XML 82 R22.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.22.4

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | 14. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIESManagement evaluates each contingent matter separately. A loss is recorded if probable and reasonably estimable. Management establishes liabilities for these contingencies at its “best estimate,” or, if no one number within the range of possible losses is more probable than any other, the Company records an estimated liability at the low end of the range of losses. The Hartford is involved in claims litigation arising in the ordinary course of business, both as a liability insurer defending or providing indemnity for third-party claims brought against insureds and as an insurer defending coverage claims brought against it. The Hartford accounts for such activity through the establishment of unpaid loss and loss adjustment expense reserves. Subject to the uncertainties related to sexual molestation and sexual abuse claims discussed in Note 11, Reserve for Unpaid Losses and Loss Adjustment Expenses, and in the following discussion under the caption “COVID-19 Pandemic Business Income Insurance Litigation” and under the caption “Run-off Asbestos and Environmental Claims,” management expects that the ultimate liability, if any, with respect to such ordinary-course claims litigation, after consideration of provisions made for potential losses and costs of defense, will not be material to the consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows of The Hartford. The Hartford is also involved in other kinds of legal actions, some of which assert claims for substantial amounts. In addition to the matter described below, these actions include putative class actions seeking certification of a state or national class. Such putative class actions have alleged, for example, underpayment of claims or improper sales or underwriting practices in connection with various kinds of insurance policies, such as personal and commercial automobile, property, disability, and life. The Hartford also is involved in individual actions in which punitive damages are sought, such as claims alleging bad faith in the handling of insurance claims or other allegedly unfair or improper business practices. Like many other insurers, The Hartford also has been joined in actions by asbestos plaintiffs asserting, among other things, that insurers had a duty to protect the public from the dangers of asbestos and that insurers committed unfair trade practices by asserting defenses on behalf of their policyholders in the underlying asbestos cases. Management expects that the ultimate liability, if any, with respect to such lawsuits, after consideration of provisions made for estimated losses, will not be material to the consolidated financial condition of The Hartford. Nonetheless, given the large or indeterminate amounts sought in certain of these actions, and the inherent unpredictability of litigation, the outcome in certain matters could, from time to time, have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations or cash flows in particular quarterly or annual periods. COVID-19 Pandemic Business Income Insurance Litigation Like many others in the property and casualty insurance industry, beginning in April 2020, various direct and indirect subsidiaries of the Company (collectively the "Hartford Writing Companies”), and in some instances the Company itself, have been served as defendants in lawsuits seeking insurance coverage under commercial insurance policies issued by the Hartford Writing Companies for alleged losses resulting from the shutdown or suspension of their businesses due to the spread of COVID-19. More than 300 such lawsuits have been filed, of which more than 60 purport to be filed on behalf of broad nationwide or statewide classes of policyholders. These lawsuits have been filed in state and federal courts in roughly 35 states. Although the allegations vary, the plaintiffs generally seek a declaration of insurance coverage, damages for breach of contract in unspecified amounts, interest, and attorneys' fees. Many of the lawsuits also allege that the insurance claims were denied in bad faith or otherwise in violation of state laws and seek extra-contractual or punitive damages. Some of the lawsuits also allege that the Hartford Writing Companies engaged in unfair business practices by collecting or retaining excess premium. The Company and its subsidiaries deny the allegations and continue to vigorously defend these suits. The Hartford Writing Companies maintain that they have no coverage obligations with respect to these suits for business income allegedly lost by the plaintiffs due to the COVID-19 pandemic based on the clear terms of the applicable insurance policies. Although the policy terms vary depending, among other things, upon the size, nature, and location of the policyholder’s business, in general, the claims at issue in these lawsuits were denied because the claimant identified no direct physical damage or loss to property at the insured premises, and the governmental orders that led to the complete or partial shutdown of the business were not due to the existence of any direct physical damage or loss in the immediate vicinity of the insured premises and did not prohibit access to the insured premises, as required by the terms of the insurance policies. In addition, the vast majority of the policies at issue expressly exclude from coverage any loss caused directly or indirectly by the presence, growth, proliferation, spread or activity of a virus, subject to a narrow set of exceptions not applicable in connection with this pandemic, and contain a pollution and contamination