XML 22 R11.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.21.2

Summary of Reserve for Title Claim Losses | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2021
Insurance [Abstract] |
Summary of Reserve for Title Claim Losses | Summary of Reserve for Title Claim Losses A summary of the reserve for title claim losses follows:
| Six months ended June 30,
| 2021 |  | 2020
| (Dollars in millions)
Beginning balance | $ | 1,623 |  |  | $ | 1,509 |
Change in insurance recoverable | (22) |  |  | (1) |
Claim loss provision related to: |  |  |
Current year | 178 |  |  | 119 |
Prior years | — |  |  | — |
Total title claim loss provision | 178 |  |  | 119 |
Claims paid, net of recoupments related to: |  |  |
Current year | (2) |  |  | (2) |
Prior years | (100) |  |  | (97) |
Total title claims paid, net of recoupments | (102) |  |  | (99) |
Ending balance of claim loss reserve for title insurance | $ | 1,677 |  |  | $ | 1,528 |
Provision for title insurance claim losses as a percentage of title insurance premiums | 4.5 | % |  | 4.5 | %
Several lawsuits have been filed by various parties against Chicago Title Company and Chicago Title Insurance Company as its alter ego (collectively, the “Named Companies”), among others. Generally, plaintiffs claim they are investors who were solicited by Gina Champion-Cain to provide funds that purportedly were to be used for high-interest, short-term loans to parties seeking to acquire California alcoholic beverage licenses. Plaintiffs contend that under California state law, alcoholic beverage license applicants are required to escrow an amount equal to the license purchase price while their applications remain pending with the State. Plaintiffs further alleged that employees of Chicago Title Company participated with Ms. Champion-Cain and her entities in a fraud scheme involving an escrow account maintained by Chicago Title Company into which the plaintiffs’ funds were deposited. The federal court continues to pursue court-ordered mediation with all remaining parties in an effort to fully resolve the claims related to this matter. The following lawsuits are pending in the Superior Court of San Diego County for the State of California. While they have not been consolidated into one action, they have been deemed by the court to be related and are assigned to the same judge for purposes of judicial economy. On December 13, 2019, a lawsuit styled, Kim Funding, LLC, Kim H. Peterson, Joseph J. Cohen, and ABC Funding Strategies, LLC v. Chicago Title Co., Chicago Title Ins. Co., Thomas Schwiebert, Adelle Ducharme, and Betty Elixman, was filed in San Diego County Superior Court. Plaintiffs claim losses of more than $250 million as a result of the alleged fraud scheme, and also seek statutory, treble, and punitive damages. The Named Companies have filed a cross-complaint against Ms. Champion-Cain, among others. A demurrer to the Named Companies’ cross-complaint has been filed and is set for hearing in November 2021. On March 6, 2020, a lawsuit styled, Wakefield Capital, LLC, Wakefield Investments, LLC, 2Budz Holding, LLC, Doug and Kristine Heidrich, and Jeff and Heidi Orr v. Chicago Title Co. and Chicago Title Ins. Co., was filed in San Diego County Superior Court. Plaintiffs claim losses in excess of $7 million as a result of the alleged fraud scheme, and also seek punitive damages, recovery of attorneys’ fees, and disgorgement. On June 29, 2020, a lawsuit styled, Susan Heller Fenley Separate Property Trust, DTD 03/04/2010, Susan Heller Fenley Inherited Roth IRA, Shelley Lynn Tarditi Trust and ROJ, LLC v. Chicago Title Co., Chicago Title Ins. Co., Thomas Schwiebert, Adelle Ducharme, and Betty Elixman, was filed in San Diego County Superior Court. Plaintiffs claim losses in excess of $6 million as a result of the alleged fraud scheme, and also seek statutory, treble, and punitive damages. The Named Companies have filed a cross-complaint against Ms. Champion-Cain, among others. A demurrer to the Named Companies’ cross-complaint has been filed and is set for hearing in November 2021. On June 29, 2020, a lawsuit styled, Yuan Yu and Polly Yu v. Chicago Title Co., Chicago Title Ins. Co., Thomas Schwiebert, Adelle Ducharme, and Betty Elixman, was filed in San Diego County Superior Court. Plaintiffs claim losses in excess of $1 million as a result of the alleged fraud scheme, and also seek statutory, treble, and punitive damages. The Named Companies have filed a cross-complaint against Ms. Champion-Cain, among others. A demurrer to the Named Companies’ cross-complaint has been filed and is set for hearing in November 2021. On July 7, 2020, a cross-claim styled, Laurie Peterson v. Chicago Title Co., Chicago Title Ins. Co., Thomas Schwiebert, Adelle Ducharme, and Betty Elixman, was filed in an existing lawsuit styled, Banc of California, National Association v. Laurie Peterson, which is pending in San Diego County Superior Court. Cross-complaint plaintiff was sued by a bank to recover in excess of $35 million that she allegedly guaranteed to repay for certain investments made by the Banc of California in the alcoholic beverage license scheme. Cross-complaint plaintiff has, in turn, sued the Named Companies in that action seeking in excess of $250 million in monetary losses as well as exemplary damages and attorneys’ fees. The Named Companies have filed a cross-complaint against Ms. Champion-Cain, among others. A demurrer to the Named Companies’ cross-complaint has been filed and is set for hearing in November 2021. On September 3, 2020, a cross-claim styled, Kim H. Peterson Trustee of the Peterson Family Trust dated April 14 1992 v. Chicago Title Co., Chicago Title Ins. Co., Thomas Schwiebert, Adelle Ducharme, and Betty Elixman, was filed in an existing lawsuit styled, CalPrivate Bank v. Kim H. Peterson Trustee of the Peterson Family Trust dated April 14 1992, which is pending in Superior Court of San Diego County for the State of California. Cross-complaint plaintiff was sued by a bank to recover in excess of $12 million that the trustee allegedly guaranteed to repay for certain investments made by CalPrivate Bank in the alcoholic beverage license scheme. Cross-complaint plaintiff has, in turn, sued the Named Companies in that action seeking in excess of $250 million in monetary losses as well as exemplary damages and attorneys’ fees. On October 1, 2020, a lawsuit styled, Ovation Fin. Holdings 2 LLC, Ovation Fund Mgmt. II, LLC, Banc of California, N.A. v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., was filed in San Diego County Superior Court. Plaintiffs claim losses of more than $75 million, as well as consequential and punitive damages. The Named Companies have filed a cross-complaint against Ms. Champion-Cain, among others. A demurrer to the Named Companies’ cross-complaint has been filed and is set for hearing in November 2021. On November 2, 2020, a lawsuit styled, CalPrivate Bank v. Chicago Title Co. and Chicago Title Ins. Co., was also filed in the Superior Court of San Diego County for the State of California. Plaintiff claims losses in excess of $12 million based upon business loan advances made in the alcoholic beverage license scheme, and also seeks punitive damages and the recovery of attorneys’ fees. The Named Companies have filed a cross-complaint against Ms. Champion-Cain, among others. A demurrer to the Named Companies’ cross-complaint has been filed and is set for hearing in November 2021. On February 24, 2021, a putative class action lawsuit styled, Blake E. Allred and Melissa M. Allred v. Chicago Title Co., Chicago Title Ins. Co., was filed in the Superior Court of San Diego County for the State of California. Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory, statutory, treble, and punitive damages. In addition, Chicago Title Company has resolved claims from both individual and groups of alleged investors under confidential terms during pre-suit mediations. As of June 30, 2021, the Company has recorded an incurred claim loss reserve for legal fees which is included in its consolidated reserve for title claim losses. The Company has also recorded an insurance recoverable for amounts it expects to recover from its insurance carriers relating to these matters. At this time, the Company is unable to ascertain its liability, if any, and is unable to make an estimate of a reasonably possible claim loss for any of the unresolved claims due to the complex nature of the claims and litigation, the early procedural status of each claim (involving unresolved questions of fact without any rulings on the merits or determinations of liability), the extent of discovery not yet conducted, potential insurance coverage, and an incomplete evaluation of possible defenses, counterclaims, crossclaims or third-party claims that may exist. Moreover, it is likely that in some instances, the claims listed above are duplicative. As further information becomes available, the Company will continue to evaluate the adequacy of its consolidated reserve for title claim losses. As of June 30, 2021, the Company believes that its reserves are adequate to cover losses related to this matter and other claims. We continually upda te loss reserve estimates as new information becomes known, new loss patterns emerge or as other contributing factors are considered and incorporated into the analysis of reserve for claim losses. Estimating future title loss payments is difficult because of the complex nature of title claims, the long periods of time over which claims are paid, significantly varying dollar amounts of individual claims and other factors. Due to the uncertainty inherent in the process and to the judgment used by management, the ultimate liability may be greater or less than our current reserves. If actual claims loss development varies from what is currently expected and is not offset by other factors, it is possible that additional reserve adjustments may be required in future periods in order to maintain our recorded reserve within a reasonable range of our actuary's central estimate. F&G Insurance Subsidiary Financial Information and Regulatory Matters Our U.S. insurance subsidiaries, FGL Insurance, Fidelity & Guaranty Life Insurance Company of New York ("FGL NY Insurance"), and Raven Re, file financial statements with state insurance regulatory authorities and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (“NAIC”) that are prepared in accordance with Statutory Accounting Principles (“SAP”) prescribed or permitted by such authorities, which may vary materially from GAAP. Prescribed SAP includes the Accounting Practices and Procedures Manual of the NAIC as well as state laws, regulations and administrative rules. Permitted SAP encompasses all accounting practices not so prescribed. The principal differences between SAP financial statements and financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP are that SAP financial statements do not reflect DAC, DSI and VOBA, some bond portfolios may be carried at amortized cost, assets and liabilities are presented net of reinsurance, contractholder liabilities are generally valued using more conservative assumptions and certain assets are non-admitted. Accordingly, SAP operating results and SAP capital and surplus may differ substantially from amounts reported in the GAAP basis financial statements for comparable items. F&G Cayman Re, Freestone Re (Cayman) and F&G Life Re (Bermuda) file financial statements with their respective regulators that are based on U.S. GAAP. FGL Insurance applies Iowa-prescribed accounting practices that permit Iowa-domiciled insurers to report equity call options used to economically hedge FIA index credits at amortized cost for statutory accounting purposes and to calculate FIA statutory reserves such that index credit returns will be included in the reserve only after crediting to the annuity contract. This resulted in a $106 million and $144 million decrease to statutory capital and surplus at June 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020, respectively. FGL Insurance’s statutory carrying value of Raven Re reflects the effect of permitted practices Raven Re received to treat the available amount of a letter of credit as an admitted asset which increased Raven Re’s statutory capital and surplus by $85 million at June 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020. Raven Re is also permitted to follow Iowa prescribed statutory accounting practice for its reserves on reinsurance assumed from FGL Insurance which increased Raven Re’s statutory capital and surplus by $5 million at June 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020. Without such permitted statutory accounting practices Raven Re’s statutory capital and surplus (deficit) would be $5 million as of June 30, 2021 and would be $(6) million as of December 31, 2020, and its risk-based capital would fall below the minimum regulatory requirements. The letter of credit facility is collateralized by NAIC 1 rated debt securities. If the permitted practice was revoked, the letter of credit could be replaced by the collateral assets with Nomura’s consent. FGL Insurance’s statutory carrying value of Raven Re was $95 million and $84 million at June 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020, respectively. As of June 30, 2021, FGL NY Insurance did not follow any prescribed or permitted statutory accounting practices that differ from the NAIC's statutory accounting practices. The prescribed and permitted statutory accounting practices have no impact on our unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements which are prepared in accordance with GAAP.

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

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for the types of coverages and products sold, and the assets, obligations, recorded liabilities, revenues and expenses arising therefrom, and the amounts of and methodologies and assumptions used in determining the amounts of such items. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 944 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2303980 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_InsuranceDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration