XML 33 R18.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.8.0.1

Guarantees and Contingent Liabilities | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2017
Guarantees and Contingent Liabilities |
Guarantees and Contingent Liabilities | Guarantees and Contingent Liabilities Shared markets and state facility assessments The Company is required to participate in assigned risk plans, reinsurance facilities and joint underwriting associations in various states that provide insurance coverage to individuals or entities that otherwise are unable to purchase such coverage from private insurers. 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. Guarantees The Company provides residual value guarantees on Company leased automobiles. If all outstanding leases were terminated effective September 30, 2017, the Company’s maximum obligation pursuant to these guarantees, assuming the automobiles have no residual value, would be $32 million as of September 30, 2017. The remaining term of each residual value guarantee is equal to the term of the underlying lease that ranges from less than one year to four years. Historically, the Company has not made any material payments pursuant to these guarantees. Related to the sale of LBL 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. Related to the disposal through reinsurance of substantially all of Allstate Financial’s variable annuity business to Prudential in 2006, the Company and its consolidated subsidiaries, ALIC and ALNY, have agreed to indemnify Prudential for certain pre-closing contingent liabilities (including extra-contractual liabilities of ALIC and ALNY and liabilities specifically excluded from the transaction) that ALIC and ALNY have agreed to retain. In addition, the Company, ALIC and ALNY will each indemnify Prudential for certain post-closing liabilities that may arise from the acts of ALIC, ALNY and their agents, including certain liabilities arising from ALIC’s and ALNY’s provision of transition services. The reinsurance agreements contain no limitations or indemnifications with regard to insurance risk transfer and transferred all of the future risks and responsibilities for performance on the underlying variable annuity contracts to Prudential, including those related to benefit guarantees. Management does not believe this agreement will have a material effect on results of operations, cash flows or financial position of the Company. 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. The aggregate liability balance related to all guarantees was not material as of September 30, 2017. Regulation and Compliance The Company is subject to extensive laws, regulations, administrative directives, and regulatory actions. From time to time, regulatory authorities or 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 agent and broker compensation, regulate the nature of and amount of investments, impose fines and penalties for unintended errors or mistakes, 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 and other organizations, including but not limited to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, the Department of Labor, 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. Legal and regulatory proceedings and inquiries The Company and certain subsidiaries are involved in a number of lawsuits, regulatory inquiries, and other legal proceedings arising out of various aspects of its business. 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. In connection with regulatory examinations and proceedings, government authorities may seek various forms of relief, including penalties, restitution, and changes in business practices. The Company may not be advised of the nature and extent of relief sought until the final stages of the examination or proceeding. 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 Company’s ability to resolve the matter would not be impaired by the disclosure of the amount of accrual. 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 $300 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 litigating two class action cases in California in which the plaintiffs allege off-the-clock wage and hour claims. Plaintiffs in both cases seek recovery of unpaid compensation, liquidated damages, penalties, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The first case is Christopher Williams, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Company. The Williams case is pending in Los Angeles Superior Court and was filed in December 2007. The case involves two classes. The first class includes auto field physical damage adjusters employed in the state of California from January 1, 2005 to the date of final judgment, to the extent the Company failed to pay for off-the-clock work to those adjusters who performed certain duties prior to their first assignments. The other class includes all non-exempt employees in California from December 19, 2006 until June 2011 who received pay statements from Allstate which allegedly did not comply with California law. On April 13, 2016, the court granted the Company’s motion to decertify both classes; both classes are thus dissolved unless and until the appellate court orders the classes recertified. On May 17, 2016, plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal. Plaintiff’s opening brief was filed on November 22, 2016. Allstate’s response was filed on May 16, 2017. Plaintiff’s reply brief was filed on July 6, 2017. Oral argument occurred on October 26, 2017. The second case is Jack Jimenez, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Company. Jimenez was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in September 2010. The plaintiffs allege that they worked off-the-clock; they also allege other California Labor Code violations resulting from purported unpaid overtime. In April 2012, the court certified a class that includes all adjusters in the state of California, except auto field adjusters, from September 29, 2006 to final judgment. Allstate appealed the court’s decision to certify the class, first to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the U.S. Supreme Court. On June 15, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Allstate’s petition for a writ of certiorari. The case was scheduled for trial on September 27, 2016. On May 4, 2016, the court vacated that trial date in part because the court had not approved a trial plan. No trial date has been scheduled because the parties continue to wait for the court’s approval of a trial plan. In addition to the California class actions, the case of Maria