exclusion that, among other things, expressly excludes from coverage any loss caused by material that threatens human health or welfare. In addition to the inherent difficulty in predicting litigation outcomes, the COVID-19 pandemic business income coverage lawsuits present numerous uncertainties and contingencies that are not yet fully known, including how many additional claims or lawsuits could be filed, the extent to which any state or nationwide classes will be certified, and the size and scope of any such classes. The legal theories advocated by plaintiffs vary significantly by case as do the state laws that govern the policy interpretation. These lawsuits are at various stages of litigation: some are in the earliest stages of litigation, some complaints may be amended, some have been dismissed voluntarily and may be refiled, while many have been dismissed through rulings in favor of the Hartford Writing Companies. Discovery is underway in certain single plaintiff cases and class actions. More than 60 policyholders have appealed dismissals in favor of the Hartford Writing Companies. To date, The Hartford Writing Companies have received fourteen appellate affirmances of trial court decisions in the Hartford Writing Companies' favor, including decisions from the Second, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeal, as well as from one state supreme court and two state appellate courts. The remainder of the Hartford Writing Companies' appeals are at various stages of the appellate process or have been remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. In addition, business income calculations depend upon a wide range of factors that are particular to the circumstances of each individual policyholder and, here, almost none of the plaintiffs have submitted proofs of loss or otherwise quantified or factually supported any allegedly covered loss, and, in any event, the Company’s experience shows that demands for damages often bear little relation to a reasonable estimate of potential loss. Accordingly, management cannot now reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any. Nonetheless, given the large number of claims and potential claims, the indeterminate amounts sought, and the inherent unpredictability of litigation, it is possible that adverse outcomes, if any, in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated operating results or liquidity. Run-off Asbestos and Environmental Claims The Company continues to receive A&E claims. Asbestos claims relate primarily to bodily injuries asserted by people who came in contact with asbestos or products containing asbestos. Environmental claims relate primarily to pollution and related clean-up costs. The vast majority of the Company's exposure to A&E relates to Run-off A&E reported within the P&C Other Operations segment. In addition, since 1986, the Company has written asbestos and environmental exposures under general liability policies and pollution liability under homeowners policies, which are reported in the Commercial Lines and Personal Lines segments, respectively. Prior to 1986, the Company wrote several different categories of insurance contracts that may cover A&E claims. First, the Company wrote primary policies providing the first layer of coverage in an insured’s liability program. Second, the Company wrote excess and umbrella policies providing higher layers of coverage for losses that exhaust the limits of underlying coverage. Third, the Company acted as a reinsurer assuming a portion of those risks assumed by other insurers writing primary, excess, umbrella and reinsurance coverages. Significant uncertainty limits the ability of insurers and reinsurers to estimate the ultimate reserves necessary for unpaid gross losses and expenses related to environmental and asbestos claims. The degree of variability of gross reserve estimates for these exposures is significantly greater than for other more traditional exposures. In the case of the reserves for asbestos exposures, factors contributing to the high degree of uncertainty include inadequate loss development patterns, plaintiffs’ expanding theories of liability, the risks inherent in major litigation, and inconsistent and emerging legal doctrines with respect to the underlying claims and with respect to the Company's coverage obligations. Furthermore, over time, insurers, including the Company, have experienced significant changes in the rate at which asbestos claims are brought, the claims experience of particular insureds, and the value of claims, making predictions of future exposure from past experience uncertain. Plaintiffs and insureds also have sought to use bankruptcy proceedings, including “pre-packaged” bankruptcies, to accelerate and increase loss payments by insurers. In addition, some policyholders have asserted new classes of claims for coverages to which an aggregate limit of liability may not apply. Further uncertainties include insolvencies of other carriers, insolvencies of insureds and unanticipated developments pertaining to the Company’s ability to recover reinsurance for A&E claims. Management believes these issues are not likely to be resolved in the near future. In the case of the reserves for environmental exposures, factors contributing to the high degree of uncertainty include expanding theories of liability and damages against insureds, emerging risks such as per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), the risks inherent in major litigation, inconsistent and emerging legal doctrines concerning the existence and scope of coverage for environmental claims, and the scope and level of complexity of the remediation required by regulators. The reporting pattern for assumed reinsurance claims, including those related to A&E claims, is much longer than for direct claims. In many instances, it takes months or years to determine that the policyholder’s own obligations have been met and how the reinsurance in question may apply to such claims. The delay in reporting reinsurance claims and exposures adds to the uncertainty of estimating the related reserves. It is also not possible to predict changes in the legal and legislative environment and their effect on the future development of A&E claims. Given the factors described above, the Company believes the actuarial tools and other techniques it employs to estimate the ultimate cost of claims for more traditional kinds of insurance exposure are less precise in estimating reserves for A&E exposures. For this reason, the Company principally relies on exposure-based analysis to estimate the ultimate costs of these claims, both gross and net of reinsurance, and regularly evaluates new account information in assessing its potential A&E exposures. The Company supplements this exposure-based analysis with evaluations of the Company’s historical direct net loss and expense paid and reported experience, and net loss and expense paid and reported experience by calendar and/or report year, to assess any emerging trends, fluctuations or characteristics suggested by the aggregate paid and reported activity. While the Company believes that its current A&E reserves are appropriate, significant uncertainties limit the ability of insurers and reinsurers to estimate the ultimate reserves necessary for unpaid losses and related expenses. The ultimate liabilities, thus, could exceed the currently recorded reserves, and any such additional liability, while not estimable now, could be material to The Hartford’s consolidated operating results or liquidity. For its Run-off A&E, a s of December 31, 2022, the Company reported $390 of net asbestos and environmental reserves, including the benefit of losses ceded to the A&E ADC. In addition, the Company has recorded a $594 deferred gain within other liabilities for losses economically ceded to NICO but for which the benefit is not recognized in earnings until later periods. While the Company believes that its current run-off A&E reserves are appropriate, significant uncertainties limit our ability to estimate the ultimate reserves necessary for unpaid losses and related expenses. The ultimate liabilities, thus, could exceed the currently recorded reserves, and any such additional liability, while not reasonably estimable now, could be material to The Hartford's consolidated operating results or liquidity. The Company’s A&E ADC reinsurance agreement with NICO reinsures substantially all A&E reserve development for 2016 and prior accident years, including Run-off A&E and A&E reserves included in Commercial Lines and Personal Lines. The A&E ADC has a coverage limit of $1.5 billion above the Company’s existing net A&E reserves as of December 31, 2016 of approximately $1.7 billion. As of December 31, 2022, the Company has incurred $1,244 in cumulative adverse development on A&E reserves that have been ceded under the A&E ADC treaty with NICO, leaving $256 of coverage available for future adverse net reserve development, if any. Cumulative adverse development of A&E claims for accident years 2016 and prior could ultimately exceed the $1.5 billion treaty limit in which case any adverse development in excess of the treaty limit would be absorbed as a charge to earnings by the Company. In these scenarios, the effect of these charges could be material to the Company’s consolidated operating results or liquidity. For more information on the A&E ADC, refer to Note 11, Reserve for Unpaid Losses and Loss Adjustment Expenses Unfunded Commitments As of December 31, 2022, the Company has outstanding commitments totaling $2.8 billion, of which $2.1 billion is primarily committed to fund limited partnerships and other alternative investments, which may be called by the partnership during the commitment period to fund the purchase of new investments and partnership expenses. The funding of purchase investments in limited partnerships and other alternative investments are at the discretion of the general partner or manager and may be called at any time. Additionally, $335 of the outstanding commitments relate to various funding obligations primarily associated with private debt. The remaining outstanding commitments of $351 relate to mortgage loans. Of the $2.8 billion in total outstanding commitments, $66 are related to mortgage loan commitments which the Company can cancel unconditionally. Guaranty Funds and Other Insurance-related Assessments In all states, insurers licensed to transact certain classes of insurance are required to become members of a guaranty fund. In most states, in the event of the insolvency of an insurer writing any such class of insurance in the state, the guaranty funds may assess its members to pay covered claims of the insolvent insurers. Assessments are based on each member's proportionate share of written premiums in the state for the classes of insurance in which the insolvent insurer was engaged. Assessments are generally limited for any year to one or two percent of the premiums written per year depending on the state. Some states permit member insurers to recover assessments paid through surcharges on policyholders or through full or partial premium tax offsets, while other states permit recovery of assessments through the rate filing process. Liabilities for guaranty fund and other insurance-related assessments are accrued when an assessment is probable, when it can be reasonably estimated, and when the event obligating the Company to pay an imposed or probable assessment has occurred. Liabilities for guaranty funds and other insurance-related assessments are not discounted and are included as part of other liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. As of December 31, 2022 and 2021 the liability balance was $82 and $74, respectively. As of December 31, 2022 and 2021, there were $1 and $0 of premium tax offsets related to guaranty fund or other insurance-related assessments. Derivative Commitments Certain of the Company’s derivative agreements contain provisions that are tied to the financial strength ratings, as set by nationally recognized statistical agencies, of the individual legal entity that entered into the derivative agreement. If the legal entity’s financial strength were to fall below certain ratings, the counterparties to the derivative agreements could, in certain instances, terminate the agreements and demand immediate settlement of all outstanding derivative positions traded under each impacted bilateral agreement. The settlement amount is determined by netting the derivative positions transacted under each agreement. If the termination rights were to be exercised by the counterparties, it could impact the legal entity’s ability to conduct hedging activities by increasing the associated costs and decreasing the willingness of counterparties to transact with the legal entity. The aggregate fair value of all derivative instruments with credit-risk-related contingent features that are in a net liability position as of December 31, 2022 was $8 for which the legal entities have posted collateral of $8 in the normal course of business. Based on derivative contractual terms as of December 31, 2022, a downgrade of the current financial strength ratings by either Moody's or S&P would not require additional assets to be posted as collateral. This requirement could change as a result of changes in our hedging activities or to the extent changes in contractual terms are negotiated. The nature of the additional collateral that we would post, if required, would be primarily in the form of U.S. Treasury bills, U.S. Treasury notes and government agency securities. Guarantees In the ordinary course of selling businesses or entities to third parties, the Company has agreed to indemnify purchasers for losses arising subsequent to the closing due to breaches of representations and warranties with respect to the business or entity being sold or with respect to covenants and obligations of the Company and/or its subsidiaries. These obligations are typically subject to various time limitations, defined by the contract or by operation of law, such as statutes of limitation. In some cases, the maximum potential obligation is subject to contractual limitations, while in other cases such limitations are not specified or applicable. The Company does not expect to make any material payments on these guarantees and is not carrying any material liabilities associated with these guarantees. The Hartford has guaranteed the timely payment of contractual claims under certain life, accident and health and annuity contracts issued by its former life and annuity business with most of the guaranteed contracts issued between 1990 and 1997 (the "Talcott Guarantees"). Upon the sale of the life and annuity business in May 2018, the purchaser indemnified the Company for any liability arising under the guarantees. The Talcott Guarantees cover contractual obligations only but otherwise have no limitation as to maximum potential future payments. Prior to January 1, 2020, the Company had not recorded a liability because the likelihood of any payment under the Talcott Guarantees is remote. Upon adoption of new credit loss guidance on January 1, 2020, the Company estimated a LCL of $25. For further information refer to Note 1 - Basis of Presentation and Significant Accounting Policies. The LCL for Talcott Guarantees is calculated for the estimated amount payable under guaranteed contracts multiplied by the probability of default and the amount of loss given a default. The probability of default is assigned by credit rating of the applicable insurance company that issued the contract and is based on historical insurance industry defaults for liabilities with similar durations estimated through multiple economic cycles. Credit ratings are current and forward-looking and consider a variety of economic outcomes. Because annuities represent the majority of the contracts issued, the loss given default factors are based on a historical study of annuity policyholder recoveries from insolvent estate assets. The Company's exposure is expected to run off over a period that will include more than one economic cycle. The Company's evaluation of the required LCL for the Talcott Guarantees considers the current economic environment as well as macroeconomic scenarios similar to the approach used to estimate the ACL for mortgage loans. See Note 5 - Investments. In 2020, the LCL increased to $26 primarily due to the increasing impacts of COVID-19. In 2021, the LCL decreased to $25 primarily reflecting a decrease in the estimated amount payable under guaranteed contracts as well as lessening expected impacts of COVID-19 relative to prior assumptions. During 2022, the LCL decreased to $22 primarily reflecting a decrease in the estimated amount payable under guaranteed contracts. The Company has never experienced a loss on financial guarantees similar to the Talcott Guarantees and we believe the risk of loss is remote.

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 and contingencies. + References Reference 1: 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 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration