XML 34 R21.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.22.2

Contingencies, Commitments and Guarantees | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Contingencies, Commitments and Guarantees | 14. Contingencies, Commitments and Guarantees Contingencies Litigation The Company is a defendant in a large number of litigation matters. Putative or certified class action litigation and other litigation and claims and assessments against the Company, in addition to those discussed below and those otherwise provided for in the Company’s interim condensed consolidated financial statements, have arisen in the course of the Company’s business, including, but not limited to, in connection with its activities as an insurer, mortgage lending bank, employer, investor, investment advisor, broker-dealer, and taxpayer. The Company also receives and responds to subpoenas or other inquiries seeking a broad range of information from state regulators, including state insurance commissioners; state attorneys general or other state governmental authorities; federal regulators, including the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission; federal governmental authorities, including congressional committees; and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, as well as from local and national regulators and government authorities in jurisdictions outside the United States where the Company conducts business. The issues involved in information requests and regulatory matters vary widely, but can include inquiries or investigations concerning the Company’s compliance with applicable insurance and other laws and regulations. The Company cooperates in these inquiries. It is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of all pending investigations and legal proceedings. The Company establishes liabilities for litigation and regulatory loss contingencies when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Liabilities have been established for a number of the matters noted below. In certain circumstances where liabilities have been established there may be coverage under one or more corporate insurance policies, pursuant to which there may be an insurance recovery. Insurance recoveries are recognized as gains when any contingencies relating to the insurance claim have been resolved, which is the earlier of when the gains are realized or realizable. It is possible that some of the matters could require the Company to pay damages or make other expenditures or establish accruals in amounts that could not be reasonably estimated at June 30, 2022. While the potential future charges could be material in the particular quarterly or annual periods in which they are recorded, based on information currently known to management, management does not believe any such charges are likely to have a material effect on the Company’s financial position. Given the large and/or indeterminate amounts sought in certain of these matters and the inherent unpredictability of litigation, it is possible that an adverse outcome in certain matters could, from time to time, have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated net income or cash flows in particular quarterly or annual periods. Matters as to Which an Estimate Can Be Made For some of the matters disclosed below, the Company is able to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss. For matters where a loss is believed to be reasonably possible, but not probable, the Company has not made an accrual. As of June 30, 2022, the Company estimates the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses in excess of amounts accrued for these matters to be $0 to $100 million. Matters as to Which an Estimate Cannot Be Made For other matters disclosed below, the Company is not currently able to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss. The Company is often unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss until developments in such matters have provided sufficient information to support an assessment of the range of possible loss, such as quantification of a damage demand from plaintiffs, discovery from other parties and investigation of factual allegations, rulings by the court on motions or appeals, analysis by experts, and the progress of settlement negotiations. On a quarterly and annual basis, the Company reviews relevant information with respect to litigation contingencies and updates its accruals, disclosures and estimates of reasonably possible losses or ranges of loss based on such reviews. Asbestos-Related Claims MLIC is and has been a defendant in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts. These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages. MLIC has never engaged in the business of manufacturing or selling asbestos-containing products, nor has MLIC issued liability or workers’ compensation insurance to companies in the business of manufacturing or selling asbestos-containing products. The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with respect to certain research, publication and other activities of one or more of MLIC’s employees during the period from the 1920s through approximately the 1950s and allege that MLIC learned or should have learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among other things, improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health risks. MLIC believes that it should not have legal liability in these cases. The outcome of most asbestos litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can be impacted by numerous variables, including differences in legal rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims asserted against MLIC. MLIC’s defenses include that: (i) MLIC owed no duty to the plaintiffs; (ii) plaintiffs did not rely on any actions of MLIC; (iii) MLIC’s conduct was not the cause of the plaintiffs’ injuries; and (iv) plaintiffs’ exposure occurred after the dangers of asbestos were known. During the course of the litigation, certain trial courts have granted motions dismissing claims against MLIC, while other trial courts have denied MLIC’s motions. There can be no assurance that MLIC will receive favorable decisions on motions in the future. While most cases brought to date have settled, MLIC intends to continue to defend aggressively against claims based on asbestos exposure, including defending claims at trials. As reported in the 2021 Annual Report, MLIC received approximately 2,824 asbestos-related claims in 2021. For the six months ended June 30, 2022 and 2021, MLIC received approximately 1,319 and 1,304 new asbestos-related claims, respectively. See Note 21 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in the 2021 Annual Report for historical information concerning asbestos claims and MLIC’s update in its recorded liability at December 31, 2021. The number of asbestos cases that may be brought, the aggregate amount of any liability that MLIC may incur, and the total amount paid in settlements in any given year are uncertain and may vary significantly from year to year. The ability of MLIC to estimate its ultimate asbestos exposure is subject to considerable uncertainty, and the conditions impacting its liability can be dynamic and subject to change. The availability of reliable data is limited and it is difficult to predict the numerous variables that can affect liability estimates, including the number of future claims, the cost to resolve claims, the disease mix and severity of disease in pending and future claims, the willingness of courts to allow plaintiffs to pursue claims against MLIC when exposure to asbestos took place after the dangers of asbestos exposure were well known, and the impact of any possible future adverse verdicts and their amounts. The ability to make estimates regarding ultimate asbestos exposure declines significantly as the estimates relate to years further in the future. In the Company’s judgment, there is a future point after which losses cease to be probable and reasonably estimable. It is reasonably possible that the Company’s total exposure to asbestos claims may be materially greater than the asbestos liability currently accrued and that future charges to income may be necessary, but management does not believe any such charges are likely to have a material effect on the Company’s financial position. The Company believes adequate provision has been made in its interim condensed consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably estimable losses for asbestos-related claims. MLIC’s recorded asbestos liability covers pending claims, claims not yet asserted, and legal defense costs and is based on estimates and includes significant assumptions underlying its analysis. MLIC reevaluates on a quarterly and annual basis its exposure from asbestos litigation, including studying its claims experience, reviewing external literature regarding asbestos claims experience in the United States, assessing relevant trends impacting asbestos liability and considering numerous variables that can affect its asbestos liability exposure on an overall or per claim basis. Based upon its regular reevaluation of its exposure from asbestos litigation, MLIC has updated its liability analysis for asbestos-related claims through June 30, 2022. Julian & McKinney v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (S.D.N.Y., filed February 9, 2017) Plaintiffs filed this putative class and collective action on behalf of themselves and all current and former long-term disability (“LTD”) claims specialists between February 2011 and the present for alleged wage and hour violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), the New York Labor Law, and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act. The suit alleges that MLIC improperly reclassified the plaintiffs and similarly situated LTD claims specialists from non-exempt to exempt from overtime pay in November 2013. As a result, they and members of the putative class were no longer eligible for overtime pay even though they allege they continued to work more than 40 hours per week. Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, as well as other relief. On June 29, 2022, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entered an offer of judgment disposing of the FLSA claims in exchange for a $3,000 payment to plaintiffs by MLIC. The parties entered into an agreement to settle the remaining state law claims, and on July 15, 2022, the court entered a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice disposing of those claims. MLIC has accrued the full amount of the settlement payments in prior periods. Total Asset Recovery Services, LLC. v. MetLife, Inc., et al. (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, filed December 27, 2017) Total Asset Recovery Services (the “Relator”) brought an action under the qui tam provision of the New York False Claims Act (the “Act”) on behalf of itself and the Sta te of New York. The Relator originally filed this action under seal in 2010, and the complaint was unsealed on December 19, 2017. The Relator alleges that MetLife, Inc., MLIC, and several other insurance companies violated the Act by filing false unclaimed property reports with the State of New York from 1986 to 2017, to avoid having to escheat the proceeds of more than 25,000 life insurance policies, including policies for which the defendants escheated funds as part of their demutualizations in the late 1990s. The Relator seeks treble damages and other relief. The Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court, First Department, reversed the court’s order granting MetLife, Inc. and MLIC’s motion to dismiss and remanded the case to the trial court where the Relator has filed an amended complaint. The Company intends to defend the action vigorously. Matters Related to Group Annuity Benefits and Assumed Variable Annuity Guarantee Reserves In 2018, the Company announced that it identified two material weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting related to the practices and procedures for estimating reserves for certain group annuity benefits and the calculation of reserves associated with certain variable annuity guarantees assumed from the former operating joint venture in Japan. Several regulators have made inquiries into these issues and it is possible that other jurisdictions may pursue similar investigations or inquiries. The Company is exposed to lawsuits, and could be exposed to additional legal actions relating to these issues. These may result in payments, including damages, fines, penalties, interest and other amounts assessed or awarded by courts or regulatory authorities under applicable escheat, tax, securities, Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, or other laws or regulations. The Company could incur significant costs in connection with these actions. Derivative Demands The MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors received six letters, dated March 28, 2018, May 11, 2018, July 16, 2018, December 20, 2018, February 5, 2019, and April 7, 2020, written on behalf of individual stockholders, demanding that MetLife, Inc. take action against current and former directors and officers for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and/or investigate, remediate, and recover damages allegedly suffered by the Company as a result of (i) the Company’s allegedly inadequate practices and procedures for estimating reserves for certain group annuity benefits, (ii) the Company’s allegedly inadequate internal controls over financial reporting and corporate governance practices and procedures, and (iii) the alleged dissemination of false or misleading information related to these issues. The MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors appointed a special committee to investigate the allegations set forth in these six letters. Commitments Mortgage Loan Commitments The Company commits to lend funds under mortgage loan commitments. The amounts of these mortgage loan commitments were $4.7 billion and $4.6 billion at June 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021, respectively. Commitments to Fund Partnership Investments, Bank Credit Facilities, Bridge Loans and Private Corporate Bond Investments The Company commits to fund partnership investments and to lend funds under bank credit facilities, bridge loans and private corporate bond investments. The amounts of these unfunded commitments were $9.8 billion and $9.1 billion at June 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021, respectively. Guarantees In the normal course of its business, the Company has provided certain indemnities, guarantees and commitments to third parties such that it may be required to make payments now or in the future. In the context of acquisition, disposition, investment and other transactions, the Company has provided indemnities and guarantees, including those related to tax, environmental and other specific liabilities and other indemnities and guarantees that are triggered by, among other things, breaches of representations, warranties or covenants provided by the Company. In addition, in the normal course of business, the Company provides indemnifications to counterparties in contracts with triggers similar to the foregoing, as well as for certain other liabilities, such as third-party lawsuits. These obligations are often subject to time limitations that vary in duration, including contractual limitations and those that arise by operation of law, such as applicable statutes of limitation. In some cases, the maximum potential obligation under the indemnities and guarantees is subject to a contractual limitation ranging from less than $1 million to $329 million, with a cumulative maximum of $629 million, while in other cases such limitations are not specified or applicable. Since certain of these obligations are not subject to limitations, the Company does not believe that it is possible to determine the maximum potential amount that could become due under these guarantees in the future. Management believes that it is unlikely the Company will have to make any material payments under these indemnities, guarantees, or commitments. In addition, the Company indemnifies its directors and officers as provided in its charters and by-laws. Also, the Company indemnifies its agents for liabilities incurred as a result of their representation of the Company’s interests. Since these indemnities are generally not subject to limitation with respect to duration or amount, the Company does not believe that it is possible to determine the maximum potential amount that could become due under these indemnities in the future. The Company also has minimum fund yield requirements on certain pension funds. Since these guarantees are not subject to limitation with respect to duration or amount, the Company does not believe that it is possible to determine the maximum potential amount that could become due under these guarantees in the future. The Company’s recorded liabilities were $20 million at both June 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021, for indemnities, guarantees and commitments.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
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/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 3: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2155896 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsContingenciesAndGuaranteesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration