Regulatory and legal developments	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2012
Regulatory and legal developments	NOTE 19 Regulatory and legal developments. Stewart Title Guaranty Company (STGC) and Stewart Title Guaranty de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (STGM) were defendants in a lawsuit in the State District Court of Harris County, Texas, Citigroup Global Markets Realty Corp. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Company. The lawsuit was filed in 2008 and concerns 16 owners’ and 16 lenders’ title insurance policies on 16 parcels of land in Mexico issued by STGM and reinsurance agreements by STGC. Citigroup Global Markets Realty Corp. asserted claims against STGC under reinsurance of the lenders’ policies as well as extra-contractual claims under Texas law. K.R. Playa VI, S de R.L. de C.V., the owner of the parcels, asserted claims against STGC and separate claims against STGM under the owners’ policies as well as extra-contractual claims under Texas law. The State District Court dismissed the extra-contractual claims against STGC and STGM based on application of Mexican law. The jury returned a verdict of no damages, favorable to STGC and STGM, on April 29, 2011. Judgment was entered on June 30, 2011. Both Citigroup Global Markets Realty Corp. and K.R. Playa VI, S de R.L. de C.V. subsequently filed motions for new trial and motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which the State District Court denied by orders dated September 12, 2011. Citigroup Global Markets Realty Corp. and K.R. Playa VI, S de R.L. de C.V. have appealed the Judgment to the Houston Court of Appeals, and oral argument originally scheduled for February 14, 2013 has been postponed by agreement of the parties and order of the Court. The parties are awaiting notification of a new date for the oral argument. The Company does not believe that the ultimate outcome will materially affect its consolidated financial condition or results of operations. * * * In January 2009, an action was filed by individuals against STGC, Stewart Title of California, Inc., Cuesta Title Company and others in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Luis Obispo alleging that the plaintiffs have suffered damages relating to loans they made through Hurst Financial Corporation to an individual named Kelly Gearhart and entities controlled by Gearhart. Thereafter, several other lawsuits making similar allegations, including a lawsuit filed by several hundred individuals, were filed in San Luis Obispo Superior Court, and one such lawsuit was removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The defendants vary from case to case, but Stewart Information Services Corporation, Stewart Title Company and Stewart Title Insurance Company have also each been sued in at least one of the cases. Each of the complaints alleges some combination of the following purported causes of action: breach of contract, negligence, fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, constructive fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, financial elder abuse, violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, negligent misrepresentation, conversion, conspiracy, alter ego and declaratory relief. The San Luis Obispo Superior Court has sustained demurrers by the Company with regard to certain causes of action and has overruled the demurrers as to certain causes of action. The United States District Court for the Central District of California granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint as to the claim for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, with prejudice, and remanded the remainder of that case to the San Luis Obispo Superior Court. Thereafter, the San Luis Obispo Superior Court issued (i) an order assigning all the cases to a single judge, (ii) an Order Coordinating Related Cases for Pre-Trial Purposes, and (iii) a First Case Management Order for the Related Cases. Discovery is ongoing. On December 11, 2012, the Court denied the Company’s motion for summary judgment and summary adjudication seeking the dismissal of certain plaintiffs’ claims. On December 14, 2012, the Court issued a Ruling and Order Regarding Selection of Discovery Pool, Trial Group and Pre-Trial Deadlines (amended on January 8, 2013), in which it established a mechanism for the selection of eight plaintiffs for whom all discovery and dispositive motions would be completed and a trial held starting on July 29, 2013. The December 14, 2012 Ruling and Order also set forth deadlines for discovery activities, designating experts, depositions and motions for summary judgment. There may be additional discovery, motions and trials subsequent to the July 29^th trial. Although the Company cannot predict the outcome of these actions, it is vigorously defending itself against the allegations and does not believe that the ultimate outcome will materially affect its consolidated financial condition or results of operations. * * * In February 2008, an antitrust class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against Stewart Title Insurance Company, Monroe Title Insurance Corporation, Stewart Information Services Corporation, several other unaffiliated title insurance companies and the Title Insurance Rate Service Association, Inc. (TIRSA). The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by collectively filing proposed rates for title insurance in New York through TIRSA, a state-authorized and licensed rate service organization. Complaints were subsequently filed in the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York and in the United States District Courts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, Florida, Massachusetts, Arkansas, California, Washington, West Virginia, Texas and Delaware. All of the complaints make similar class action allegations, except that certain of the complaints also allege violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and various state antitrust and consumer protection laws. The complaints generally request treble damages in unspecified amounts, declaratory and injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. To date, 78 such complaints have been filed, each of which names the Company and/or one or more of its affiliates as a defendant (and have been consolidated in the aforementioned states), of which seven have been voluntarily dismissed. As of July 25, 2012, the Company has obtained dismissals of the claims in Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania (where the court dismissed the damages claims and granted defendants summary judgment on the injunctive claims), Texas and Washington. The Company filed a motion to dismiss in West Virginia (where all proceedings have been stayed and the docket closed). The dismissals in New York and Texas have been affirmed by the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second and Fifth Circuits, respectively, and on October 4, 2010, the United States Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs’ petitions for review of those decisions. The United States Court of Appeals for Sixth Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of the Ohio complaints, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has affirmed the dismissals of the Delaware and New Jersey complaints, and the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of the RESPA claims in New York. On October 25, 2012, the plaintiffs in the Delaware action petitioned the United States Supreme Court to review the decision of the Third Circuit; and the Company filed an opposition to the petition on January 14, 2013. Although the Company cannot predict the outcome of these actions, it is vigorously defending itself against the allegations and does not believe that the outcome will materially affect its consolidated financial condition or results of operations. * * * Van Buren Estates, LLC, Van Buren Estates LLC II, and Van Buren Estates, LP commenced an action in the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside on or about March 26, 2010 against Stewart Title of California, Inc. and STGC alleging among other things, negligence, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, specific performance, promissory estoppel and punitive damages. Stewart Title of California, Inc. settled prior to trial. STGC filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted in part. Subsequent to the summary judgment motion, Van Buren Estates, LP was the sole remaining plaintiff. A jury trial commenced on January 30, 2012. Among the issues involved was STGC’s position that no title policy had been issued in favor of the remaining plaintiff. The trial concluded on March 5, 2012 with a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff on the issues of liability and damages in the aggregate amount of approximately $6.5 million. The parties had stipulated at trial that the cost to cure the title defect at issue in the case was $0.4 million, less than the amount previously paid by Stewart Title of California, Inc. Judgment was entered on April 10, 2012. STGC filed motions for new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The court granted the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict in part and reduced the judgment to approximately $4.2 million. An amended judgment was entered on July 10, 2012. STGC filed its notice of appeal of the $4.2 million amended judgment on July 19, 2012. During the course of the appeal, STGC and the Van Buren entities agreed to settle the case. Although they have approved of the settlement between STGC and the Van Buren entities, two secured creditors of the Van Buren entities are disputing between themselves entitlement to the settlement proceeds. STGC will disburse the settlement proceeds as directed by the court and file a dismissal with prejudice, thereby finally resolving this matter. * * * The Company is also subject to other claims and lawsuits arising in the ordinary course of its business, most of which involve disputed policy claims. In some of these lawsuits, the plaintiff seeks exemplary or treble damages in excess of policy limits. The Company does not expect that any of these proceedings will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial condition or results of operations. Along with the other major title insurance companies, the Company is party to a number of class action lawsuits concerning the title insurance industry. The Company believes that it has adequate reserves for the various litigation matters and contingencies discussed above and that the likely resolution of these matters will not materially affect its consolidated financial condition or results of operations. The Company is subject to administrative actions and litigation relating to the basis on which premium taxes are paid in certain states. Additionally, the Company has received various other inquiries from governmental regulators concerning practices in the insurance industry. Many of these practices do not concern title insurance. The Company believes that it has adequately reserved for these matters and does not anticipate that the outcome of these inquiries will materially affect its consolidated financial condition or results of operations. The Company is also subject to various other administrative actions and inquiries into its business conduct in certain of the states in which it operates. While the Company cannot predict the outcome of the various regulatory and administrative matters, it believes that it has adequately reserved for these matters and does not anticipate that the outcome of any of these matters will materially affect its consolidated financial condition or results of operations.

NOTE 19

Regulatory and legal developments. Stewart Title Guaranty Company (STGC) and Stewart Title Guaranty de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (STGM) were defendants in a lawsuit in the State District Court of Harris County, Texas, Citigroup Global Markets Realty Corp. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Company. The lawsuit was filed in 2008 and concerns 16 owners’ and 16 lenders’ title insurance policies on 16 parcels of land in Mexico issued by STGM and reinsurance agreements by STGC. Citigroup Global Markets Realty Corp. asserted claims against STGC under reinsurance of the lenders’ policies as well as extra-contractual claims under Texas law. K.R. Playa VI, S de R.L. de C.V., the owner of the parcels, asserted claims against STGC and separate claims against STGM under the owners’ policies as well as extra-contractual claims under Texas law. The State District Court dismissed the extra-contractual claims against STGC and STGM based on application of Mexican law.

The jury returned a verdict of no damages, favorable to STGC and STGM, on April 29, 2011. Judgment was entered on June 30, 2011. Both Citigroup Global Markets Realty Corp. and K.R. Playa VI, S de R.L. de C.V. subsequently filed motions for new trial and motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which the State District Court denied by orders dated September 12, 2011. Citigroup Global Markets Realty Corp. and K.R. Playa VI, S de R.L. de C.V. have appealed the Judgment to the Houston Court of Appeals, and oral argument originally scheduled for February 14, 2013 has been postponed by agreement of the parties and order of the Court. The parties are awaiting notification of a new date for the oral argument. The Company does not believe that the ultimate outcome will materially affect its consolidated financial condition or results of operations.

* * *

In January 2009, an action was filed by individuals against STGC, Stewart Title of California, Inc., Cuesta Title Company and others in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Luis Obispo alleging that the plaintiffs have suffered damages relating to loans they made through Hurst Financial Corporation to an individual named Kelly Gearhart and entities controlled by Gearhart. Thereafter, several other lawsuits making similar allegations, including a lawsuit filed by several hundred individuals, were filed in San Luis Obispo Superior Court, and one such lawsuit was removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The defendants vary from case to case, but Stewart Information Services Corporation, Stewart Title Company and Stewart Title Insurance Company have also each been sued in at least one of the cases. Each of the complaints alleges some combination of the following purported causes of action: breach of contract, negligence, fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, constructive fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, financial elder abuse, violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, negligent misrepresentation, conversion, conspiracy, alter ego and declaratory relief. The San Luis Obispo Superior Court has sustained demurrers by the Company with regard to certain causes of action and has overruled the demurrers as to certain causes of action. The United States District Court for the Central District of California granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint as to the claim for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, with prejudice, and remanded the remainder of that case to the San Luis Obispo Superior Court. Thereafter, the San Luis Obispo Superior Court issued (i) an order assigning all the cases to a single judge, (ii) an Order Coordinating Related Cases for Pre-Trial Purposes, and (iii) a First Case Management Order for the Related Cases. Discovery is ongoing. On December 11, 2012, the Court denied the Company’s motion for summary judgment and summary adjudication seeking the dismissal of certain plaintiffs’ claims. On December 14, 2012, the Court issued a Ruling and Order Regarding Selection of Discovery Pool, Trial Group and Pre-Trial Deadlines (amended on January 8, 2013), in which it established a mechanism for the selection of eight plaintiffs for whom all discovery and dispositive motions would be completed and a trial held starting on July 29, 2013. The December 14, 2012 Ruling and Order also set forth deadlines for discovery activities, designating experts, depositions and motions for summary judgment. There may be additional discovery, motions and trials subsequent to the July 29^th trial. Although the Company cannot predict the outcome of these actions, it is vigorously defending itself against the allegations and does not believe that the ultimate outcome will materially affect its consolidated financial condition or results of operations.

* * *

In February 2008, an antitrust class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against Stewart Title Insurance Company, Monroe Title Insurance Corporation, Stewart Information Services Corporation, several other unaffiliated title insurance companies and the Title Insurance Rate Service Association, Inc. (TIRSA). The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by collectively filing proposed rates for title insurance in New York through TIRSA, a state-authorized and licensed rate service organization.

Complaints were subsequently filed in the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York and in the United States District Courts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, Florida, Massachusetts, Arkansas, California, Washington, West Virginia, Texas and Delaware. All of the complaints make similar class action allegations, except that certain of the complaints also allege violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and various state antitrust and consumer protection laws. The complaints generally request treble damages in unspecified amounts, declaratory and injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. To date, 78 such complaints have been filed, each of which names the Company and/or one or more of its affiliates as a defendant (and have been consolidated in the aforementioned states), of which seven have been voluntarily dismissed.

As of July 25, 2012, the Company has obtained dismissals of the claims in Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania (where the court dismissed the damages claims and granted defendants summary judgment on the injunctive claims), Texas and Washington. The Company filed a motion to dismiss in West Virginia (where all proceedings have been stayed and the docket closed). The dismissals in New York and Texas have been affirmed by the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second and Fifth Circuits, respectively, and on October 4, 2010, the United States Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs’ petitions for review of those decisions. The United States Court of Appeals for Sixth Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of the Ohio complaints, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has affirmed the dismissals of the Delaware and New Jersey complaints, and the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of the RESPA claims in New York. On October 25, 2012, the plaintiffs in the Delaware action petitioned the United States Supreme Court to review the decision of the Third Circuit; and the Company filed an opposition to the petition on January 14, 2013. Although the Company cannot predict the outcome of these actions, it is vigorously defending itself against the allegations and does not believe that the outcome will materially affect its consolidated financial condition or results of operations.

* * *

Van Buren Estates, LLC, Van Buren Estates LLC II, and Van Buren Estates, LP commenced an action in the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside on or about March 26, 2010 against Stewart Title of California, Inc. and STGC alleging among other things, negligence, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, specific performance, promissory estoppel and punitive damages. Stewart Title of California, Inc. settled prior to trial. STGC filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted in part. Subsequent to the summary judgment motion, Van Buren Estates, LP was the sole remaining plaintiff. A jury trial commenced on January 30, 2012. Among the issues involved was STGC’s position that no title policy had been issued in favor of the remaining plaintiff. The trial concluded on March 5, 2012 with a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff on the issues of liability and damages in the aggregate amount of approximately $6.5 million. The parties had stipulated at trial that the cost to cure the title defect at issue in the case was $0.4 million, less than the amount previously paid by Stewart Title of California, Inc. Judgment was entered on April 10, 2012. STGC filed motions for new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The court granted the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict in part and reduced the judgment to approximately $4.2 million. An amended judgment was entered on July 10, 2012. STGC filed its notice of appeal of the $4.2 million amended judgment on July 19, 2012. During the course of the appeal, STGC and the Van Buren entities agreed to settle the case. Although they have approved of the settlement between STGC and the Van Buren entities, two secured creditors of the Van Buren entities are disputing between themselves entitlement to the settlement proceeds. STGC will disburse the settlement proceeds as directed by the court and file a dismissal with prejudice, thereby finally resolving this matter.

* * *

The Company is also subject to other claims and lawsuits arising in the ordinary course of its business, most of which involve disputed policy claims. In some of these lawsuits, the plaintiff seeks exemplary or treble damages in excess of policy limits. The Company does not expect that any of these proceedings will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial condition or results of operations. Along with the other major title insurance companies, the Company is party to a number of class action lawsuits concerning the title insurance industry. The Company believes that it has adequate reserves for the various litigation matters and contingencies discussed above and that the likely resolution of these matters will not materially affect its consolidated financial condition or results of operations.

The Company is subject to administrative actions and litigation relating to the basis on which premium taxes are paid in certain states. Additionally, the Company has received various other inquiries from governmental regulators concerning practices in the insurance industry. Many of these practices do not concern title insurance. The Company believes that it has adequately reserved for these matters and does not anticipate that the outcome of these inquiries will materially affect its consolidated financial condition or results of operations.

The Company is also subject to various other administrative actions and inquiries into its business conduct in certain of the states in which it operates. While the Company cannot predict the outcome of the various regulatory and administrative matters, it believes that it has adequately reserved for these matters and does not anticipate that the outcome of any of these matters will materially affect its consolidated financial condition or results of operations.