
	Year Ended December 31,
	2023			2022			2021
	(Dollars in millions)
Beginning balance	$	1,810		$	1,883		$	1,623

Change in insurance recoverable	15			(128)			94
Claim loss provision related to:
Current year	207			308			385
Prior years	—			—			—
Total title claim loss provision	207			308			385
Claims paid, net of recoupments related to:
Current year	(22)			(21)			(14)
Prior years	(240)			(232)			(205)
Total title claims paid, net of recoupments	(262)			(253)			(219)
Ending balance of claim loss reserve for title insurance	$	1,770		$	1,810		$	1,883
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 sought compensatory, incidental, consequential, and punitive damages, and 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’s lawsuit against the Named Companies has been dismissed. 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 appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by (Cases 22-56206, 22-56208, and 23-55083), and appellate oral argument is expected to be held later this year. After filing its appeal, one of the appellants, CalPrivate Bank (Case 23-55083), entered into a settlement with the receiver that was approved by the federal court. This settlement resolves CalPrivate Bank’s objections to the Settlement and Bar Order, and its appeal has been dismissed.

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

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. As a result of the receiver’s settlement with CalPrivate Bank, the receiver has been substituted in as the plaintiff in the suit against the trustee.

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. Given CalPrivate Bank’s settlement with the receiver, this action against the Named Companies will be dismissed.

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, 2023 and 2022 was lower by approximately $34 million and $32 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, 2023, the combined statutory unearned premium reserve required and reported for our title insurers was $1,659 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, 2023, $1,145 million of our net assets are restricted from dividend payments without prior approval from the Departments of Insurance. During 2024, our title insurers can pay or make distributions to us of approximately $471 million, without prior approval.

The combined statutory capital and surplus of our title insurers was approximately $1,225 million and $1,350 million as of December 31, 2023 and 2022, respectively. The combined statutory net earnings of our title insurance subsidiaries were $503 million, $778 million, and $936 million for the years ended December 31, 2023, 2022, and 2021, 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, 2023.

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, 2023.

Through our wholly owned F&G subsidiary, our insurance subsidiaries, FGL Insurance, FGL NY Insurance, Raven Re and Corbeau Re file financial statements with state insurance regulatory authorities and, with the exception of Raven Re, with 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 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.


	Subsidiary (state of domicile) (a)
	FGL Insurance (IA)		FGL NY Insurance (NY)		Raven Re (VT)		Corbeau Re (VT)
Statutory Net income (loss):	(In millions)
Year ended December 31, 2023	$	(462)	$	5	$	60	$	(644)
Year ended December 31, 2022	(243)		(15)		(111)		—
Year ended December 31, 2021	351		4		3		—

Statutory Capital and Surplus:
December 31, 2023	$	2,009	$	86	$	140	$	171
December 31, 2022	1,877		82		121		—

In order to enhance the regulation of insurers’ solvency, the NAIC adopted a model law to implement RBC requirements for life, health and property and casualty insurance companies. All states have adopted the NAIC’s model law or a substantially similar law. 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. As of the most recent annual statutory financial statements filed with insurance regulators, the RBC ratios for FGL Insurance and FGL NY Insurance each exceeded the minimum RBC requirements.

Pursuant to Iowa insurance law, ordinary dividends are payments, together with all other such payments within the preceding twelve months, that do not exceed the greater of (i) 10% of FGL Insurance’s statutory surplus as regards policyholders as of December 31 of the preceding year; or (ii) the net gain from operations of FGL Insurance (excluding realized capital gains) for the 12-month period ending December 31 of the preceding year.

Dividends in excess of FGL Insurance’s ordinary dividend capacity are referred to as extraordinary and require prior approval of the Iowa Insurance Commissioner. FGL Insurance may only pay dividends out of statutory earned surplus. FGL Insurance did not pay extraordinary dividends to FGAL for the years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022, and paid extraordinary dividends of $38 million during the year ended December 31, 2021.

Each year, FGL NY Insurance may pay a certain limited amount of ordinary dividends or other distributions without being required to obtain the prior consent of or the New York State Department of Financial Services (“NYDFS”). However, to pay any dividends or distributions (including the payment of any dividends or distributions for which prior consent is not required), FGL NY Insurance must provide advance written notice to the NYDFS. FGL NY Insurance has historically not paid dividends.

FGL Insurance - FGL Insurance applies Iowa-prescribed accounting practices prescribed by 191 Iowa Administrative Code 97, “Accounting for Certain Derivative Instruments Used to Hedge the Growth in Interest Credited for Indexed Insurance Products and Accounting for the Indexed Insurance Products Reserve”, for its FIA products, and as of October 1, 2022, IUL products. Under these alternative accounting practices, the call option derivative instruments that hedge the growth in interest credited on index products are accounted for at amortized cost with the corresponding amortization recorded as a decrease to net investment income and indexed annuity reserves are calculated based on Standard Valuation Law and Actuarial Guideline XXXV assuming the market value of the call options associated with the current index term is zero regardless of the observable market value for such options. This resulted in a $178 million increase and a $152 million decrease to statutory capital and surplus at December 31, 2023 and 2022, respectively.

In addition, based on a permitted practice received from the Iowa Insurance Division, FGL Insurance carries one of its limited partnership interests which qualifies for accounting under SSAP No. 48, “Investments in Joint Ventures, Partnerships and Limited Liability Companies”, on a net asset value per share basis. This is a departure from SSAP No. 48 which requires such investments to be carried based on the investees underlying U.S. GAAP equity (prior to any impairment considerations). This resulted in increases to statutory capital and surplus of $16 million and $13 million at December 31, 2023 and 2022, 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 at December 31, 2023 and 2022. In addition, FGL Insurance’s statutory carrying value of Corbeau Re reflects the effect of permitted practices Corbeau Re received to treat the excess of loss as an admitted asset, which increased Corbeau Re’s statutory capital and surplus by $765 million at December 31, 2023.

Raven Re - Raven Re is also permitted to follow Iowa prescribed statutory accounting practice for its reserves on reinsurance assumed from FGL Insurance and also has approval to include as an admitted asset the value of a letter of credit serving as collateral for reinsurance credit taken by FGL Insurance. Without such permitted statutory accounting practices, Raven Re’s statutory capital and surplus (deficit) would be $(89) million and $(107) million as of December 31, 2023 and 2022, respectively, 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 (refer to discussion of letter of credit in Note E- Reinsurance). FGL Insurance’s statutory carrying value of Raven Re was $140 million and $121 million at December 31, 2023 and 2022, respectively.

Corbeau Re - Corbeau Re has four permitted practices pursuant to Vermont Statute, Title 8, Chapter 141 – (8 V.S.A. § 6048k(a)(2), whereby the Vermont Department authorizes the Company to (i) account for the amount equal to the excess of loss amount (“XOL Asset”) as an asset on its statutory financial statements; (ii) calculate the reserves with respect to the Retirement Pro Contracts in accordance with the following reserving methodology: the reserves are calculated as the present value of reinsured benefits when account value equals zero less the present value of reinsurance premiums from the winning integrated stream, floored at zero and capped as necessary to keep the net statutory reserve at the net cash surrender value. For benefits associated with all other contracts (“the GMWB Riders”), the reserves are calculated as the statutory reserves for the entire contract (i.e., the base contracts plus the GMWB Riders) minus the statutory reserves for the base contracts only (“Reserve Calculation Permitted Practice”); (iii) calculate its company action level risk-based capital as defined in Section 8301(13)(A) and, calculated using the risk-based capital factors and formulas prescribed by the NAIC, applying a factor of 0.62% to the XOL Asset Value; and (iv) annually perform a total company solvency analysis in lieu of cash flow testing and actuarial opinion and memorandum under Section 2010-2 of the Vermont Administrative Code. Without such permitted statutory accounting practices, the Company’s statutory capital and surplus (deficit) would be $(594) million as of December 31, 2023,


	Subsidiary (country of domicile)
	F&G Cayman Re (Cayman Islands)		F&G Life Re (Bermuda)
Statutory Net income (loss):
Year ended December 31, 2023	$	384	$	151
Year ended December 31, 2022	(299)		(339)
Year ended December 31, 2021	99		94
Statutory Capital and Surplus (Deficit):
December 31, 2023	$	114	$	11
December 31, 2022	(126)		(138)