
	Year Ended December 31,
	2022			2021			2020
	(Dollars in millions)
Beginning balance	$	1,883		$	1,623		$	1,509

Change in insurance recoverable	(128)			94			34
Claim loss provision related to:
Current year	308			385			283
Prior years	—			—			—
Total title claim loss provision	308			385			283
Claims paid, net of recoupments related to:
Current year	(21)			(14)			(11)
Prior years	(232)			(205)			(192)
Total title claims paid, net of recoupments	(253)			(219)			(203)
Ending balance of claim loss reserve for title insurance	$	1,810		$	1,883		$	1,623
Provision for title insurance claim losses as a percentage of title insurance premiums	4.5		%	4.5		%	4.5		%

Several lawsuits have been filed by various parties against Chicago Title Company and Chicago Title Insurance Company as its principal (collectively, the “Named Companies”). Generally, plaintiffs claim they are investors who were solicited by Gina Champion-Cain through her former company, ANI Development LLC (“ANI”), or other affiliates 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 they were told that under California state law, alcoholic beverage license applicants are required to deposit into 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 some of the plaintiffs’ funds were deposited.

In connection with the alcoholic beverage license scheme, a lawsuit styled, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Gina Champion-Cain and ANI Development, LLC, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California asserting claims for securities fraud against Ms. Champion-Cain and certain of her affiliated entities. A receiver was appointed by the court to preserve the assets of the defendant affiliated entities (the “receivership entities”), pay their debts, operate the businesses and pursue any claims they may have against third-parties. Pursuant to the authority granted to her by the federal court, on January 7, 2022, a lawsuit styled, Krista Freitag v. Chicago Title Co. and Chicago Title Ins. Co., was filed in San Diego County Superior Court by the receiver on behalf of the receivership entities against the Named Companies. The receiver seeks compensatory, incidental, consequential, and punitive damages, and seeks the recovery of attorneys’ fees. In turn, the Named Companies petitioned the Federal Court to sue ANI, via the receiver, to pursue indemnity and other claims against the receivership entities as joint tortfeasors, which was granted.

On April 26, 2022, the Named Companies reached a global settlement with the receiver and several other investor claimants. As a condition of the settlement, the Named Companies and the receiver jointly sought court approval of the global settlement and entry of an order barring any claims against the Named Companies related to the alcoholic beverage license scheme. On November 23, 2022, the federal court overruled any objections by non-joining investors and entered an order approving the global settlement and barring further claims against the Named Companies (“Settlement and Bar Order”). The receiver is in receipt of the settlement payment from Chicago Title Company and will distribute the amount designated for each non-joining investor at the conclusion of any such investor’s appeal of the Settlement and Bar Order (or back to Chicago Title Company if an appeal is successful). Some of the investor claimants who objected to entry of the Settlement and Bar Order have appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by (Cases 22-56206, 22-56208, and 23-55083). Appellate briefing is expected to take place over the next several months.

The following lawsuits remain pending in the Superior Court of San Diego County for the State of California, all of which involve investor claimants who have claims against the Named Companies, objected to the settlement with the receiver, and have appealed the Settlement and Bar Order. Since any pending and future claims against the Named Companies are barred, the state court cases where plaintiffs have served a notice of appeal have been stayed pending the outcome of the appeals, and the claims against the Named Companies by non-appealing plaintiffs have been dismissed with prejudice. 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, as well as the recovery of attorneys' fees. The Named Companies have filed a cross-complaint against Ms. Champion-Cain, and others. The Named Companies have reached a conditional settlement with the members of ABC Funding Strategies, LLC plaintiffs under confidential terms.

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 filed a cross-complaint against Ms. Champion-Cain, and others, and the Named Companies were substituted in as the Plaintiff following a settlement with the bank.

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 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 seeks punitive damages and the recovery of attorneys’ fees. The Named Companies have filed a cross-complaint against Ms. Champion-Cain, and others.

Chicago Title Company has also resolved a number of other pre-suit claims and previously-disclosed lawsuits from both individual and groups of alleged investors under confidential terms. Based on the facts and circumstances of the remaining claims, including the settlements already reached, we have recorded reserves included in our reserve for title claim losses, which we believe are adequate to cover losses related to this matter, and believe that our reserves for title claim losses are adequate.

We continually update 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.

Our insurance subsidiaries, including title insurers, underwritten title companies and insurance agencies, are subject to extensive regulation under applicable state laws. Each of the insurance underwriters is subject to a holding company act in its state of domicile that regulates, among other matters, the ability to pay dividends and enter into transactions with affiliates. The laws of most states in which we transact business establish supervisory agencies with broad administrative powers relating to issuing and revoking licenses to transact business, regulating trade practices, licensing agents, approving policy forms, accounting practices, financial practices, establishing reserve and capital and surplus as regards policyholders (“capital and surplus”) requirements, defining suitable investments for reserves and capital and surplus and approving rate schedules. The process of state regulation of changes in rates ranges from states that set rates, to states where individual companies or associations of companies prepare rate filings that are submitted for approval, to a few states in which rate changes do not need to be filed for approval.

Since we are regulated by both state and federal governments and the applicable insurance laws and regulations are constantly subject to change, it is not possible to predict the potential effects on our insurance operations, particularly the Title segment, of any laws or regulations that may become more restrictive in the future or if new restrictive laws will be enacted.

Statutory-basis financial statements are prepared in accordance with accounting practices prescribed or permitted by the various state insurance regulatory authorities. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners' (“NAIC”) Accounting Practices and Procedures manual (“NAIC SAP”) has been adopted as a component of prescribed or permitted practices by each of the states that regulate us. Each of our states of domicile for our title insurance underwriter subsidiaries have adopted a material prescribed accounting practice that differs from that found in NAIC SAP. Specifically, in both years, the timing of amounts released from the statutory unearned premium reserve under NAIC SAP differs from the states' required practice. Statutory surplus at December 31, 2022 and 2021 was lower by approximately $32 million and $29 million than if we had reported such amounts in accordance with NAIC SAP.

Pursuant to statutory accounting requirements of the various states in which our insurers are domiciled, these insurers must defer a portion of premiums earned as an unearned premium reserve for the protection of policyholders and must maintain qualified assets in an amount equal to the statutory requirements. The level of unearned premium reserve required to be maintained at any time is determined by statutory formula based upon either the age, number of policies and dollar amount of policy liabilities underwritten, or the age and dollar amount of statutory premiums written. As of December 31, 2022, the combined statutory unearned premium reserve required and reported for our title insurers was $1,772 million. In addition to statutory unearned premium reserves, each of our insurers maintains reserves for known claims and surplus funds for policyholder protection and business operations.

Each of our insurance subsidiaries is regulated by the insurance regulatory authority in its respective state of domicile, as well as that of each state in which it is licensed. The insurance commissioners of their respective states of domicile are the primary regulators of our title insurance subsidiaries. Each of the insurers is subject to periodic regulatory financial examination by regulatory authorities.

Our insurance subsidiaries are subject to regulations that restrict their ability to pay dividends or make other distributions of cash or property to their immediate parent company without prior approval from the Department of Insurance of their respective states of domicile. As of December 31, 2022, $1,442 million of our net assets are restricted from dividend payments without prior approval from the Departments of Insurance. During 2023, our title insurers can pay or make distributions to us of approximately $606 million, without prior approval.

The combined statutory capital and surplus of our title insurers was approximately $1,350 million and $1,903 million as of December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively. The combined statutory net earnings of our title insurance subsidiaries were $778 million, $936 million, and $629 million for the years ended December 31, 2022, 2021, and 2020, respectively.

As a condition to continued authority to underwrite policies in the states in which our insurers conduct their business, the insurers are required to pay certain fees and file information regarding their officers, directors and financial condition. In addition, our escrow and trust business is subject to regulation by various state banking authorities.

Pursuant to statutory requirements of the various states in which our insurers are domiciled, such insurers must maintain certain levels of minimum capital and surplus. Required levels of minimum capital and surplus are not significant to the insurers individually or in the aggregate. Each of our insurers has complied with the minimum statutory requirements as of December 31, 2022.

Our underwritten title companies, primarily those domiciled in California, are also subject to certain regulation by insurance regulatory or banking authorities relating to their net worth and working capital. Minimum net worth and working capital requirements for each underwritten title company is less than $1 million. These companies were in compliance with their respective minimum net worth and working capital requirements at December 31, 2022.

Through our wholly owned F&G subsidiary, 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 NAIC that are prepared in accordance with 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 VOBA, DAC and DSI, 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.

Our principal insurance subsidiaries' statutory (SAP and GAAP) financial statements are based on a December 31 year end. Statutory net income and statutory capital and surplus of our wholly owned U.S regulated insurance subsidiaries were as follows (in millions):


	Subsidiary (state of domicile) (a)
	FGL Insurance (IA)		FGL NY Insurance (NY)		Raven Re (VT)
Statutory Net income (loss):
Year ended December 31, 2022	$	(243)	$	(15)	$	(111)
Year ended December 31, 2021	351		4		3

Statutory Capital and Surplus:
December 31, 2022	$	1,877	$	82	$	121
December 31, 2021	1,473		99		115

Life insurance companies domiciled in the U.S. are subject to certain Risk-Based Capital (“RBC”) requirements as specified by the NAIC. The RBC is used to evaluate the adequacy of capital and surplus maintained by an insurance company in relation to risks associated with: (i) asset risk, (ii) insurance risk, (iii) interest rate risk and (iv) business risk. We monitor the RBC of FGLH’s insurance subsidiaries. As of December 31, 2022, each of FGLH's insurance subsidiaries had exceeded the minimum RBC requirements.

Our insurance subsidiaries domiciled in the U.S. are restricted by state laws and regulations as to the amount of dividends they may pay to their parent, our wholly owned F&G subsidiary, without regulatory approval in any year, the purpose of which is to protect affected insurance policyholders, depositors or investors. Any dividends in excess of limits are deemed “extraordinary” and require regulatory approval. In addition, and pursuant to an order issued by the Iowa Commissioner on November 28, 2017, FGL Insurance may not pay any dividend or other distribution to shareholders prior to November 28, 2020 without the prior approval of the Iowa Commissioner. During the years ended December 31, 2022 and 2021, upon approval by the Iowa Commissioner, FGL Insurance declared and paid extraordinary dividends of $0 million and $38 million to its parent, respectively.

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. Effective October 1, 2022, the Company incorporated IUL products under these Iowa-prescribed accounting practices. This resulted in a $152 million and $106 million decrease to statutory capital and surplus at December 31, 2022 and 2021, 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 $200 million and $85 million at December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively.

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 $28 million at December 31, 2022 and by $0 million at December 31, 2021. Without such permitted statutory accounting practices, Raven Re’s statutory capital and surplus (deficit) would be $(107) million as of December 31, 2022 and would be $30 million as of December 31, 2021, and its risk-based capital would not 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 as discussed in Note O F&G Reinsurance. FGL Insurance’s statutory carrying value of Raven Re was $121 million and $115 million at December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively.