XML 85 R22.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.0.6

Commitments and Contingent Liabilities | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2011
Notes to Financial Statements [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingent Liabilities | Commitments and Contingent Liabilities Commitments We have noncancelable lease obligations on certain office space and equipment. As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate net minimum lease payments were $215.0 million payable as follows: $28.8 million in 2012, $28.4 million in 2013, $22.9 million in 2014, $18.7 million in 2015, $13.9 million in 2016, and $102.3 million thereafter. Rental expense for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010, and 2009 was $36.1 million, $29.3 million, and $30.1 million, respectively. At December 31, 2011, we had unfunded commitments of $65.4 million for certain of our private equity partnerships, $0.5 million for underlying partnerships in our investment in a special purpose entity, and $35.0 million for certain private placement fixed maturity securities. The funds are not legally binding at December 31, 2011 and may or may not be funded during the term of the investments. In addition, we have a legally binding unfunded commitment of $160.6 million, which is recognized as a liability in our consolidated balance sheets, to fund tax credit partnership investments. Contingent Liabilities We are a defendant in a number of litigation matters. In some of these matters, no specified amount is sought. In others, very large or indeterminate amounts, including punitive and treble damages, are asserted. There is a wide variation of pleading practice permitted in the United States courts with respect to requests for monetary damages, including some courts in which no specified amount is required and others which allow the plaintiff to state only that the amount sought is sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of that court. Further, some jurisdictions permit plaintiffs to allege damages well in excess of reasonably possible verdicts. Based on our extensive experience and that of others in the industry with respect to litigating or resolving claims through settlement over an extended period of time, we believe that the monetary damages asserted in a lawsuit or claim bear little relation to the merits of the case, or the likely disposition value. Therefore, the specific monetary relief sought is not stated. Unless indicated otherwise in the descriptions below, reserves have not been established for litigation and contingencies. An estimated loss is accrued when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Claims Handling Matters We and our insurance subsidiaries, as part of our normal operations in managing disability claims, are engaged in claim litigation where disputes arise as a result of a denial or termination of benefits. Most typically these lawsuits are filed on behalf of a single claimant or policyholder, and in some of these individual actions punitive damages are sought, such as claims alleging bad faith in the handling of insurance claims. For our general claim litigation, we maintain reserves based on experience to satisfy judgments and settlements in the normal course. We expect that the ultimate liability, if any, with respect to general claim litigation, after consideration of the reserves maintained, will not be material to our consolidated financial condition. Nevertheless, given the inherent unpredictability of litigation, it is possible that an adverse outcome in certain claim litigation involving punitive damages could, from time to time, have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations in a period, depending on the results of operations for the particular period. From time to time class action allegations are pursued where the claimant or policyholder purports to represent a larger number of individuals who are similarly situated. Since each insurance claim is evaluated based on its own merits, there is rarely a single act or series of actions, which can properly be addressed by a class action. Nevertheless, we monitor these cases closely and defend ourselves appropriately where these allegations are made. Note 13 - Commitments and Contingent Liabilities - Continued Broker Compensation, Quoting Process, and Other Matters Examinations and Investigations In November 2009, we were contacted by Florida state insurance regulators to discuss a resolution of their investigation of our compliance with state and federal laws with respect to producer compensation, solicitation activities, policies sold to state or municipal entities, and information regarding compensation arrangements with brokers. This investigation commenced in 2005, and, until the November 2009 contact, we had received no communications from the regulators regarding this matter since December 2007. In December 2011, the parties reached a settlement to resolve this investigation, the amount of which was immaterial to our consolidated financial position and results of operations. Broker-Related Litigation We and certain of our subsidiaries, along with many other insurance brokers and insurers, were named as defendants in a series of putative class actions that were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings as part of multidistrict litigation (MDL) No. 1663, In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation. The plaintiffs in MDL No. 1663 were ordered to file a consolidated amended complaint which alleged, among other things, that the defendants violated federal and state antitrust laws, the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), and various state common law requirements by engaging in alleged bid rigging and customer allocation and by paying undisclosed compensation to insurance brokers to steer business to defendant insurers. After several amendments to the complaint, all claims against us were dismissed, and the dismissal was affirmed on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The only remaining proceeding against us that is part of MDL No. 1663 is Palm Tree Computers Systems, Inc. v. ACE USA, et al., which was filed in the Florida state Circuit Court on February 16, 2005. The complaint contains allegations similar to those referred to above. The case was removed to federal court and, on October 20, 2005, the case was transferred to MDL No. 1663. Plaintiffs renewed a motion to remand the case to the state court in Florida, and that motion was denied without prejudice on October 16, 2009. There have been no further proceedings in this case subsequent to that date, while the Court considers motions to dismiss filed by other defendants in MDL No. 1663. Miscellaneous Matters In September 2008, we received service of a complaint, in an adversary proceeding in connection with the bankruptcy case In re Quebecor World (USA) Inc., et al. entitled Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Quebecor World (USA) Inc., et al., v. American United Life Insurance Company, et al., filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that we received preference payments relating to notes held by certain of our insurance subsidiaries and seeks to avoid and recover such payments plus interest and cost of the action. On July 27, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court ruled in our favor, granting a summary judgment motion to dismiss the case against us and the other defendants. This decision has been appealed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In October 2010, Denise Merrimon, Bobby S. Mowery, and all others similarly situated vs. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maine. This is a putative class action alleging that we breached fiduciary duties owed to certain beneficiaries under certain group life insurance policies when we paid life insurance proceeds by establishing interest-bearing retained asset accounts rather than by mailing checks. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of beneficiaries under group life insurance contracts that were part of ERISA employee welfare benefit plans and under which we paid death benefits via retained asset accounts. The plaintiffs' principal theories in the case are: (1) funds held in retained asset accounts were plan assets, and the proceeds earned by us from investing those funds belonged to the beneficiaries, and (2) payment of claims using retained asset accounts did not constitute payment under Maine's late payment statute, requiring us to pay interest on the undrawn retained asset account funds at an annual rate of 18 percent. On February 3, 2012, the District Court issued an opinion rejecting both of plaintiffs' principal theories and ordering judgment for us. At the same time, however, the District Court held that we breached a fiduciary duty to the beneficiaries by failing to pay rates comparable to the best rates available in the market for demand deposits. The District Court also certified a class of people who, during a certain period of time, were beneficiaries under certain group life insurance contracts that were part of ERISA employee welfare benefit plans and were paid death benefits using retained asset accounts. The District Court authorized the parties to make an immediate appeal of its decision to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, and we plan to do so. Note 13 - Commitments and Contingent Liabilities - Continued In March 2011, we received a request for information from an independent third party as part of an examination on behalf of 26 states and the District of Columbia to evaluate our compliance with the unclaimed property laws of the participating states. Industry-wide practices are currently under review concerning the identification and handling of unclaimed property by insurers, and numerous other insurers are under similar examination. We are cooperating fully with this examination. In July 2011, the New York State Insurance Department, now known as the New York State Department of Financial Services, issued a special request to approximately 160 insurers, including Unum Group's New York licensed insurance subsidiaries, which requires the insurers to cross-check their life insurance policies, annuity contracts, and retained asset accounts with the latest version of the Social Security Master Death Index to identify any matches. Insurers are also requested to investigate the matches to determine if death benefits are due, to locate the beneficiaries, and to make payments where appropriate. We are cooperating fully with this request. We accrued an estimated loss contingency in the fourth quarter of 2011, the amount of which was immaterial to our consolidated financial position and results of operations. It is possible other state jurisdictions may pursue similar investigations or inquiries or issue directives similar to the New York State Department of Financial Services' letter. It is possible that the audits and related activity may result in additional payments to beneficiaries, the payment of abandoned funds under state law, and/or administrative penalties. We are currently unable to estimate the reasonably possible amount of any additional payments. In 2009, a Pennsylvania-based insurance company and its affiliates were ordered into rehabilitation, and the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner, who was appointed as the Rehabilitator, filed petitions for liquidation with the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Under Pennsylvania legislation, payment of covered claims and other related insurance obligations are provided, within prescribed limits, by state guaranty funds. These guaranty funds assess fees on insurance companies that sell insurance within the state, which are generally based on a company's pro rata portion of premiums written or received prior to the insolvency. Under Pennsylvania statutes, an insurer is declared insolvent only after it is placed under an order of liquidation by a court of competent jurisdiction with a finding for insolvency. If and when the formal order of liquidation is issued, we would then be subject to an assessment and would record a contingent liability net of any recoverable premium tax offsets. We do not believe our exposure to potential assessment is material to our consolidated financial position or results of operations. Summary Various lawsuits against us, in addition to those discussed above, have arisen in the normal course of business. Further, state insurance regulatory authorities and other federal and state authorities regularly make inquiries and conduct investigations concerning our compliance with applicable insurance and other laws and regulations. Given the complexity and scope of our litigation and regulatory matters, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of all pending investigations or legal proceedings or provide reasonable estimates of potential losses, except if noted in connection with specific matters. It is possible that our results of operations or cash flows in a particular period could be materially affected by an ultimate unfavorable outcome of pending litigation or regulatory matters depending, in part, on our results of operations or cash flows for the particular period. We believe, however, that the ultimate outcome of all pending litigation and regulatory matters, after consideration of applicable reserves and rights to indemnification, should not have a material adverse effect on our financial position.

X
- Details
Name: | unm_NotesToFinancialStatementsAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | unm_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6952336&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name FASB Interpretation (FIN) -Number 14 -Paragraph 3 -LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy. Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) -Number 5 -Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12 -LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy. Reference 6: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 7: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration