Regulatory and legal developments	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2014
Regulatory and legal developments	NOTE 9 Regulatory and legal developments. In January 2009, an action was filed by individuals against Stewart Title Guaranty Company (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 had 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 were also each sued in at least one of the cases. Following several years of discovery and other pretrial proceedings, the Court conducted a bellwether jury trial of the claims of eight of the plaintiffs, four selected by plaintiffs and four selected by defendants, starting on August 5, 2013. The eight plaintiffs in the bellwether jury trial each asserted claims against Cuesta Title Company, Stewart Title of California, and Stewart Title Guaranty Company. One plaintiff in the bellwether jury trial also asserted claims against Stewart Title Company; the Court granted Stewart Title Company’s motion for directed verdict after the close of plaintiffs’ case. On October 8, 2013, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Cuesta Title Company, Stewart Title of California, and Stewart Title Guaranty Company on every one of every plaintiff’s claims against them. On January 30, 2014, the Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for new trial. On February 28, 2014, plaintiffs filed their notices of appeal from the verdict in the bellwether jury trial. Though no order has yet been entered, at a case management conference held on April 3, 2014, the Court informed the parties that, if no settlement is reached, it will hold additional trials starting in July 2014, October 2014, and January 2015 of the claims of three additional groups of plaintiffs (with approximately ten plaintiffs in each group). All of the plaintiffs in the July 2014 trial will be chosen by the plaintiffs. The parties attended a scheduled mediation on February 19, 2014, to see whether, in light of the outcome of the bellwether jury trial, the parties could reach a settlement. While no resolution was reached during the mediation settlement, discussions are continuing with the help of the mediator and a mediation judge specially appointed, with the consent of the parties, by the Court. Although the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of these actions, it will vigorously defend itself and does not believe that the ultimate outcome will materially affect its consolidated financial condition. In April 2008, Credit Suisse AG, Cayman Islands Branch (Credit Suisse) asserted a claim under a Stewart Title Guaranty Company (STGC) policy of title insurance dated on or about May 19, 2006 based upon the alleged priority of mechanic’s and materialmen’s liens on a resort development in the State of Idaho known as Tamarack. STGC ultimately undertook the defense of the claim under a reservation of rights. For reasons set forth in Stewart’s complaint, on or about May 18, 2011, STGC withdrew its defense of Credit Suisse and filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho captioned Stewart Title Guaranty Company v. Credit Suisse AG, Cayman Islands Branch seeking a declaratory judgment and other relief. In the lawsuit STGC sought, among other things, a determination that it had no duty to indemnify Credit Suisse and sought to have certain provisions of the title insurance policy rescinded. Credit Suisse counterclaimed for, among other things, bad faith failure to pay the claim. On August 29, 2013, the United States District Court for the District of Idaho rendered an opinion on Credit Suisse’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. In its opinion the Court, among other things more fully set forth in said opinion, granted Credit Suisse’s motion negating certain policy defenses to coverage asserted by STGC. The Court also granted Credit Suisse’s Motion to Amend and permitted the assertion of punitive damages against STGC. STGC’s Motion to Reconsider the Court’s August 29, 2013 ruling continues to be pending. STGC has also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment based on Credit Suisse’s lack of standing to pursue its counter claims, and other grounds. Although the Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter, STGC is vigorously prosecuting this litigation and does not believe that the ultimate outcome will have a material adverse impact on 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. In January 2009, an action was filed by individuals against Stewart Title Guaranty Company (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 had 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 were also each sued in at least one of the cases. Following several years of discovery and other pretrial proceedings, the Court conducted a bellwether jury trial of the claims of eight of the plaintiffs, four selected by plaintiffs and four selected by defendants, starting on August 5, 2013. The eight plaintiffs in the bellwether jury trial each asserted claims against Cuesta Title Company, Stewart Title of California, and Stewart Title Guaranty Company. One plaintiff in the bellwether jury trial also asserted claims against Stewart Title Company; the Court granted Stewart Title Company’s motion for directed verdict after the close of plaintiffs’ case. On October 8, 2013, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Cuesta Title Company, Stewart Title of California, and Stewart Title Guaranty Company on every one of every plaintiff’s claims against them. On January 30, 2014, the Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for new trial. On February 28, 2014, plaintiffs filed their notices of appeal from the verdict in the bellwether jury trial. Though no order has yet been entered, at a case management conference held on April 3, 2014, the Court informed the parties that, if no settlement is reached, it will hold additional trials starting in July 2014, October 2014, and January 2015 of the claims of three additional groups of plaintiffs (with approximately ten plaintiffs in each group). All of the plaintiffs in the July 2014 trial will be chosen by the plaintiffs. The parties attended a scheduled mediation on February 19, 2014, to see whether, in light of the outcome of the bellwether jury trial, the parties could reach a settlement. While no resolution was reached during the mediation settlement, discussions are continuing with the help of the mediator and a mediation judge specially appointed, with the consent of the parties, by the Court. Although the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of these actions, it will vigorously defend itself and does not believe that the ultimate outcome will materially affect its consolidated financial condition.

In April 2008, Credit Suisse AG, Cayman Islands Branch (Credit Suisse) asserted a claim under a Stewart Title Guaranty Company (STGC) policy of title insurance dated on or about May 19, 2006 based upon the alleged priority of mechanic’s and materialmen’s liens on a resort development in the State of Idaho known as Tamarack. STGC ultimately undertook the defense of the claim under a reservation of rights. For reasons set forth in Stewart’s complaint, on or about May 18, 2011, STGC withdrew its defense of Credit Suisse and filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho captioned Stewart Title Guaranty Company v. Credit Suisse AG, Cayman Islands Branch seeking a declaratory judgment and other relief. In the lawsuit STGC sought, among other things, a determination that it had no duty to indemnify Credit Suisse and sought to have certain provisions of the title insurance policy rescinded. Credit Suisse counterclaimed for, among other things, bad faith failure to pay the claim.

On August 29, 2013, the United States District Court for the District of Idaho rendered an opinion on Credit Suisse’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. In its opinion the Court, among other things more fully set forth in said opinion, granted Credit Suisse’s motion negating certain policy defenses to coverage asserted by STGC. The Court also granted Credit Suisse’s Motion to Amend and permitted the assertion of punitive damages against STGC.

STGC’s Motion to Reconsider the Court’s August 29, 2013 ruling continues to be pending. STGC has also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment based on Credit Suisse’s lack of standing to pursue its counter claims, and other grounds. Although the Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter, STGC is vigorously prosecuting this litigation and does not believe that the ultimate outcome will have a material adverse impact on 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.