, verdicts, and settlements, in other individual and class action lawsuits that involve the Company, other insurers, or other entities and by other legal, governmental, and regulatory actions that involve the Company, other insurers, or other entities. The outcome may also be affected by future state or federal legislation, the timing or substance of which cannot be predicted. In the lawsuits, plaintiffs seek a variety of remedies which may include equitable relief in the form of injunctive and other remedies and monetary relief in the form of contractual and extra-contractual damages. In some cases, the monetary damages sought may include punitive or treble damages. Often specific information about the relief sought, such as the amount of damages, is not available because plaintiffs have not requested specific relief in their pleadings. When specific monetary demands are made, they are often set just below a state court jurisdictional limit in order to seek the maximum amount available in state court, regardless of the specifics of the case, while still avoiding the risk of removal to federal court. In Allstate’s experience, monetary demands in pleadings bear little relation to the ultimate loss, if any, to the Company. In connection with regulatory examinations and proceedings, government authorities may seek various forms of relief, including penalties, restitution, and changes in business practices. The Company may not be advised of the nature and extent of relief sought until the final stages of the examination or proceeding. Accrual and disclosure policy The Company reviews its lawsuits, regulatory inquiries, and other legal proceedings on an ongoing basis and follows appropriate accounting guidance when making accrual and disclosure decisions. The Company establishes accruals for such matters at management’s best estimate when the Company assesses that it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company does not establish accruals for such matters when the Company does not believe both that it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company’s assessment of whether a loss is reasonably possible or probable is based on its assessment of the ultimate outcome of the matter following all appeals. The Company does not include potential recoveries in its estimates of reasonably possible or probable losses. Legal fees are expensed as incurred. The Company continues to monitor its lawsuits, regulatory inquiries, and other legal proceedings for further developments that would make the loss contingency both probable and estimable, and accordingly accruable, or that could affect the amount of accruals that have been previously established. There may continue to be exposure to loss in excess of any amount accrued. Disclosure of the nature and amount of an accrual is made when there have been sufficient legal and factual developments such that the Company’s ability to resolve the matter would not be impaired by the disclosure of the amount of accrual. When the Company assesses it is reasonably possible or probable that a loss has been incurred, it discloses the matter. When it is possible to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss above the amount accrued, if any, for the matters disclosed, that estimate is aggregated and disclosed. Disclosure is not required when an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss cannot be made. For certain of the matters described below in the “Claims related proceedings” and “Other proceedings” subsections, the Company is able to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss above the amount accrued, if any. In determining whether it is possible to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss, the Company reviews and evaluates the disclosed matters, in conjunction with counsel, in light of potentially relevant factual and legal developments. These developments may include information learned through the discovery process, rulings on dispositive motions, settlement discussions, information obtained from other sources, experience from managing these and other matters, and other rulings by courts, arbitrators or others. When the Company possesses sufficient appropriate information to develop an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss above the amount accrued, if any, that estimate is aggregated and disclosed below. There may be other disclosed matters for which a loss is probable or reasonably possible but such an estimate is not possible. Disclosure of the estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss above the amount accrued, if any, for any individual matter would only be considered when there have been sufficient legal and factual developments such that the Company’s ability to resolve the matter would not be impaired by the disclosure of the individual estimate. The Company currently estimates that the aggregate range of reasonably possible loss in excess of the amount accrued, if any, for the disclosed matters where such an estimate is possible is zero to $875 million, pre-tax. This disclosure is not an indication of expected loss, if any. Under accounting guidance, an event is “reasonably possible” if “the chance of the future event or events occurring is more than remote but less than likely” and an event is “remote” if “the chance of the future event or events occurring is slight.” This estimate is based upon currently available information and is subject to significant judgment and a variety of assumptions, and known and unknown uncertainties. The matters underlying the estimate will change from time to time, and actual results may vary significantly from the current estimate. The estimate does not include matters or losses for which an estimate is not possible. Therefore, this estimate represents an estimate of possible loss only for certain matters meeting these criteria. It does not represent the Company’s maximum possible loss exposure. Information is provided below regarding the nature of all of the disclosed matters and, where specified, the amount, if any, of plaintiff claims associated with these loss contingencies. Due to the complexity and scope of the matters disclosed in the “Claims related proceedings” and “Other proceedings” subsections below and the many uncertainties that exist, the ultimate outcome of these matters cannot be predicted. In the event of an unfavorable outcome in one or more of these matters, the ultimate liability may be in excess of amounts currently accrued, if any, and may be material to the Company’s operating results or cash flows for a particular quarterly or annual period. However, based on information currently known to it, management believes that the ultimate outcome of all matters described below, as they are resolved over time, is not likely to have a material effect on the financial position of the Company. Claims related proceedings The Company is litigating two class action cases in California in which the plaintiffs allege off-the-clock wage and hour claims. Plaintiffs in both cases seek recovery of unpaid compensation, liquidated damages, penalties, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The first case, is Christopher Williams, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Company. The Williams case is pending in Los Angeles Superior Court and was filed in December 2007. The case involves two classes. The first class includes auto field physical damage adjusters employed in the state of California from January 1, 2005 to the date of final judgment, to the extent the Company failed to pay for off-the-clock work to those adjusters who performed certain duties prior to their first assignments. The other class includes all non-exempt employees in California from December 19, 2006 until June 2011 who received pay statements from Allstate which allegedly did not comply with California law. On April 13, 2016, the court granted the Company’s motion to decertify both classes; both classes are thus dissolved unless and until the appellate court orders the classes recertified. Plaintiffs have announced their intention to file an appeal. The second case is Jack Jimenez, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Company. Jimenez was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in September 2010. The plaintiffs allege that they worked off the clock; they also allege other California Labor Code violations resulting from purported unpaid overtime. In April 2012, the court certified a class that includes all adjusters in the state of California, except auto field adjusters, from September 29, 2006 to final judgment. In April 2012, the trial court certified the class, Allstate appealed the court’s decision to certify the class, first to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the U.S. Supreme Court. On June 15, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Allstate’s petition for a writ of certiorari. The case is scheduled for trial on September 27, 2016, which may be vacated because the court has not approved a trial plan. In addition to the California class actions, the case of Maria Victoria Perez and Kaela Brown, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Company was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Plaintiffs allege that no-fault claim adjusters have been improperly classified as exempt employees under New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case was filed in April 2011, and the plaintiffs are seeking unpaid wages, liquidated damages, injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. On September 16, 2014, the court certified a class of no-fault adjusters under New York Labor Law and refused to decertify a Fair Labor Standards Act class of no-fault adjusters. Notice to the class was issued in December 2015 and no opt outs were received. In the Company’s judgment, a loss is not probable in these three cases. The Florida personal injury protection statute permits insurers to pay personal injury protection benefits for reasonable medical expenses based on certain benefit reimbursement limitations which are authorized by the personal injury protection statute (generally referred to as “fee schedules”) resulting from automobile accidents. The Company is involved in litigation challenging whether the Company’s personal injury protection policies include sufficient language providing notice of the Company’s election to apply the fee schedules. The Company is litigating one class action, Randy Rosenberg, et al. v. Allstate Fire & Casualty Insurance Company and Allstate Insurance Company, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. This case is brought on behalf of health care providers and insureds who submitted claims for no-fault benefits under personal injury protection policies which were in effect from 2008 through 2012, and were reimbursed based on the fee schedules. They seek a declaratory judgment that Allstate could not properly apply the fee schedules and seek damages for the difference between what they allege are the reasonable medical expenses payable under the personal injury protection coverage and the fee schedule amounts Allstate actually paid. They also seek recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Florida statutes. This case has been stayed by the Illinois federal court pending the outcome of several Florida state court appeals and a decision on this issue by the Florida Supreme Court. This fee schedule issue has also been the subject of thousands of individual lawsuits filed against Allstate in Florida. On March 18, 2015, in Stand-Up MRI of Tallahassee, et al. v. Allstate Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, the District Court of Appeal for the First District unanimously reversed a summary judgment that had been entered against Allstate. The court held that Allstate’s language was clear and unambiguous and provided adequate notice of its intent to use the fee schedules. The plaintiff’s appeal to the Florida Supreme Court was stayed. On August 19, 2015, in Orthopedic Specialists, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Company, the District Court of Appeal for the Fourth District issued a divided decision (three separate opinions, two against Allstate and one dissenting opinion deeming Allstate’s language sufficient), holding that Allstate’s language was not sufficient. Allstate’s motion for rehearing was denied. The court certified that its decision is in direct conflict with the District Court of Appeal for the First District’s decision. Allstate’s notice to the Florida Supreme Court seeking to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of that court was accepted on January 20, 2016. The parties have completed the originally scheduled briefing. On May 2, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion requesting leave to file a sur-reply brief, on which the court has yet to rule. The Florida Supreme Court set this matter for oral argument on August 30, 2016. The plaintiff has filed a motion requesting the court to change the oral argument date to September 1, 2016. The Florida Medical Association was granted leave to file an amicus brief in support of the plaintiff. On February 3, 2016, in Florida Wellness & Rehabilitation Center of Hialeah, et al. v. Allstate Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, the District Court of Appeal for the Third District heard oral argument and has taken the matter under advisement. On March 30, 2016, in Markley Chiropractic & Acupuncture v. Allstate Indemnity Insurance Company, the District Court of Appeal for the Second District, unanimously reversed a summary judgment that had been entered against Allstate. The court held that Allstate’s language gave legally sufficient notice of its election to use the fee schedules. The plaintiff has moved for rehearing and Allstate responded. The parties await the court’s ruling. In the Company’s judgment, a loss is not probable in any of these cases. Other proceedings The Company is defending certain matters in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania relating to the Company’s agency program reorganization announced in 1999. The principal focus in these matters to date related to a release of claims signed by the vast majority of the former agents whose employment contracts were terminated in the reorganization program. These matters include the following: Romero I: In 2001, approximately 32 former employee agents, on behalf of a putative class of approximately 6,300 former employee agents, filed a putative class action alleging claims for age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), interference with benefits under ERISA, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs also assert a claim for a declaratory judgment that the release of claims constitutes unlawful retaliation and should be set aside. Plaintiffs seek broad but unspecified “make whole relief,” including back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, liquidated damages, lost investment capital, attorneys’ fees and costs, and equitable relief, including reinstatement to employee agent status with all attendant benefits. Romero II: A putative nationwide class action was also filed in 2001 by former employee agents alleging various violations of ERISA (“Romero II”). This action has been consolidated with Romero I. The Romero II plaintiffs, most of whom are also plaintiffs in Romero I, are challenging certain amendments to the Agents Pension Plan and seek to have service as exclusive agent independent contractors count toward eligibility for benefits under the Agents Pension Plan. Plaintiffs seek broad but unspecified “make whole” or other equitable relief, including loss of benefits as a result of their conversion to exclusive agent independent contractor status or retirement from the Company between November 1, 1999 and December 31, 2000. They also seek repeal of the challenged amendments to the Agents Pension Plan with all attendant benefits revised and recalculated for thousands of former employee agents, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The court granted the Company’s initial motion to dismiss the complaint. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. Romero I and II consolidated proceedings: In 2004, the court ruled that the release was voidable and certified classes of agents, including a mandatory class of agents who had signed the release, for purposes of effectuating the court’s declaratory judgment that the release was voidable. In 2007, the court vacated its ruling and granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment on all claims. Plaintiffs appealed and in July 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in the Company’s favor, remanded the case to the trial court for additional discovery, and instructed the trial court to address the validity of the release after additional discovery. Following the completion of discovery limited to the validity of the release, the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment with respect to the validity of the release. On February 28, 2014, the trial court denied plaintiffs’ and the Company’s motions for summary judgment, concluding that the question of whether the releases were knowingly and voluntarily signed under a totality of circumstances test raised disputed issues of fact to be resolved at trial. Among other things, the court also held that the release, if valid, would bar all claims in Romero I and II. On May 23, 2014, plaintiffs moved to certify a class as to certain issues relating to the validity of the release. The court denied plaintiffs’ class certification motion on October 6, 2014, stating, among other things, that individual factors and circumstances must be considered to determine whether each release signer entered into the release knowingly and voluntarily. The court entered an order on December 11, 2014, (a) stating that the court’s October 6, 2014 denial of class certification as to release-related issues did not resolve whether issues relating to the merits of plaintiffs’ claims may be subject to class certification at a later time, and (b) holding that the court’s October 6, 2014 order restarted the running of the statute of limitation for any former employee agent who wished to challenge the validity of the release. In an order entered January 7, 2015, the court denied reconsideration of its December 11, 2014 order and clarified that all statutes of limitations to challenge the release would resume running on March 2, 2015. Since the Court’s January 7, 2015 order, a total of 459 additional individual plaintiffs have filed separate lawsuits similar to Romero I or sought to intervene in the Romero I action. Trial proceedings commenced to determine the question of whether the releases of the original named plaintiffs in Romero I and II were knowingly and voluntarily signed. Additionally, plaintiffs asserted two equitable defenses to the release which were to be determined by the court and not the jury. As to the first trial proceeding involving ten plaintiffs, the jury reached verdicts on June 17, 2015 finding that two plaintiffs signed their releases knowingly and voluntarily and eight plaintiffs did not sign their releases knowingly and voluntarily. On January 28, 2016, the court entered its opinion and judgment finding in Allstate’s favor as to all ten plaintiffs on the two equitable defenses to the release. The trial result is not yet final and may be subject to further proceedings. The remaining two trials for the original Romero I and II plaintiffs were scheduled to commence in the fourth quarter of 2015; however, the order setting these trials was subsequently vacated. On February 1, 2016, these cases were reassigned to a new judge who initially entered orders addressing pending motions for reconsideration of the dismissal of plaintiffs’ state law claims, but then vacated those orders. On April 12, 2016, these cases were again reassigned to a new judge. On May 2, 2016, the new judge entered an order vacating the setting of additional release trials, consolidating all of the original and intervening plaintiffs’ claims, and granting leave to file a Consolidated Amended Complaint by May 20, 2016. The court entered a second order on May 2, 2016, scheduling deadlines for completion of discovery and filing of summary judgment motions on the merits of plaintiffs’ ERISA and ADEA claims, and setting a non-jury ERISA trial to occur in December 2016. The court’s order also sets deadlines for completion of discovery and summary judgment motions with regard to the remaining claims and defenses by the first quarter of 2017, with a jury trial on those claims and defenses to occur in May 2017. Under its May 2, 2016 orders, the court’s focus has turned to the merits of plaintiffs’ claims rather than to continuing the proceedings begun in 2009 to determine the validity of plaintiffs’ releases. Based on the trial court’s February 28, 2014 order in Romero I and II, if the validity of the release is decided in favor of the Company for any plaintiff, that would preclude any damages or other relief being awarded to that plaintiff. The final resolution of these matters is subject to various uncertainties and complexities including how trials, post trial motions, possible appeals with respect to the validity of the release, and any rulings on the merits will be resolved. In the Company’s judgment, a loss is not probable. Asbestos and environmental Allstate’s reserves for asbestos claims were $907 million and $960 million, net of reinsurance recoverables of $450 million and $458 million, as of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively. Reserves for environmental claims were $178 million and $179 million, net of reinsurance recoverables of $43 million and $43 million, as of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively. Approximately 58% and 57% of the total net asbestos and environmental reserves as of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively, were for incurred but not reported estimated losses. Management believes its net loss reserves for asbestos, environmental and other discontinued lines exposures are appropriately established based on available facts, technology, laws and regulations. However, establishing net loss reserves for asbestos, environmental and other discontinued lines claims is subject to uncertainties that are much greater than those presented by other types of claims. The ultimate cost of losses may vary materially from recorded amounts, which are based on management’s best estimate. Among the complications are lack of historical data, long reporting delays, uncertainty as to the number and identity of insureds with potential exposure and unresolved legal issues regarding policy coverage; unresolved legal issues regarding the determination, availability and timing of exhaustion of policy limits; plaintiffs’ evolving and expanding theories of liability; availability and collectability of recoveries from reinsurance; retrospectively determined premiums and other contractual agreements; estimates of the extent and timing of any contractual liability; the impact of bankruptcy protection sought by various asbestos producers and other asbestos defendants; and other uncertainties. There are also complex legal issues concerning the interpretation of various insurance policy provisions and whether those losses are covered, or were ever intended to be covered, and could be recoverable through retrospectively determined premium, reinsurance or other contractual agreements. Courts have reached different and sometimes inconsistent conclusions as to when losses are deemed to have occurred and which policies provide coverage; what types of losses are covered; whether there is an insurer obligation to defend; how policy limits are determined; how policy exclusions and conditions are applied and interpreted; and whether clean-up costs represent insured property damage. Further, insurers and claims administrators acting on behalf of insurers are increasingly pursuing evolving and expanding theories of reinsurance coverage for asbestos and environmental losses. Adjudication of reinsurance coverage is predominately decided in confidential arbitration proceedings which may have limited precedential or predictive value further complicating management’s ability to estimate probable loss for reinsured asbestos and environmental claims. Management believes these issues are not likely to be resolved in the near future, and the ultimate costs may vary materially from the amounts currently recorded resulting in material changes in loss reserves. In addition, while the Company believes that improved actuarial techniques and databases have assisted in its ability to estimate asbestos, environmental, and other discontinued lines net loss reserves, these refinements may subsequently prove to be inadequate indicators of the extent of probable losses. Due to the uncertainties and factors described above, management believes it is not practicable to develop a meaningful range for any such additional net loss reserves that may be required.

Guarantees and Contingent Liabilities

Shared markets and state facility assessments

The Company is required to participate in assigned risk plans, reinsurance facilities and joint underwriting associations in various states that provide insurance coverage to individuals or entities that otherwise are unable to purchase such coverage from private insurers. Underwriting results related to these arrangements, which tend to be adverse, have been immaterial to the Company’s results of operations. Because of the Company’s participation, it may be exposed to losses that surpass the capitalization of these facilities and/or assessments from these facilities.

Guarantees

The Company provides residual value guarantees on Company leased automobiles. If all outstanding leases were terminated effective March 31, 2016, the Company’s maximum obligation pursuant to these guarantees, assuming the automobiles have no residual value, would be $48 million as of March 31, 2016. The remaining term of each residual value guarantee is equal to the term of the underlying lease that ranges from less than one year to four years. Historically, the Company has not made any material payments pursuant to these guarantees.

The Company owns certain investments that obligate the Company to exchange credit risk or to forfeit principal due, depending on the nature or occurrence of specified credit events for the reference entities. In the event all such specified credit events were to occur, the Company’s maximum amount at risk on these investments, as measured by the amount of the aggregate initial investment, was $4 million as of March 31, 2016. The obligations associated with these investments expire at various dates on or before March 11, 2018.

In the normal course of business, the Company provides standard indemnifications to contractual counterparties in connection with numerous transactions, including acquisitions and divestitures. The types of indemnifications typically provided include indemnifications for breaches of representations and warranties, taxes and certain other liabilities, such as third party lawsuits. The indemnification clauses are often standard contractual terms and are entered into in the normal course of business based on an assessment that the risk of loss would be remote. The terms of the indemnifications vary in duration and nature. In many cases, the maximum obligation is not explicitly stated and the contingencies triggering the obligation to indemnify have not occurred and are not expected to occur. Consequently, the maximum amount of the obligation under such indemnifications is not determinable. Historically, the Company has not made any material payments pursuant to these obligations.

Related to the sale of LBL on April 1, 2014, ALIC agreed to indemnify Resolution Life Holdings, Inc. in connection with certain representations, warranties and covenants of ALIC, and certain liabilities specifically excluded from the transaction, subject to specific contractual limitations regarding ALIC’s maximum obligation. Management does not believe these indemnifications will have a material effect on results of operations, cash flows or financial position of the Company.

Related to the disposal through reinsurance of substantially all of Allstate Financial’s variable annuity business to Prudential in 2006, the Company and its consolidated subsidiaries, ALIC and ALNY, have agreed to indemnify Prudential for certain pre-closing contingent liabilities (including extra-contractual liabilities of ALIC and ALNY and liabilities specifically excluded from the transaction) that ALIC and ALNY have agreed to retain. In addition, the Company, ALIC and ALNY will each indemnify Prudential for certain post-closing liabilities that may arise from the acts of ALIC, ALNY and their agents, including certain liabilities arising from ALIC’s and ALNY’s provision of transition services. The reinsurance agreements contain no limitations or indemnifications with regard to insurance risk transfer, and transferred all of the future risks and responsibilities for performance on the underlying variable annuity contracts to Prudential, including those related to benefit guarantees. Management does not believe this agreement will have a material effect on results of operations, cash flows or financial position of the Company.

The aggregate liability balance related to all guarantees was not material as of March 31, 2016.

Regulation and Compliance

The Company is subject to extensive laws, regulations, administrative directives, and regulatory actions. From time to time, regulatory authorities or legislative bodies seek to influence and restrict premium rates, require premium refunds to policyholders, require reinstatement of terminated policies, restrict the ability of insurers to cancel or non-renew policies, require insurers to continue to write new policies or limit their ability to write new policies, limit insurers’ ability to change coverage terms or to impose underwriting standards, impose additional regulations regarding agent and broker compensation, regulate the nature of and amount of investments, impose fines and penalties for unintended errors or mistakes, and otherwise expand overall regulation of insurance products and the insurance industry. In addition, the Company is subject to laws and regulations administered and enforced by federal agencies and other organizations, including but not limited to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, the Department of Labor, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the U.S. Department of Justice. The Company has established procedures and policies to facilitate compliance with laws and regulations, to foster prudent business operations, and to support financial reporting. The Company routinely reviews its practices to validate compliance with laws and regulations and with internal procedures and policies. As a result of these reviews, from time to time the Company may decide to modify some of its procedures and policies. Such modifications, and the reviews that led to them, may be accompanied by payments being made and costs being incurred. The ultimate changes and eventual effects of these actions on the Company’s business, if any, are uncertain.

Legal and regulatory proceedings and inquiries

The Company and certain subsidiaries are involved in a number of lawsuits, regulatory inquiries, and other legal proceedings arising out of various aspects of its business.

Background

These matters raise difficult and complicated factual and legal issues and are subject to many uncertainties and complexities, including the underlying facts of each matter; novel legal issues; variations between jurisdictions in which matters are being litigated, heard, or investigated; changes in assigned judges; differences or developments in applicable laws and judicial interpretations; judges reconsidering prior rulings; the length of time before many of these matters might be resolved by settlement, through litigation, or otherwise; adjustments with respect to anticipated trial schedules and other proceedings; developments in similar actions against other companies; the fact that some of the lawsuits are putative class actions in which a class has not been certified and in which the purported class may not be clearly defined; the fact that some of the lawsuits involve multi-state class actions in which the applicable law(s) for the claims at issue is in dispute and therefore unclear; and the current challenging legal environment faced by corporations and insurance companies.

The outcome of these matters may be affected by decisions, verdicts, and settlements, and the timing of such decisions, verdicts, and settlements, in other individual and class action lawsuits that involve the Company, other insurers, or other entities and by other legal, governmental, and regulatory actions that involve the Company, other insurers, or other entities. The outcome may also be affected by future state or federal legislation, the timing or substance of which cannot be predicted.

In the lawsuits, plaintiffs seek a variety of remedies which may include equitable relief in the form of injunctive and other remedies and monetary relief in the form of contractual and extra-contractual damages. In some cases, the monetary damages sought may include punitive or treble damages. Often specific information about the relief sought, such as the amount of damages, is not available because plaintiffs have not requested specific relief in their pleadings. When specific monetary demands are made, they are often set just below a state court jurisdictional limit in order to seek the maximum amount available in state court, regardless of the specifics of the case, while still avoiding the risk of removal to federal court. In Allstate’s experience, monetary demands in pleadings bear little relation to the ultimate loss, if any, to the Company.

In connection with regulatory examinations and proceedings, government authorities may seek various forms of relief, including penalties, restitution, and changes in business practices. The Company may not be advised of the nature and extent of relief sought until the final stages of the examination or proceeding.

Accrual and disclosure policy

The Company reviews its lawsuits, regulatory inquiries, and other legal proceedings on an ongoing basis and follows appropriate accounting guidance when making accrual and disclosure decisions. The Company establishes accruals for such matters at management’s best estimate when the Company assesses that it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company does not establish accruals for such matters when the Company does not believe both that it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company’s assessment of whether a loss is reasonably possible or probable is based on its assessment of the ultimate outcome of the matter following all appeals. The Company does not include potential recoveries in its estimates of reasonably possible or probable losses. Legal fees are expensed as incurred.

The Company continues to monitor its lawsuits, regulatory inquiries, and other legal proceedings for further developments that would make the loss contingency both probable and estimable, and accordingly accruable, or that could affect the amount of accruals that have been previously established. There may continue to be exposure to loss in excess of any amount accrued. Disclosure of the nature and amount of an accrual is made when there have been sufficient legal and factual developments such that the Company’s ability to resolve the matter would not be impaired by the disclosure of the amount of accrual.

When the Company assesses it is reasonably possible or probable that a loss has been incurred, it discloses the matter. When it is possible to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss above the amount accrued, if any, for the matters disclosed, that estimate is aggregated and disclosed. Disclosure is not required when an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss cannot be made.

For certain of the matters described below in the “Claims related proceedings” and “Other proceedings” subsections, the Company is able to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss above the amount accrued, if any. In determining whether it is possible to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss, the Company reviews and evaluates the disclosed matters, in conjunction with counsel, in light of potentially relevant factual and legal developments.

These developments may include information learned through the discovery process, rulings on dispositive motions, settlement discussions, information obtained from other sources, experience from managing these and other matters, and other rulings by courts, arbitrators or others. When the Company possesses sufficient appropriate information to develop an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss above the amount accrued, if any, that estimate is aggregated and disclosed below. There may be other disclosed matters for which a loss is probable or reasonably possible but such an estimate is not possible. Disclosure of the estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss above the amount accrued, if any, for any individual matter would only be considered when there have been sufficient legal and factual developments such that the Company’s ability to resolve the matter would not be impaired by the disclosure of the individual estimate.

The Company currently estimates that the aggregate range of reasonably possible loss in excess of the amount accrued, if any, for the disclosed matters where such an estimate is possible is zero to $875 million, pre-tax. This disclosure is not an indication of expected loss, if any. Under accounting guidance, an event is “reasonably possible” if “the chance of the future event or events occurring is more than remote but less than likely” and an event is “remote” if “the chance of the future event or events occurring is slight.” This estimate is based upon currently available information and is subject to significant judgment and a variety of assumptions, and known and unknown uncertainties. The matters underlying the estimate will change from time to time, and actual results may vary significantly from the current estimate. The estimate does not include matters or losses for which an estimate is not possible. Therefore, this estimate represents an estimate of possible loss only for certain matters meeting these criteria. It does not represent the Company’s maximum possible loss exposure. Information is provided below regarding the nature of all of the disclosed matters and, where specified, the amount, if any, of plaintiff claims associated with these loss contingencies.

Due to the complexity and scope of the matters disclosed in the “Claims related proceedings” and “Other proceedings” subsections below and the many uncertainties that exist, the ultimate outcome of these matters cannot be predicted. In the event of an unfavorable outcome in one or more of these matters, the ultimate liability may be in excess of amounts currently accrued, if any, and may be material to the Company’s operating results or cash flows for a particular quarterly or annual period. However, based on information currently known to it, management believes that the ultimate outcome of all matters described below, as they are resolved over time, is not likely to have a material effect on the financial position of the Company.

Claims related proceedings

The Company is litigating two class action cases in California in which the plaintiffs allege off-the-clock wage and hour claims. Plaintiffs in both cases seek recovery of unpaid compensation, liquidated damages, penalties, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

The first case, is Christopher Williams, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Company. The Williams case is pending in Los Angeles Superior Court and was filed in December 2007. The case involves two classes. The first class includes auto field physical damage adjusters employed in the state of California from January 1, 2005 to the date of final judgment, to the extent the Company failed to pay for off-the-clock work to those adjusters who performed certain duties prior to their first assignments. The other class includes all non-exempt employees in California from December 19, 2006 until June 2011 who received pay statements from Allstate which allegedly did not comply with California law. On April 13, 2016, the court granted the Company’s motion to decertify both classes; both classes are thus dissolved unless and until the appellate court orders the classes recertified. Plaintiffs have announced their intention to file an appeal.

The second case is Jack Jimenez, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Company. Jimenez was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in September 2010. The plaintiffs allege that they worked off the clock; they also allege other California Labor Code violations resulting from purported unpaid overtime. In April 2012, the court certified a class that includes all adjusters in the state of California, except auto field adjusters, from September 29, 2006 to final judgment. In April 2012, the trial court certified the class, Allstate appealed the court’s decision to certify the class, first to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the U.S. Supreme Court. On June 15, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Allstate’s petition for a writ of certiorari. The case is scheduled for trial on September 27, 2016, which may be vacated because the court has not approved a trial plan.

In addition to the California class actions, the case of Maria Victoria Perez and Kaela Brown, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Company was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Plaintiffs allege that no-fault claim adjusters have been improperly classified as exempt employees under New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case was filed in April 2011, and the plaintiffs are seeking unpaid wages, liquidated damages, injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. On September 16, 2014, the court certified a class of no-fault adjusters under New York Labor Law and refused to decertify a Fair Labor Standards Act class of no-fault adjusters. Notice to the class was issued in December 2015 and no opt outs were received.

In the Company’s judgment, a loss is not probable in these three cases.

The Florida personal injury protection statute permits insurers to pay personal injury protection benefits for reasonable medical expenses based on certain benefit reimbursement limitations which are authorized by the personal injury protection statute (generally referred to as “fee schedules”) resulting from automobile accidents. The Company is involved in litigation challenging whether the Company’s personal injury protection policies include sufficient language providing notice of the Company’s election to apply the fee schedules.

The Company is litigating one class action, Randy Rosenberg, et al. v. Allstate Fire & Casualty Insurance Company and Allstate Insurance Company, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. This case is brought on behalf of health care providers and insureds who submitted claims for no-fault benefits under personal injury protection policies which were in effect from 2008 through 2012, and were reimbursed based on the fee schedules. They seek a declaratory judgment that Allstate could not properly apply the fee schedules and seek damages for the difference between what they allege are the reasonable medical expenses payable under the personal injury protection coverage and the fee schedule amounts Allstate actually paid. They also seek recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Florida statutes. This case has been stayed by the Illinois federal court pending the outcome of several Florida state court appeals and a decision on this issue by the Florida Supreme Court.

This fee schedule issue has also been the subject of thousands of individual lawsuits filed against Allstate in Florida. On March 18, 2015, in Stand-Up MRI of Tallahassee, et al. v. Allstate Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, the District Court of Appeal for the First District unanimously reversed a summary judgment that had been entered against Allstate. The court held that Allstate’s language was clear and unambiguous and provided adequate notice of its intent to use the fee schedules. The plaintiff’s appeal to the Florida Supreme Court was stayed.

On August 19, 2015, in Orthopedic Specialists, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Company, the District Court of Appeal for the Fourth District issued a divided decision (three separate opinions, two against Allstate and one dissenting opinion deeming Allstate’s language sufficient), holding that Allstate’s language was not sufficient. Allstate’s motion for rehearing was denied. The court certified that its decision is in direct conflict with the District Court of Appeal for the First District’s decision. Allstate’s notice to the Florida Supreme Court seeking to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of that court was accepted on January 20, 2016. The parties have completed the originally scheduled briefing. On May 2, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion requesting leave to file a sur-reply brief, on which the court has yet to rule. The Florida Supreme Court set this matter for oral argument on August 30, 2016. The plaintiff has filed a motion requesting the court to change the oral argument date to September 1, 2016. The Florida Medical Association was granted leave to file an amicus brief in support of the plaintiff.

On February 3, 2016, in Florida Wellness & Rehabilitation Center of Hialeah, et al. v. Allstate Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, the District Court of Appeal for the Third District heard oral argument and has taken the matter under advisement.

On March 30, 2016, in Markley Chiropractic & Acupuncture v. Allstate Indemnity Insurance Company, the District Court of Appeal for the Second District, unanimously reversed a summary judgment that had been entered against Allstate. The court held that Allstate’s language gave legally sufficient notice of its election to use the fee schedules. The plaintiff has moved for rehearing and Allstate responded. The parties await the court’s ruling.

In the Company’s judgment, a loss is not probable in any of these cases.

Other proceedings

The Company is defending certain matters in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania relating to the Company’s agency program reorganization announced in 1999. The principal focus in these matters to date related to a release of claims signed by the vast majority of the former agents whose employment contracts were terminated in the reorganization program. These matters include the following:

Romero I: In 2001, approximately 32 former employee agents, on behalf of a putative class of approximately 6,300 former employee agents, filed a putative class action alleging claims for age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), interference with benefits under ERISA, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs also assert a claim for a declaratory judgment that the release of claims constitutes unlawful retaliation and should be set aside. Plaintiffs seek broad but unspecified “make whole relief,” including back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, liquidated damages, lost investment capital, attorneys’ fees and costs, and equitable relief, including reinstatement to employee agent status with all attendant benefits.

Romero II: A putative nationwide class action was also filed in 2001 by former employee agents alleging various violations of ERISA (“Romero II”). This action has been consolidated with Romero I. The Romero II plaintiffs, most of whom are also plaintiffs in Romero I, are challenging certain amendments to the Agents Pension Plan and seek to have service as exclusive agent independent contractors count toward eligibility for benefits under the Agents Pension Plan. Plaintiffs seek broad but unspecified “make whole” or other equitable relief, including loss of benefits as a result of their conversion to exclusive agent independent contractor status or retirement from the Company between November 1, 1999 and December 31, 2000. They also seek repeal of the challenged amendments to the Agents Pension Plan with all attendant benefits revised and recalculated for thousands of former employee agents, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The court granted the Company’s initial motion to dismiss the complaint. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.

Romero I and II consolidated proceedings: In 2004, the court ruled that the release was voidable and certified classes of agents, including a mandatory class of agents who had signed the release, for purposes of effectuating the court’s declaratory judgment that the release was voidable. In 2007, the court vacated its ruling and granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment on all claims. Plaintiffs appealed and in July 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in the Company’s favor, remanded the case to the trial court for additional discovery, and instructed the trial court to address the validity of the release after additional discovery. Following the completion of discovery limited to the validity of the release, the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment with respect to the validity of the release. On February 28, 2014, the trial court denied plaintiffs’ and the Company’s motions for summary judgment, concluding that the question of whether the releases were knowingly and voluntarily signed under a totality of circumstances test raised disputed issues of fact to be resolved at trial. Among other things, the court also held that the release, if valid, would bar all claims in Romero I and II. On May 23, 2014, plaintiffs moved to certify a class as to certain issues relating to the validity of the release. The court denied plaintiffs’ class certification motion on October 6, 2014, stating, among other things, that individual factors and circumstances must be considered to determine whether each release signer entered into the release knowingly and voluntarily. The court entered an order on December 11, 2014, (a) stating that the court’s October 6, 2014 denial of class certification as to release-related issues did not resolve whether issues relating to the merits of plaintiffs’ claims may be subject to class certification at a later time, and (b) holding that the court’s October 6, 2014 order restarted the running of the statute of limitation for any former employee agent who wished to challenge the validity of the release. In an order entered January 7, 2015, the court denied reconsideration of its December 11, 2014 order and clarified that all statutes of limitations to challenge the release would resume running on March 2, 2015. Since the Court’s January 7, 2015 order, a total of 459 additional individual plaintiffs have filed separate lawsuits similar to Romero I or sought to intervene in the Romero I action. Trial proceedings commenced to determine the question of whether the releases of the original named plaintiffs in Romero I and II were knowingly and voluntarily signed. Additionally, plaintiffs asserted two equitable defenses to the release which were to be determined by the court and not the jury. As to the first trial proceeding involving ten plaintiffs, the jury reached verdicts on June 17, 2015 finding that two plaintiffs signed their releases knowingly and voluntarily and eight plaintiffs did not sign their releases knowingly and voluntarily. On January 28, 2016, the court entered its opinion and judgment finding in Allstate’s favor as to all ten plaintiffs on the two equitable defenses to the release. The trial result is not yet final and may be subject to further proceedings. The remaining two trials for the original Romero I and II plaintiffs were scheduled to commence in the fourth quarter of 2015; however, the order setting these trials was subsequently vacated.

On February 1, 2016, these cases were reassigned to a new judge who initially entered orders addressing pending motions for reconsideration of the dismissal of plaintiffs’ state law claims, but then vacated those orders. On April 12, 2016, these cases were again reassigned to a new judge. On May 2, 2016, the new judge entered an order vacating the setting of additional release trials, consolidating all of the original and intervening plaintiffs’ claims, and granting leave to file a Consolidated Amended Complaint by May 20, 2016. The court entered a second order on May 2, 2016, scheduling deadlines for completion of discovery and filing of summary judgment motions on the merits of plaintiffs’ ERISA and ADEA claims, and setting a non-jury ERISA trial to occur in December 2016. The court’s order also sets deadlines for completion of discovery and summary judgment motions with regard to the remaining claims and defenses by the first quarter of 2017, with a jury trial on those claims and defenses to occur in May 2017.

Under its May 2, 2016 orders, the court’s focus has turned to the merits of plaintiffs’ claims rather than to continuing the proceedings begun in 2009 to determine the validity of plaintiffs’ releases. Based on the trial court’s February 28, 2014 order in Romero I and II, if the validity of the release is decided in favor of the Company for any plaintiff, that would preclude any damages or other relief being awarded to that plaintiff. The final resolution of these matters is subject to various uncertainties and complexities including how trials, post trial motions, possible appeals with respect to the validity of the release, and any rulings on the merits will be resolved.

In the Company’s judgment, a loss is not probable.

Asbestos and environmental

Allstate’s reserves for asbestos claims were $907 million and $960 million, net of reinsurance recoverables of $450 million and $458 million, as of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively. Reserves for environmental claims were $178 million and $179 million, net of reinsurance recoverables of $43 million and $43 million, as of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively. Approximately 58% and 57% of the total net asbestos and environmental reserves as of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively, were for incurred but not reported estimated losses.

Management believes its net loss reserves for asbestos, environmental and other discontinued lines exposures are appropriately established based on available facts, technology, laws and regulations. However, establishing net loss reserves for asbestos, environmental and other discontinued lines claims is subject to uncertainties that are much greater than those presented by other types of claims. The ultimate cost of losses may vary materially from recorded amounts, which are based on management’s best estimate. Among the complications are lack of historical data, long reporting delays, uncertainty as to the number and identity of insureds with potential exposure and unresolved legal issues regarding policy coverage; unresolved legal issues regarding the determination, availability and timing of exhaustion of policy limits; plaintiffs’ evolving and expanding theories of liability; availability and collectability of recoveries from reinsurance; retrospectively determined premiums and other contractual agreements; estimates of the extent and timing of any contractual liability; the impact of bankruptcy protection sought by various asbestos producers and other asbestos defendants; and other uncertainties. There are also complex legal issues concerning the interpretation of various insurance policy provisions and whether those losses are covered, or were ever intended to be covered, and could be recoverable through retrospectively determined premium, reinsurance or other contractual agreements. Courts have reached different and sometimes inconsistent conclusions as to when losses are deemed to have occurred and which policies provide coverage; what types of losses are covered; whether there is an insurer obligation to defend; how policy limits are determined; how policy exclusions and conditions are applied and interpreted; and whether clean-up costs represent insured property damage. Further, insurers and claims administrators acting on behalf of insurers are increasingly pursuing evolving and expanding theories of reinsurance coverage for asbestos and environmental losses. Adjudication of reinsurance coverage is predominately decided in confidential arbitration proceedings which may have limited precedential or predictive value further complicating management’s ability to estimate probable loss for reinsured asbestos and environmental claims. Management believes these issues are not likely to be resolved in the near future, and the ultimate costs may vary materially from the amounts currently recorded resulting in material changes in loss reserves. In addition, while the Company believes that improved actuarial techniques and databases have assisted in its ability to estimate asbestos, environmental, and other discontinued lines net loss reserves, these refinements may subsequently prove to be inadequate indicators of the extent of probable losses. Due to the uncertainties and factors described above, management believes it is not practicable to develop a meaningful range for any such additional net loss reserves that may be required.