XML 39 R21.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.21.2

Guarantees and Contingent Liabilities | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2021
Guarantees and Contingent Liabilities |
Guarantees and Contingent Liabilities |
Note 13 | 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. The Company routinely reviews its exposure to assessments from these plans, facilities and government programs. Underwriting results related to these arrangements, which tend to be adverse, have been immaterial to the Company’s results of operations in the last two years. Because of the Company’s participation, it may be exposed to losses that surpass the capitalization of these facilities or assessments from these facilities. Guarantees 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, 2021. 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 agency and broker compensation, regulate the nature of and amount of investments, impose fines and penalties for unintended errors or mistakes, impose additional regulations regarding cybersecurity and privacy, 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, international agencies, and other organizations, including but not limited to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, 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 $85 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 managing various disputes in Florida that raise challenges to the Company’s practices, processes, and procedures relating to claims for personal injury protection benefits under Florida auto policies. Medical providers continue to pursue litigation under various theories that challenge the amounts that the Company pays under the personal injury protection coverage, seeking additional benefit payments, as well as applicable interest, penalties and fees. There is a pending class action, Revival Chiropractic v. Allstate Insurance Company, et al. (M.D. Fla. filed January 2019; appeal pending, 11th Circuit Court of Appeals), where the court denied class certification and plaintiff’s request to file a renewed motion for class certification. The Company is also defending litigation involving individual plaintiffs. The Company is defending putative class actions in various courts that raise challenges to the Company’s depreciation practices in homeowner property claims. In these lawsuits, plaintiffs generally allege that, when calculating actual cash value, the costs of “non-materials” such as labor, general contractor’s overhead and profit, and sales tax should not be subject to depreciation. The Company is currently defending the following lawsuits on this issue: Perry v. Allstate Indemnity Company, et al. (N.D. Ohio filed May 2016); Lado v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company (S.D. Ohio filed March 2020); Maniaci v. Allstate Insurance Company (N.D. Ohio filed March 2020); Ferguson-Luke et al. v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company (N.D. Ohio filed April 2020); Huey v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company (N.D. Miss. filed October 2019); Clark v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company (Circuit Court of Independence Co., Ark. filed February 2016); Thaxton v. Allstate Indemnity Company (Madison Co., Ill. filed July 2020); Hester v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company (St. Clair Co., Ill. filed June 2020); Mitchell, et al. v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company, et al. (S.D. Ala. filed August 2021). No classes have been certified in these matters. The Company is defending putative class actions pending in multiple states alleging that the Company underpays total loss vehicle physical damage claims on auto policies. The allegedly systematic underpayments result from one or more of the following theories: (a) the third party valuation tool used by the Company as part of a comprehensive adjustment process is allegedly flawed, biased, or contrary to applicable law; (b) the Company allegedly does not pay sales tax, title fees, registration fees, and/or other specified fees that are allegedly mandatory under policy language or state legal authority; or (c) after paying for the value of the loss vehicle, then the Company allegedly is not entitled to retain the residual salvage value, and the Company allegedly must pay salvage value to the owner (or if the loss vehicle is retained by the owner, then the Company allegedly may not apply any offset for the salvage value). The following cases are currently pending against the Company: Olberg v. Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, and CCC Information Services, Inc. (W.D. Wash., filed April 2018); Bloomgarden v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company (S.D. Fla., filed July 2018, dismissed August 2019, refiled on September 2019, remanded to 17th Judicial Circuit, Broward County October 2020); Erby v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company (E.D. Pa., filed October 2018); Kronenberg v. Allstate Insurance Company and Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company (E.D. N.Y., filed December 2018); Durgin v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company (W.D. LA, filed June 7, 2019); Anderson v. Allstate Insurance Company (20th Judicial Circuit, Collier County, Fla.; filed August 2019); Cody v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company and Allstate County Mutual Insurance Company (N.D. Tex., filed August 2019); Saad v. National General Insurance Company (Superior Ct., Los Angeles County, Cal.; filed May 2020); Williams v. Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company (C.D. Cal,; filed September 2020); Cotton v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company (Cir. Ct. of Cook County, Chancery Div., Ill.; filed October 2020); Romaniak v. Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company (N.D. Ohio, filed December 2020); Rawlins v. Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company (E.D. Missouri; filed February 2021). None of the courts in any of the pending matters has ruled on class certification. Other proceedings The Company is defending against an investigatory hearing before the California Insurance Commissioner concerning the private passenger automobile insurance rating practices of Allstate Insurance Company and Allstate Indemnity Company in California. The investigatory hearing is captioned: In the Matter of the Rating Practices of Allstate Insurance Company and Allstate Indemnity Company. Pursuant to the Notice of Hearing issued by the California Insurance Commissioner, the California Insurance Commissioner is investigating: (1) whether Allstate has potentially violated California insurance law by using illegal price optimization; (2) how Allstate implemented any such potentially illegal price optimization in its private passenger auto insurance rates and/or class plans; and (3) how such potentially illegal price optimization impacted Allstate’s private passenger auto insurance policyholders. Fact discovery has been completed in the investigatory hearing and an administrative hearing is scheduled to begin on May 10, 2022. The stockholder derivative actions described below are disclosed pursuant to SEC disclosure requirements for these types of matters. The putative class action alleging violations of the federal securities laws is disclosed because it involves similar allegations to those made in the stockholder derivative actions. Biefeldt / IBEW Consolidated Action. Two separately filed stockholder derivative actions have been consolidated into a single proceeding that is pending in the Circuit Court for Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division. The original complaint in the first-filed of those actions, Biefeldt v. Wilson, et al., was filed on August 3, 2017, in that court by a plaintiff alleging that she is a stockholder of the Company. On June 29, 2018, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss that complaint for failure to make a pre-suit demand on the Allstate Board but granted plaintiff permission to file an amended complaint. The original complaint in IBEW Local No. 98 Pension Fund v. Wilson, et al., was filed on April 12, 2018, in the same court by another plaintiff alleging to be a stockholder of the Company. After the court issued its dismissal decision in the Biefeldt action, plaintiffs agreed to consolidate the two actions and filed a consolidated amended complaint naming as defendants the Company’s chairman, president and chief executive officer, its former president, and certain present or former members of the board of directors. In that complaint, plaintiffs allege that the directors and officer defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company in connection with allegedly material misstatements or omissions concerning the Company’s automobile insurance claim frequency statistics and the reasons for a claim frequency increase for Allstate brand auto insurance between October 2014 and August 3, 2015. The factual allegations are substantially similar to those at issue in In re The Allstate Corp. Securities Litigation. Plaintiffs further allege that a senior officer and several outside directors engaged in stock option exercises allegedly while in possession of material nonpublic information. Plaintiffs seek, on behalf of the Company, an unspecified amount of damages and various forms of equitable relief. Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on September 24, 2018 for failure to make a demand on the Allstate Board. On May 14, 2019, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, but allowed plaintiffs leave to file a second consolidated amended complaint which they filed on September 17, 2019. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on November 1, 2019 for failure to make a demand on the Allstate Board. The court subsequently requested supplemental briefing on the motion which concluded on February 1, 2021. On February 24, 2021, the court dismissed the second amended consolidated complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on March 26, 2021 and the appeal will be fully briefed as of November 8, 2021. In Sundquist v. Wilso n, et al., another plaintiff alleging to be a stockholder of the Company filed a stockholder derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on May 21, 2018. Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of the Company, an unspecified amount of damages and various forms of equitable relief. The complaint names as defendants the Company’s chairman, president and chief executive officer, its former president, its former vice chairman, and certain present or former members of the board of directors. The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duty based on allegations similar to those asserted in In re The Allstate Corp. Securities Litigation as well as state law “misappropriation” claims based on stock option transactions by the Company’s chairman, president and chief executive officer, its former vice chairman, and certain members of the board of directors. Defendants moved to dismiss and/or stay the complaint on August 7, 2018. On December 4, 2018, the court granted defendants’ motion and stayed the case pending the final resolution of the consolidated Biefeldt/IBEW matter. Mims v. Wilson, et al., is an additional stockholder derivative action filed on February 12, 2020 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiff alleges that she previously made a demand on the Allstate board of directors and seeks, on behalf of the Company, an unspecified amount of damages and various forms of equitable relief. The complaint names as defendants the Company’s chairman, president and chief executive officer, its former president, its former vice chairman, and certain present or former members of the board of directors. The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment based on allegations similar to those asserted in In re The Allstate Corp. Securities Litigation. On February 20, 2020, the Allstate board of directors appointed a special committee to investigate the allegations in plaintiff’s demand. The Company moved to dismiss the complaint on August 24, 2020 and on December 8, 2020, the court granted defendants’ motion, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. On January 5, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion to alter the judgment and requested leave to file an amended complaint and defendants opposed the motion. On February 10, 2021, the court denied plaintiff’s motion to alter the judgment. No appeal was filed. In re The Allstate Corp. Securities Litigation is a certified class action filed on November 11, 2016 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company and two of its officers asserting claims under the federal securities laws. Plaintiffs allege that they purchased Allstate common stock during the class period and suffered damages as the result of the conduct alleged. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages, costs, attorney’s fees, and other relief as the court deems appropriate. 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 between October 2014 and August 3, 2015. Plaintiffs further allege that a senior officer engaged in stock option exercises during that time allegedly while in possession of material nonpublic information about Allstate brand auto insurance claim frequency. The Company, its chairman, president and chief executive officer, and its former president are the named defendants. After the court denied their motion to dismiss on February 27, 2018, defendants answered the complaint, denying plaintiffs’ allegations that there was any misstatement or omission or other misconduct. On June 22, 2018, plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. The court allowed the lead plaintiffs to amend their complaint to add the City of Providence Employee Retirement System as a proposed class representative and on September 12, 2018, the amended complaint was filed. On March 26, 2019, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and certified a class consisting of all persons who purchased Allstate common stock between October 29, 2014 and August 3, 2015. On April 9, 2019, defendants filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit a petition for permission to appeal this ruling and the Seventh Circuit granted that petition on April 25, 2019. On July 16, 2020, the Seventh Circuit vacated the class certification order and remanded the matter for further consideration by the district court. Discovery in this matter concluded on October 5, 2020. On December 21, 2020, the district court again granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and certified a class consisting of all persons who purchased Allstate common stock between October 29, 2014 and August 3, 2015. On January 4, 2021, defendants filed with the Seventh Circuit a petition for permission to appeal this ruling. The petition was denied on January 28, 2021. The parties concluded briefing Daubert motions on April 22, 2021. The Company is defending two putative class actions in California federal court, Holland Hewitt v. Allstate Life Insurance Company (E.D. Cal., filed May 2020) and Farley v. Lincoln Benefit Life Compan y (E.D. Cal., filed Dec. 2020), where the plaintiffs generally allege that the defendants failed to comply with certain California statutes which address contractual grace periods and lapse notice requirements for certain life insurance policies. Plaintiffs claim that these statutes apply to life insurance policies that existed before the statutes’ effective date. The plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief. No classes have been certified in these matters. In August 2021, the California Supreme Court in McHugh v. Protective Life, a matter involving another insurer, determined that the statutory notice requirements apply to life insurance policies issued before the statutes’ effective date. In continuing to defend these matters, the Company maintains various defenses to the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims and to class certification.

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://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2155896 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 3: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsContingenciesAndGuaranteesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration