Regulatory and legal developments	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Regulatory and legal developments	Regulatory and legal developments. In January 2009, an action was filed by individuals against Stewart Title Guaranty Company (Guaranty), 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, which was dismissed and then refiled in San Luis Obispo Superior Court. 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 Guaranty. One plaintiff in the bellwether jury trial also asserted claims against Stewart Title Company; the Court granted Stewart Title Company’s motion for non-suit 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 Guaranty 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. Rather than incur additional time and expenses associated with these actions, the Company announced on June 11, 2014, the settlement with approximately 500 plaintiffs representing more than 90 percent of the total number of plaintiffs, pursuant to which it agreed to pay $10.53 million. The settlement agreement involved no admission of liability or violation of law by the defendants and bars the plaintiffs from pursuing further associated claims against the defendants. A bench trial of the claims of two non-settling plaintiffs started on January 5, 2015. On April 17, 2015, the Court issued its Statement of Decision in favor of all defendants on the claims of both plaintiffs, after which those two plaintiffs agreed to settle. Thereafter, all but seven of the remaining plaintiffs settled. A jury trial of the claims of the seven remaining non-settling plaintiffs started on May 14, 2015. The Court granted Guaranty’s motion for non-suit after the close of plaintiffs’ case. On June 23 and 25, 2015, the jury returned verdicts in favor of Stewart Title of California and Cuesta Title Company as to the claims of five of the seven plaintiffs but returned verdicts in favor of two plaintiffs against Stewart Title of California and Cuesta Title Company in the combined amount of approximately $4.5 million, including pre-judgment interest. The post-trial motion process is underway; rulings thereon are not expected until late August 2015, at the earliest. Although the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of these motions or any possible subsequent appeals, it will vigorously defend itself and does not believe that the ultimate outcome relating to the remaining seven plaintiffs will be material to its consolidated financial condition or results of operations. * * * In April 2008, Credit Suisse AG, Cayman Islands Branch (Credit Suisse) asserted a claim under a Guaranty 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. Guaranty ultimately undertook the defense of the claim under a reservation of rights. For reasons set forth in Guaranty's complaint, on or about May 18, 2011, Guaranty 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 Guaranty 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 Guaranty. The Court also granted Credit Suisse’s Motion to Amend and permitted the assertion of punitive damages against Guaranty. Guaranty’s Motion to Reconsider the Court’s August 29, 2013 was denied. Guaranty’s Motion for Summary Judgment based on Credit Suisse’s lack of standing to pursue its counter claims, and other grounds was denied on February 26, 2015. A twenty day jury trial is set to begin on September 3, 2015. Although the Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter, Guaranty 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.

Regulatory and legal developments. In January 2009, an action was filed by individuals against Stewart Title Guaranty Company (Guaranty), 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, which was dismissed and then refiled in San Luis Obispo Superior Court. 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 Guaranty. One plaintiff in the bellwether jury trial also asserted claims against Stewart Title Company; the Court granted Stewart Title Company’s motion for non-suit 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 Guaranty 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. Rather than incur additional time and expenses associated with these actions, the Company announced on June 11, 2014, the settlement with approximately 500 plaintiffs representing more than 90 percent of the total number of plaintiffs, pursuant to which it agreed to pay $10.53 million. The settlement agreement involved no admission of liability or violation of law by the defendants and bars the plaintiffs from pursuing further associated claims against the defendants. A bench trial of the claims of two non-settling plaintiffs started on January 5, 2015. On April 17, 2015, the Court issued its Statement of Decision in favor of all defendants on the claims of both plaintiffs, after which those two plaintiffs agreed to settle. Thereafter, all but seven of the remaining plaintiffs settled.

A jury trial of the claims of the seven remaining non-settling plaintiffs started on May 14, 2015. The Court granted Guaranty’s motion for non-suit after the close of plaintiffs’ case. On June 23 and 25, 2015, the jury returned verdicts in favor of Stewart Title of California and Cuesta Title Company as to the claims of five of the seven plaintiffs but returned verdicts in favor of two plaintiffs against Stewart Title of California and Cuesta Title Company in the combined amount of approximately $4.5 million, including pre-judgment interest. The post-trial motion process is underway; rulings thereon are not expected until late August 2015, at the earliest. Although the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of these motions or any possible subsequent appeals, it will vigorously defend itself and does not believe that the ultimate outcome relating to the remaining seven plaintiffs will be material to its consolidated financial condition or results of operations.

* * *

In April 2008, Credit Suisse AG, Cayman Islands Branch (Credit Suisse) asserted a claim under a Guaranty 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. Guaranty ultimately undertook the defense of the claim under a reservation of rights. For reasons set forth in Guaranty's complaint, on or about May 18, 2011, Guaranty 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 Guaranty 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 Guaranty. The Court also granted Credit Suisse’s Motion to Amend and permitted the assertion of punitive damages against Guaranty.

Guaranty’s Motion to Reconsider the Court’s August 29, 2013 was denied. Guaranty’s Motion for Summary Judgment based on Credit Suisse’s lack of standing to pursue its counter claims, and other grounds was denied on February 26, 2015. A twenty day jury trial is set to begin on September 3, 2015. Although the Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter, Guaranty 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.