Victoria Perez and Kaela Brown, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Company was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Plaintiffs allege that no-fault claim adjusters have been improperly classified as exempt employees under New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case was filed in April 2011, and the plaintiffs are seeking unpaid wages, liquidated damages, injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. On September 16, 2014, the court certified a class of no-fault adjusters under New York Labor Law and refused to decertify a Fair Labor Standards Act class of no-fault adjusters. There are 105 members of the Fair Labor Standards Act class and 137 members of the New York Labor Law class. The parties are engaged in discovery. The Company has been involved in litigation challenging whether the Company’s personal injury protection policies include sufficient language providing notice of the Company’s election to apply the fee schedules. The Florida personal injury protection statute permits insurers to pay personal injury protection benefits for reasonable medical expenses based on certain benefit reimbursement limitations which are authorized by the personal injury protection statute (generally referred to as “fee schedules”) resulting from automobile accidents. On January 26, 2017, the Florida Supreme Court issued its decision in Allstate Insurance Company v. Orthopedic Specialists, et al., holding that Allstate’s language was clear and unambiguous and provided adequate notice of its intent to use the fee schedules. On February 7, 2017, Orthopedic Specialists filed a motion for rehearing, which the Florida Supreme Court denied on March 27, 2017. Thus, the Florida Supreme Court’s decision is final. In light of this ruling, the fee schedule issue is expected to be resolved favorably to Allstate in other pending cases. There were three other cases with petitions for leave to appeal to the Florida Supreme Court pending. In those cases, three District Courts of Appeal had previously ruled in favor of Allstate. The Florida Supreme Court issued “show cause” orders in each of those appeals directing the providers to file a response explaining why the Orthopedic Specialists decision is not controlling and why the Florida Supreme Court should not decline to exercise jurisdiction. In one appeal, the provider acknowledged that Orthopedic Specialists governs and the court declined jurisdiction in that appeal. In the other two appeals, the providers asserted that their petitions to appeal should be granted because Orthopedic Specialists was wrongly decided, repeating the arguments previously asserted. Allstate’s responses were filed on May 8, 2017. On August 4, 2017, the Florida Supreme Court issued orders in both of those cases stating that the court was declining to exercise jurisdiction in those appeals. Accordingly, all proceedings on the fee schedule issue in the Florida Supreme Court have been concluded in Allstate’s favor. This fee schedule issue has also been the subject of thousands of individual lawsuits filed against Allstate in Florida. The decision by the Florida Supreme Court has established Florida law on the sufficiency of Allstate’s fee schedule policy language that is binding on all Florida courts. Allstate intends to seek final resolution in its favor of all fee schedule claims currently in litigation as well as those not in litigation. Allstate may seek restitution from some plaintiffs for attorneys’ fees and costs. Providers continue to pursue individual suits under various theories challenging the amounts paid when Allstate pays personal injury protection benefits under the fee schedule limitations. Allstate is vigorously asserting both procedural and substantive defenses to these suits. Other proceedings The Company is defending a consolidated proceeding relating to the reorganization of its agent sales force in 2000, when the Company discontinued employee agent programs, terminated the contracts of its employee agents, and offered those agents the opportunity to become Allstate Exclusive Agent independent contractors or to take severance benefits in exchange for a release of claims. The consolidated proceeding, captioned Gene Romero, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Company, et al., is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This matter has a long and complex history, only relevant portions of which are summarized here. The case began in 2001 as two separate putative class actions filed by approximately 32 former employee agents. In one case, plaintiffs challenged the reorganization alleging claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), interference with benefits under ERISA, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs also challenged the release of claims on various grounds including alleging that the release was retaliatory under the ADEA and ERISA. In the other case, plaintiffs challenged certain amendments to the Agents Pension Plan and sought to have service as Exclusive Agent independent contractors count toward eligibility for benefits. Plaintiffs sought various relief, including back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, liquidated damages, lost investment capital, loss of benefits, repeal of the challenged plan amendments and attorneys’ fees. In February, 2014, the court addressed the validity and enforceability of the release and determined that the question of whether the releases were voluntarily signed raised disputed issues of fact to be resolved at trial. The court also held that the release, if valid, would bar all claims. In late 2014, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class for purposes of determining whether the releases were signed voluntarily and ordered that all statutes of limitations would resume running, after which approximately 460 additional individual plaintiffs filed separate similar lawsuits or sought to intervene. A jury trial was held in June, 2015, to determine whether the releases of ten plaintiffs were knowingly and voluntarily signed. The jury found that two plaintiffs signed their releases voluntarily and eight plaintiffs did not. On May 2, 2016, a consolidated amended complaint was filed on behalf of 498 plaintiffs, most of whom had previously filed separate lawsuits or intervened. On July 6, 2016, the court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ state law breach of contract and fiduciary duty claims but granted dismissal of plaintiffs’ retaliation claims under the ADEA and ERISA challenging the release of claims. The court then separated the case into phases to address “common issues” in plaintiffs’ claims, beginning with: (a) “Phase I” addressing claims by 118 plaintiffs alleging that certain plan amendments violated ERISA’s anti-cutback provision by eliminating an accrued benefit and (b) “Phase II” addressing all plaintiffs’ claims for alleged interference with employee benefits under ERISA and disparate impact under the ADEA. A bench trial on Phase I claims was held in December, 2016. The court ruled that (i) the Company’s 1991 amendments to the Plan did not violate ERISA by improperly cutting back on plaintiffs’ benefits, and (ii) the Company’s interpretation of the Plan’s definition of “retire” violated ERISA’s anti-cutback rule. The court required the parties to provide further information, in the form of an accounting, to determine whether any plaintiffs suffered a loss based on any such cutback. Plaintiffs have asserted that only two of the 118 plaintiffs suffered a loss as a result of the court’s order. The Company contends that no plaintiff suffered a compensable loss and that judgment should be entered in favor of the Company. We await a final ruling by the court. In Phase II, the court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment on both the ADEA disparate impact and ERISA interference with benefits claims. This ruling resolved these claims in the trial court as to all plaintiffs. In June, 2017, the court entered an order establishing Phases III and IV of the litigation. In Phase III, the remaining claims of the eight individual plaintiffs who reside in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania were to be litigated, possibly culminating in two separate jury trials in early 2018. The Company filed several motions for summary judgment on the Phase III claims. The court granted the Company’s motion as to the Phase III plaintiffs’ ADEA disparate treatment claims and as to a retaliation claim that had been asserted by one of the Phase III plaintiffs. The court denied the Company’s motion on the Phase III plaintiffs’ breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty claims. The Company and 82 individual plaintiffs, including all eight of the Phase III plaintiffs whose remaining claims were set for trial in early 2018, recently reached agreements in principle to settle all claims of those plaintiffs on a confidential basis, subject to negotiating and executing appropriate written settlement agreements. Three other plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims leaving 413 plaintiffs in this litigation. The parties are currently engaging in further written discovery relating to the claims of the remaining plaintiffs (Phase IV of the litigation) pending the court’s determination of the proper venue for depositions, dispositive motions, and trials of those claims. The final resolution of these matters is subject to various uncertainties and complexities including how trials, post-trial motions, possible appeals with respect to the validity of the release, and any rulings on the merits will be resolved. The below shareholder derivative action is disclosed pursuant to SEC disclosure requirements for these types of matters, and the putative class action has been disclosed because both matters involve similar allegations. On August 3, 2017, a plaintiff alleging to be a stockholder in the Company filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the Circuit Court for Cook County, Chancery Division. The action is styled Biefeldt v. Wilson, et al., Case No. 2017 CH 10676 (Cook County, Ill.). In the complaint, plaintiff purports to assert claims on behalf of the Company for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty based on allegations that are similar to those asserted in the securities action described below. The complaint names as defendants the Company’s chairman and chief executive officer, its president, its chief financial officer and the members of the board of directors during the period of the alleged misstatements or omissions regarding auto claims frequency. By agreement, the time to respond to the complaint has been extended through and including November 13, 2017. The complaint seeks, on behalf of the Company, an unspecified amount of damages and various forms of equitable relief. In November 2016, a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company and several of its officers asserting claims under the federal securities laws. The action is titled In re The Allstate Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 1:16-cv-10510 (N.D. Ill.). In March 2017, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. In the complaint, 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 during the period from October 29, 2014 to August 3, 2015. The complaint further alleges that a senior officer engaged in stock option exercises and sales during that time allegedly while in possession of information about claim frequency that had not been disclosed. The consolidated amended complaint names as defendants the Company, its chairman and chief executive officer and its president. Plaintiffs assert claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On June 1, 2017, all defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint for failure to state a claim. Briefing on the motion was completed in September 2017. The Company and the other defendants dispute plaintiffs’ allegations that there was any misstatement or omission or other misconduct. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, costs and attorney’s fees and such other relief as the court deems appropriate. Asbestos and environmental Allstate’s reserves for asbestos claims were $908 million and $912 million, net of reinsurance recoverables of $428 million and $444 million, as of September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively. Reserves for environmental claims were $175 million and $179 million, net of reinsurance recoverables of $35 million and $40 million, as of September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively. 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.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | all_GuaranteesAndContingentLiabilitiesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | all_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments, contingencies, and guarantees. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2155896 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsContingenciesAndGuaranteesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration