Regulatory and legal developments	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2013
Regulatory and legal developments	NOTE 9 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 14^th Court of Appeals, Houston, Texas and oral argument originally scheduled for February 14, 2013 was postponed by agreement of the parties and order of the Court until April 25, 2013. The appellate argument was held on April 25, 2013 and the Company is awaiting a decision. 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 August 5, 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 August 5^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. * * * The Company is 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 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 9

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 14^th Court of Appeals, Houston, Texas and oral argument originally scheduled for February 14, 2013 was postponed by agreement of the parties and order of the Court until April 25, 2013. The appellate argument was held on April 25, 2013 and the Company is awaiting a decision. 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 August 5, 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 August 5^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.

* * *

The Company is 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 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.