The Company routinely reviews its exposure to assessments from these plans, facilities and government programs. 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.

Florida Citizens Castle Key is subject to assessments from Citizens Property Insurance Corporation in the state of Florida (“FL Citizens”), which was initially created by the state of Florida to provide insurance to property owners unable to obtain coverage in the private insurance market. FL Citizens, at the discretion and direction of its Board of Governors (“FL Citizens Board”), can levy a regular assessment on assessable insurers and assessable insureds for a deficit in any calendar year up to a maximum of the greater of: 2% of the projected deficit or 2% of the aggregate statewide direct written premium for the prior calendar year. The base of assessable insurers includes all property and casualty premiums in the state, except workers’ compensation, medical malpractice, accident and health insurance and policies written under the NFIP. An insurer may recoup a regular assessment through a surcharge to policyholders. In order to recoup this assessment, an insurer must file for a policy surcharge with the FL OIR at least fifteen days prior to imposing the surcharge on policies. If a deficit remains after the regular assessment, FL Citizens can also levy emergency assessments in the current and subsequent years. Companies are required to collect the emergency assessments directly from residential property policyholders and remit to FL Citizens as collected. Currently, the emergency assessment is zero for all policies issued or renewed on or after July 1, 2015.

assessment on participating companies for a deficit in any calendar year up to a maximum of the greater of 10% of the calendar year deficit or 10% of Louisiana direct property premiums industry-wide for the prior calendar year. If the plan year deficit exceeds the amount that can be recovered through Regular Assessments, LA Citizens may fund the remaining deficit by issuing revenue assessment bonds in the capital markets. LA Citizens then declares Emergency Assessments each year to provide debt service on the bonds until they are retired. Companies writing assessable lines must surcharge their policyholders Emergency Assessments in the percentage established annually by LA Citizens and must remit amounts collected to the bond trustee on a quarterly basis. Emergency assessments to pay off bonds issued in 2007 for the hurricanes of 2005 will continue until 2025.

Facilities such as FL Citizens and LA Citizens are generally designed so that the ultimate cost is borne by policyholders; however, the exposure to assessments from these facilities and the availability of recoupments or premium rate increases may not offset each other in the Company’s financial statements. Moreover, even if they do offset each other, they may not offset each other in financial statements for the same fiscal period due to the ultimate timing of the assessments and recoupments or premium rate increases, as well as the possibility of policies not being renewed in subsequent years.

California Earthquake Authority Exposure to certain potential losses from earthquakes in California is limited by the Company’s participation in the California Earthquake Authority (“CEA”), which provides insurance for California earthquake losses. The CEA is a privately-financed, publicly-managed state agency created to provide insurance coverage for earthquake damage. Insurers selling homeowners insurance in California are required to offer earthquake insurance to their customers either through their company or by participation in the CEA. The Company’s homeowners policies continue to include coverages for losses caused by explosions, theft, glass breakage and fires following an earthquake, which are not underwritten by the CEA.

additional $721 million would be obtained from the proceeds of revenue bonds the CEA may issue, an existing $8.26 billion reinsurance layer, $1.0 billion from policyholders surcharge, and finally, if needed, assessments on participating insurance companies. Participating insurers are required to pay an assessment, currently estimated not to exceed $1.66 billion, if the capital of the CEA falls below $350 million. Within the limits previously described, the assessment could be intended to restore the CEA’s capital to a level of $350 million. There is no provision that allows insurers to recover assessments through a premium surcharge or other mechanism. The CEA’s projected aggregate claim paying capacity is $17.65 billion as of October 31, 2019 and if an event were to result in claims greater than its capacity, affected policyholders may be paid a prorated portion of their covered losses, paid on an installment basis, or no payments may be made if the claim paying capacity of the CEA is insufficient.

All future assessments on participating CEA insurers are based on their CEA insurance market share as of December 31 of the preceding year. As of December 31, 2018, the Company’s market share was 9.8%. The Company does not expect its market share to materially change. At this level, the Company’s maximum possible CEA assessment would be $162 million during 2020. These amounts are re-evaluated by the board of directors of the CEA on an annual basis. Accordingly, assessments from the CEA for a particular quarter or annual period may be material to the results of operations and cash flows, but not the financial position of the Company. Management believes the Company’s exposure to earthquake losses in California has been significantly reduced as a result of its participation in the CEA.

Texas Windstorm Insurance Association The Company participates as a member of the Texas Windstorm Insurance Association (“TWIA”), which provides wind and hail property coverage to coastal risks unable to procure coverage in the voluntary market. Wind and hail coverage is written on a TWIA-issued policy. TWIA follows a funding structure first utilizing currently available funds set aside from current and prior years. Under the current law, to the extent losses exceed premiums received from policyholders, TWIA utilizes a combination of reinsurance, TWIA issued securities, as well as member and policyholder assessments to fund loss payments.

During 2019, the TWIA Board announced assessments primarily related to Hurricane Harvey for which the Company’s share was $12 million. These costs were recorded in property and casualty insurance claims and claims expense as catastrophe losses on the Consolidated Statements of Operations. Any assessments from TWIA for a particular quarter or annual period may be material to the results of operations and cash flows, but not to the financial position of the Company.

underserved by the Commissioner of Insurance and the applicant(s) are unable to procure coverage in the voluntary market. The FAIR Plan issues insurance policies, like an insurance company, and it also functions as a pooling mechanism that allocates premiums, claims and expenses back to the insurance industry. As a result of the losses incurred related to Hurricane Harvey, in 2017 the FAIR Plan Board unanimously voted to approve its first ever member assessment of which the Company’s share was $8 million based on total direct premium written in Texas. Insurers are permitted to recover the assessment through either a premium surcharge applied to existing customers over a three-year period or increased rates, but the ability to fully recover the assessment may be impacted by market conditions or other factors.

North Carolina Joint Underwriters Association The North Carolina Joint Underwriters Association (“NCJUA”) was created to provide property insurance for properties (other than the state’s beach and coastal areas) that insurers are not otherwise willing to insure. All insurers licensed to write property insurance in North Carolina are members of the NCJUA. Premiums, losses and expenses of the NCJUA are shared by the member companies in proportion to their respective North Carolina property insurance writings. Member companies participate in plan deficits or surpluses based on their participation ratios, which are determined annually. The Company had a $5 million receivable from the NCJUA at December 31, 2019 representing our participation in the NCJUA’s deficit of $29 million for all open years.

North Carolina Insurance Underwriting Association The North Carolina Insurance Underwriting Association (“NCIUA”) provides windstorm and hail coverage as well as homeowners policies for properties located in the state’s beach and coastal areas that insurers are not otherwise willing to insure. All insurers licensed to write residential and commercial property insurance in North Carolina are members of the NCIUA. Members are assessed in proportion to their North Carolina residential and commercial property insurance writings, which is determined annually and varies by coverage, for plan deficits. As of December 31, 2019, the NCIUA had a surplus of $439 million. No member company is entitled to the distribution of any portion of the Association’s surplus. The Company does not recognize any interest related to this surplus. Legislation in 2009 capped insurers’ assessments for losses incurred in any calendar year at $1.00 billion. Subsequent to an industry assessment of $1.00 billion, if the plan continues to require funding, it may authorize insurers to assess a 10% catastrophe recovery charge on each property insurance policy statewide to be remitted to the plan.

insurance companies to policyholders and claimants. Amounts assessed to each company are typically related to its proportion of business written in each state. The Company’s policy is to accrue assessments when the entity for which the insolvency relates has met its state of domicile’s statutory definition of insolvency, the amount of the loss is reasonably estimable and the related premium upon which the assessment is based is written. In most states, the definition is met with a declaration of financial insolvency by a court of competent jurisdiction. In certain states there must also be a final order of liquidation. Since most states allow a credit against premium or other state related taxes for assessments, an asset is recorded based on paid and accrued assessments for the amount the Company expects to recover on the respective state’s tax return and is realized over the period allowed by each state. As of December 31, 2019 and 2018, the liability balance included in other liabilities and accrued expenses was $13 million and $12 million, respectively. The related premium tax offsets included in other assets were $15 million and $16 million as of December 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively.

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 Lincoln Benefit Life Company 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.

legislative bodies seek to influence and restrict premium rates, require premium refunds to policyholders, require reinstatement of terminated policies, prescribe rules or guidelines on how affiliates compete in the marketplace, 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 agency and broker compensation, regulate the nature of and amount of investments, impose fines and penalties for unintended errors or mistakes, impose additional regulations regarding cybersecurity and privacy, 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, international agencies, and other organizations, including but not limited to the SEC, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, 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.

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 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.

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

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 $75 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 and in the Company’s judgment, a loss, in excess of amounts accrued, if any, is not probable. 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 managing various disputes in Florida that raise challenges to the Company’s practices, processes, and procedures relating to claims for personal injury protection benefits under Florida auto policies. Medical providers continue to pursue litigation under various theories that challenge the amounts that the Company pays under the personal injury protection benefits. There are pending putative class actions and litigation involving individual plaintiffs. The Company is vigorously asserting both procedural and substantive defenses to these lawsuits.

Biefeldt / IBEW Consolidated Action. Two separately filed stockholder derivative actions have been consolidated into a single proceeding that is pending in the Circuit Court for Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division. The original complaint in the first-filed of those actions, Biefeldt v. Wilson, et al., was filed on August 3, 2017, in that court by a plaintiff alleging that she is a stockholder of the Company. On June 29, 2018, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss that complaint for failure to make a pre-suit demand on the Allstate Board before instituting the suit, but granted the plaintiff permission to file an amended complaint. The original complaint in IBEW Local No. 98 Pension Fund v. Wilson, et al., was filed on April 12, 2018, in the same court by another plaintiff alleging to be a stockholder of the Company. After the court issued its dismissal decision in the Biefeldt action, the plaintiffs agreed to consolidate the two actions and filed a consolidated amended complaint naming the Company’s chairman, president and chief executive officer, its former president, and certain present or former members of the board of directors. In that complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the directors and officer defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company in connection with allegedly material misstatements or omissions concerning the Company’s automobile insurance claim frequency statistics and the reasons for a claim frequency increase for Allstate

brand auto insurance between October 2014 and August 3, 2015. The factual allegations are substantially similar to those at issue in In re The Allstate Corp. Securities Litigation. The plaintiffs further allege that a senior officer and several outside directors engaged in stock option exercises allegedly while in possession of material nonpublic information. The plaintiffs seek, on behalf of the Company, an unspecified amount of damages and various forms of equitable relief. Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on September 24, 2018 for failure to make a demand on the Allstate Board. On May 14, 2019, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, but allowed the plaintiffs leave to file a second consolidated amended complaint by June 11, 2019. On June 3, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion to stay the action, or in the alternative defer the filing of the second consolidated amended complaint, to allow the plaintiffs to conduct an inspection of the Company’s books and records. The parties reached a compromise by which the Company produced certain board materials and the deadline for the plaintiffs to file the second consolidated amended complaint was extended. On September 17, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on November 1, 2019 for failure to make a demand on the Allstate Board.

In Sundquist v. Wilson, et al., another plaintiff alleging to be a stockholder of the Company filed a stockholder derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on May 21, 2018. The plaintiff seeks, on behalf of the Company, an unspecified amount of damages and various forms of equitable relief. The complaint names as defendants the Company’s chairman, president and chief executive officer, its former president, its former chief financial officer, who is now the Company’s vice chairman, and certain present or former members of the board of directors.

The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duty based on allegations similar to those asserted in In re The Allstate Corp. Securities Litigation as well as state law “misappropriation” claims based on stock option transactions by the Company’s chairman, president and chief executive officer, its former chief financial officer, who is now the Company’s vice chairman, and certain members of the board of directors. Defendants moved to dismiss and/or stay the complaint on August 7, 2018. On December 4, 2018, the court granted the defendants’ motion and stayed the case pending the resolution of the consolidated Biefeldt/IBEW matter.

Mims v. Wilson, et al., is an additional stockholder derivative action filed on February 12, 2020 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiff seeks, on behalf of the Company, an unspecified amount of damages and various forms of equitable relief. The complaint names as defendants the Company’s chairman, president and chief executive officer, its former president, its former chief financial officer, who is now the Company’s vice chairman, and certain present or former members of the board of directors. The complaint alleges breaches

In re The Allstate Corp. Securities Litigation is a certified class action filed on November 11, 2016 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company and two of its officers asserting claims under the federal securities laws. Plaintiffs allege that they purchased Allstate common stock during the class period and suffered damages as the result of the conduct alleged. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages, costs, attorney’s fees, and other relief as the court deems appropriate. Plaintiffs allege that the Company and certain senior officers made allegedly material misstatements or omissions concerning claim frequency statistics and the reasons for a claim frequency increase for Allstate brand auto insurance between October 2014 and August 3, 2015.

Plaintiffs’ further allege that a senior officer engaged in stock option exercises during that time allegedly while in possession of material nonpublic information about Allstate brand auto insurance claim frequency. The Company, its chairman, president and chief executive officer, and its former president are the named defendants. After the court denied their motion to dismiss on February 27, 2018, defendants answered the complaint, denying plaintiffs’ allegations that there was any misstatement or omission or other misconduct. On June 22, 2018, plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification, which was fully briefed as of January 11, 2019. On September 12, 2018, the court allowed the lead plaintiffs to amend their complaint to add the City of Providence Employee Retirement System as a proposed class representative.

The amended complaint was filed the same day. On March 26, 2019, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and certified a class consisting of all persons who purchased Allstate common stock between October 29, 2014 and August 3, 2015. On April 9, 2019, defendants filed with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals a petition for permission to appeal this ruling pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (f) and the Court of Appeals granted that petition on April 25, 2019. The appeal was fully briefed as of July 31, 2019, and the Seven Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument on September 18, 2019.

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.