XML 40 R24.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.25.0.1

Contingencies and Commitments | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2024
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Contingencies and Commitments | Contingencies and Commitments Contingencies Regulatory and Litigation Matters Regulatory bodies, such as state insurance departments, the SEC, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, tax authorities and other regulatory bodies regularly make inquiries and conduct examinations, investigations or audits concerning our compliance with, among other things, insurance laws, securities laws, tax laws, laws governing the activities of broker-dealers, registered investment advisers and unclaimed property laws. Tax-related matters can include disputes with taxing authorities, ongoing audits, evaluation of filing positions and any potential assessments related thereto. LNC is involved in various pending or threatened legal or regulatory proceedings, including purported class actions, arising from the conduct of business both in the ordinary course and otherwise. In some of the matters, very large and/or indeterminate amounts, including punitive and treble damages, are sought. Modern pleading practice in the U.S. permits considerable variation in the assertion of monetary damages or other relief. Jurisdictions may permit claimants not to specify the monetary damages sought or may permit claimants to state only that the amount sought is sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the trial court. In addition, jurisdictions may permit plaintiffs to allege monetary damages in amounts well exceeding verdicts obtained in the jurisdiction for similar matters. This variability in pleadings, together with the actual experiences of LNC in litigating or resolving through settlement numerous claims over an extended period of time, demonstrates to management that the monetary relief which may be specified in a lawsuit or claim bears little relevance to its merits or disposition value. Due to the unpredictable nature of litigation, the outcome of a litigation matter and the amount or range of potential loss at particular points in time is normally difficult to ascertain. Uncertainties can include how fact finders will evaluate documentary evidence and the credibility and effectiveness of witness testimony, and how trial and appellate courts will apply the law in the context of the pleadings or evidence presented, whether by motion practice, or at trial or on appeal. Disposition valuations are also subject to the uncertainty of how opposing parties and their counsel will themselves view the relevant evidence and applicable law. We establish liabilities for litigation and regulatory loss contingencies when information related to the loss contingencies shows both that it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. It is possible that some matters could require us to pay damages or make other expenditures or establish accruals in amounts that could not be estimated as of December 31, 2024. For some matters, the Company is able to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss. For such matters in which a loss is probable, an accrual has been made. For such matters where a loss is believed to be reasonably possible, but not probable, no accrual has been made. Accordingly, the estimate contained in this paragraph reflects two types of matters. For some matters included within this estimate, an accrual has been made, but there is a reasonable possibility that an exposure exists in excess of the amount accrued. In these cases, the estimate reflects the reasonably possible range of loss in excess of the accrued amount. For other matters included within this estimation, no accrual has been made because a loss, while potentially estimable, is believed to be reasonably possible but not probable. In these cases, the estimate reflects the reasonably possible loss or range of loss. As of December 31, 2024, we estimate the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses, including amounts in excess of amounts accrued for these matters as of such date, to be up to approximately $150 million, after-tax. Any estimate is not an indication of expected loss, if any, or of the Company’s maximum possible loss exposure on such matters. For other matters, we are not currently able to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss. We are often unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss until developments in such matters have provided sufficient information to support an assessment of the range of possible loss, such as quantification of a damage demand from plaintiffs, discovery from other parties and investigation of factual allegations, rulings by the court on motions or appeals, analysis by experts and the progress of settlement negotiations. On a quarterly and annual basis, we review relevant information with respect to litigation contingencies and update our accruals, disclosures and estimates of reasonably possible losses or ranges of loss based on such reviews. Among other matters, we are presently engaged in litigation, including relating to cost of insurance rates (“Cost of Insurance and Other Litigation”), as described below. No accrual has been made for some of these matters. Although a loss is believed to be reasonably possible for these matters, for some of these matters, we are not able to estimate a reasonably possible amount or range of potential liability. An adverse outcome in one or more of these matters may have a material impact on the consolidated financial statements, but, based on information currently known, management does not believe those cases are likely to have such an impact. Cost of Insurance and Other Litigation Cost of Insurance Litigation Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, No. 3:16-cv-00827, is a putative class action that was served on The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company (“LNL”) on June 8, 2016. Plaintiff is the owner of a universal life insurance policy who alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance than permitted by the policy. Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life and variable universal life policyholders who owned policies containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those of plaintiff’s policy and seeks damages on behalf of all such policyholders. On January 11, 2019, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety. In response, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint, which, on September 25, 2023, the court granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 10, 2023. On March 7, 2024, the parties entered into a provisional settlement agreement that encompasses policies that are at issue in this case, which also includes all policies at issue in the lawsuits captioned Iwanski v. First Penn-Pacific Life Insurance Company, TVPX ARS INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and Vida Longevity Fund, LP v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York, each of which are described below. The Glover plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of the provisional settlement was filed on March 8, 2024, and on September 4, 2024, the court granted preliminary approval of the provisional settlement. On December 16, 2024, the court heard oral argument on the issue of whether to grant final approval of the provisional settlement. The provisional settlement, which is still subject to final approval of the court, consists of a $147.5 million pre-tax cash payment for Glover class members (inclusive of all policyholders in Iwanski, TVPX ARS INC. and Vida). As of December 31, 2024, the total provisional settlement amount of $147.5 million, pre-tax, remains accrued. Iwanski v. First Penn-Pacific Life Insurance Company (“FPP”), No. 2:18-cv-01573 filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is a putative class action that was filed on April 13, 2018. Plaintiff alleges that defendant FPP breached the terms of his life insurance policy by deducting non-guaranteed cost of insurance charges in excess of what is permitted by the policies. Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of universal life insurance policies issued by FPP containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those of Plaintiff’s policy and seeks damages on their behalf. Breach of contract is the only cause of action asserted. On March 7, 2024, the parties in Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company (discussed above) entered into a provisional settlement agreement that encompasses all policies at issue in this case, as the Glover case is inclusive of all policies in this case, as well as in the lawsuits captioned TVPX ARS INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and Vida Longevity Fund, LP v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York (both discussed below). The Glover plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of the provisional settlement was filed on March 8, 2024, and on September 4, 2024, the court granted preliminary approval of the provisional settlement. On December 16, 2024, the court heard oral argument on the issue of whether to grant final approval of the provisional settlement. The provisional settlement, which is still subject to final approval of the court, consists of a $147.5 million pre-tax cash payment for Glover class members (inclusive of all policyholders in Iwanski, TVPX ARS INC. and Vida). A motion has been filed to stay the proceedings in this matter pending the completion of the settlement approval process in Glover. TVPX ARS INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 2:18-cv-02989, is a putative class action that was filed on July 17, 2018. Plaintiff alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance than permitted by the policy. Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life and variable universal life policyholders who own policies issued by LNL or its predecessors containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those of Plaintiff’s policy and seeks damages on behalf of all such policyholders. On March 7, 2024, the parties in Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company (discussed above) entered into a provisional settlement agreement that encompasses all policies at issue in this case, as the Glover case is inclusive of all policies in this case, as well as in the lawsuits captioned Iwanski v. First Penn-Pacific Life Insurance Company (discussed above) and Vida Longevity Fund, LP v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York (discussed below). The Glover plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of the provisional settlement was filed on March 8, 2024, and on September 4, 2024, the court granted preliminary approval of the provisional settlement. On December 16, 2024, the court heard oral argument on the issue of whether to grant final approval of the provisional settlement. The provisional settlement, which is still subject to final approval of the court, consists of a $147.5 million pre-tax cash payment for Glover class members (inclusive of all policyholders in Iwanski, TVPX ARS INC. and Vida). A motion has been filed to stay the proceedings in this matter pending the completion of the settlement approval process in Glover. Vida Longevity Fund, LP v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 1:19-cv-06004, is a putative class action that was filed on June 27, 2019. Plaintiff alleges that Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York (“LLANY”) charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance than was permitted by the policies. On March 31, 2022, the court issued an order granting plaintiff’s motion for class certification and certified a class of all current or former owners of six universal life insurance products issued by LLANY that were assessed a cost of insurance charge any time on or after June 27, 2013. Plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of the class. On April 19, 2023, LLANY filed a motion for summary judgment. On March 7, 2024, the parties in Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company (discussed above) entered into a provisional settlement agreement that encompasses all policies at issue in this case, as the Glover case is inclusive of all policies in this case, as well as in the lawsuits captioned Iwanski v. First Penn-Pacific Life Insurance Company and TVPX ARS INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company (both discussed above). The Glover plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of the provisional settlement was filed on March 8, 2024, and on September 4, 2024, the court granted preliminary approval of the provisional settlement. On December 16, 2024, the court heard oral argument on the issue of whether to grant final approval of the provisional settlement. The provisional settlement, which is still subject to final approval of the court, consists of a $147.5 million pre-tax cash payment for Glover class members (inclusive of all policyholders in Iwanski, TVPX ARS INC. and Vida). On March 29, 2024, the court issued its summary judgment decision, granting LLANY’s motion in part and denying it in part, and entering summary judgment against twenty-two policyholders that the court determined were not economically harmed. On June 25, 2024, the court granted LLANY’s April 12, 2024, motion to stay proceedings in this matter pending the completion of the approval process in Glover. Angus v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 2:22-cv-01878, is a putative class action filed on May 13, 2022. Plaintiff alleges that defendant LNL breached the terms of her life insurance policy by deducting non-guaranteed cost of insurance charges in excess of what is permitted by the policies. Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of universal life insurance policies issued or insured by LNL or its predecessors containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those of plaintiff’s policy and seeks damages on their behalf. Breach of contract is the only cause of action asserted. On August 26, 2022, LNL filed a motion to dismiss. We are vigorously defending this matter. EFG Bank AG, Cayman Branch, et al. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, No. 17-cv-02592-GJP (E.D. Pa.) filed on February 1, 2017; Conestoga Trust, et al, v. Lincoln National Corp., et al., No. 18-cv-02379-GJP (E.D. Pa.), filed on June 6, 2018; Brighton Trustees, LLC, et al. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, No. 2:23-cv-2251-GJP (E.D. Pa.), filed on April 20, 2023 (and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on June 12, 2023); and Ryan K. Crayne, on behalf of and as trustee for Carlton Peak Trust v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, No. 2:24-cv-00053-GJP, filed on November 17, 2023 (and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on January 4, 2024) are consolidated civil actions pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In each case other than Crayne, plaintiffs purport to own universal life insurance policies or interests in universal life insurance policies originally issued by Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL). In Crayne, plaintiffs purport to own litigation claims concerning universal life policies originally issued by Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL). Among other things, plaintiffs in each case allege that LNL (or, in LSH Co. (discussed further below) and Conestoga, LNL and LNC) breached the terms of policyholders’ contracts when it increased non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates beginning in 2016 (or, in Brighton Trustees and LSH Co., in 2016 and 2017). We are vigorously defending these consolidated matters. LSH CO, et al. v. Lincoln National Corp., et al., No. 18-cv-05529-GJP (E.D. Pa.), filed on December 21, 2018, was previously consolidated with the above civil actions. On February 8, 2025, we entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs in LSH Co. in full and final settlement of this matter and this matter is now concluded. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A, solely in its capacity as securities intermediary v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 25-cv-00152-GJP (E.D. Pa.), is a civil action initially filed on December 4, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. On January 9, 2025, this case was transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiff, purporting to act solely in its capacity as securities intermediary for the beneficial owner of universal life insurance policies originally issued by Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL), alleges, among other things, that LNL breached the terms of Plaintiff’s contracts when it increased non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates beginning in 2016 and 2017. We are vigorously defending this matter. Other Litigation Andrew Nitkewicz v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 1:20-cv-06805, is a putative class action that was filed on August 24, 2020. Plaintiff Andrew Nitkewicz, as trustee of the Joan C. Lupe Trust, seeks to represent all current and former owners of universal life (including variable universal life) policies who own or owned policies issued by LLANY and its predecessors in interest that were in force at any time on or after June 27, 2013, and for which planned annual, semi-annual, or quarterly premiums were paid for any period beyond the end of the policy month of the insured’s death. Plaintiff alleges LLANY failed to refund unearned premium in violation of New York Insurance Law Section 3203(a)(2) in connection with the payment of death benefit claims for certain insurance policies. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and pre-judgment interest on behalf of the various classes and sub-class. On July 2, 2021, the court granted, with prejudice, LLANY’s November 2020 motion to dismiss this matter. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on July 28, 2021, and on September 26, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reserved its decision and certified a question to the New York Court of Appeals. On October 20, 2022, the New York Court of Appeals accepted the question. On October 19, 2023, the New York Court of Appeals answered the question in LLANY’s favor and transmitted the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Plaintiff sought, and was granted, supplemental briefing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit with respect to certain aspects of the New York Court of Appeals’ decision. The supplemental briefing was completed January 23, 2024. On August 8, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision dismissing the case. Plaintiff’s November 6, 2024, deadline by which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court has passed. As a result, with the affirmation of the decision dismissing the case, this matter is now concluded. Henry Morgan et al. v. Lincoln National Corporation d/b/a Lincoln Financial Group, et al, filed in the District Court of the 14 th Judicial District of Dallas County, Texas, No. DC-23-02492, is a putative class action that was filed on February 22, 2023. Plaintiffs Henry Morgan, Susan Smith, Charles Smith, Laura Seale, Terri Cogburn, Laura Baesel, Kathleen Walton, Terry Warner, and Toni Hale (“Plaintiffs”) allege on behalf of a putative class that Lincoln National Corporation d/b/a Lincoln Financial Group, LNL and LLANY (together, “Lincoln”), FMR, LLC, and Fidelity Product Services, LLC (“Fidelity”) created and marketed misleading and deceptive insurance products with attributes of investment products. The putative class comprises all individuals and entities who purchased Lincoln OptiBlend products that allocated account monies to the 1-Year Fidelity AIM Dividend Participation Account, between January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2022. Plaintiffs assert the following claims individually and on behalf of the class, (1) violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act against Lincoln; (2) common-law fraud against Lincoln; (3) negligent misrepresentation against Lincoln and Fidelity; and (4) aiding and abetting fraud against Fidelity. Plaintiffs allege they suffered damages from “a missed investment return of approximately 5-6%” and mitigation damages. They seek actual, consequential and punitive damages, as well as pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, attorney’s fees and litigation costs. On March 31, 2023, the Lincoln defendants filed a notice of removal removing the action from the 14 th Judicial District of Dallas County, Texas, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. On May 8, 2023, the Lincoln defendants and the Fidelity defendants filed motions to dismiss, which remain pending. We are vigorously defending this matter. Donald C. Meade v. Lincoln National Corporation, Ellen Cooper, Dennis Glass, and Randal Freitag (“Defendants”), No. 2:24-cv-01704, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, is a putative class action that was filed on April 23, 2024. On June 24, 2024, Local 295 IBT Employer Group Pension Trust Fund (“Local 295”) filed a motion for appointment as lead plaintiff. On October 23, 2024, the court granted this motion. Local 295 seeks to represent persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Lincoln National Corporation common stock between December 8, 2021, and November 2, 2022, inclusive (the “Class Period”). On December 23, 2024, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Plaintiff alleges claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and under SEC Rule 10b-5. Plaintiff alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts that plaintiff alleges Defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded, at the time the statements were made, about the Company’s business, operations and prospects with respect to its Guaranteed Universal Life policies and their lapse rates. The action seeks unspecified compensatory damages and reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees and expert fees, together with equitable/injunctive relief or such other relief as the court may deem just and proper. We are vigorously defending this matter. In Re. Lincoln National Corporation Stockholder Derivative Litigation (No.: 2:24-cv-02713) is the matter name for the following two civil actions that were consolidated for all purposes on September 26, 2024, by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania: L awrence Hollin, derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant Lincoln National Corporation v. Ellen G. Cooper, Dennis R. Glass, Randal J. Freitag, Deirdre P Connelly, William H. Cunningham, Reginald E. Davis, Eric G. Johnson, Gary C. Kelly, M. Leanne Lachman, Dale LeFebvre, Janet Liang, Michael F. Mee, Lynn M. Utter and Patrick S. Pittard (“Individual Defendants”) and Lincoln National Corporation (“Nominal Defendant”), No. 2:24-cv-02713 (E.D. Pa.), filed on June 20, 2024; and Robert R. Wiersum, derivatively on behalf of Lincoln National Corporation v. Ellen G. Cooper, Dennis R. Glass, Randal J. Freitag, Deirdre P Connelly, William H. Cunningham, Reginald E. Davis, Eric G. Johnson, Gary C. Kelly, M. Leanne Lachman, Dale LeFebvre, Janet Liang, Michael F. Mee, Lynn M. Utter and Patrick S. Pittard (“Individual Defendants”) and Lincoln National Corporation (“Nominal Defendant”), No. 2:24-cv-03251 (E.D. Pa.), filed on July 23, 2024. By the same September 26, 2024, order, the court directed, among things, that all proceedings and deadlines in this consolidated case be stayed until 30 days after resolution of all motions to dismiss (including the exhaustion of all related appeals) in the Meade matter discussed above. Plaintiffs bring this complaint for, inter alia, alleged breaches of fiduciary duties between November 4, 2020, at latest, through the date of filing and allege violations of the federal securities laws caused by the issuance of allegedly materially false and misleading statements issued, or caused to be issued, by the Individual Defendants in the Company’s SEC filings and other public statements. Plaintiffs allege that the Company thereby suffered loss, injury and damage. Among other relief, plaintiffs seek, in favor of the Company, damages sustained by the Company, punitive damages and attorney’s fees, an accounting for all damages to the Company and an unspecified order directing the Company to improve existing corporate governance and internal procedures. The Individual Defendants are vigorously defending these consolidated matters. Anthony Morgan, derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant Lincoln National Corporation v. Ellen G. Cooper, Deirdre P. Connelly, William H. Cunningham, Reginald Davis, Eric C. [G.] Johnson, Gary C. Kelly, M. Leanne Lachman, Dale LeFebvre, Janet Liang, Lynn M. Utter, Dennis Glass and Randal Freitag (“Individual Defendants”) and Lincoln National Corporation (“Nominal Defendant”), No. CV-2024-011319, pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, is a complaint that was filed on December 31, 2024. Plaintiff Anthony Morgan brings this verified stockholder derivative complaint purportedly on behalf of Nominal Defendant Lincoln National Corporation against the Individual Defendants, inter alia, for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties for allegedly failing to comply with federal securities laws, by the issuance of allegedly materially false and misleading statements in the Company’s SEC filings and other public statements. Plaintiff Morgan alleges claims against the Individual Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties and for unjust enrichment. Plaintiff Morgan alleges, inter alia, that the Individual Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (i) that the Company was experiencing a decline in its VUL business; (ii) that, as a result, the goodwill associated with the life insurance business was overstated; (iii) that, as a result, the Company’s policy lapse assumptions were outdated; (iv) that, as a result, the Company’s reserves were overstated; (v) that, as a result, the Company’s reported financial results and financial statements were misstated; and (vi) that, as a result, the Individual Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Plaintiff Morgan alleges that the Company thereby suffered loss, injury and damage. Among other relief, the action seeks specifically, in favor of the Company: damages sustained by the Company; a direction by the court for the Company to take all necessary actions to reform and improve its corporate governance and internal procedures to comply with all applicable laws and to protect the Company and its shareholders; restitution from the Individual Defendants, and each of them, and an order for the disgorgement of all profits, benefits and other compensation obtained by the Individual Defendants; the costs and disbursements of the action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, accountants’ and experts’ fees, costs and expenses; and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. The Individual Defendants are vigorously defending this matter. Harry Rosenthal, derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant Lincoln National Corporation v. Ellen G. Cooper, Deirdre P Connelly, William H. Cunningham, Reginald Davis, Eric C. [G.] Johnson, Gary C. Kelly, M. Leanne Lachman, Dale LeFebvre, Janet Liang, Lynn M. Utter, Dennis Glass and Randal Freitag (“Individual Defendants”) and Lincoln National Corporation (“Nominal Defendant”), No. CV-2025-00146, pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, is a complaint that was filed on January 3, 2025. Plaintiff Harry Rosenthal brings this verified stockholder derivative complaint purportedly on behalf of Nominal Defendant Lincoln National Corporation against the Individual Defendants, inter alia, for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties for allegedly failing to comply with federal securities laws, by the issuance of allegedly materially false and misleading statements in the Company’s SEC filings and other public statements. Plaintiff Rosenthal alleges claims against the Individual Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties and for unjust enrichment. Plaintiff Rosenthal alleges, inter alia, that the Individual Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (i) that the Company was experiencing a decline in its VUL business; (ii) that, as a result, the goodwill associated with the life insurance business was overstated; (iii) that, as a result, the Company’s policy lapse assumptions were outdated; (iv) that, as a result, the Company’s reserves were overstated; (v) that, as a result, the Company’s reported financial results and financial statements were misstated; and (vi) that, as a result, the Individual Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Plaintiff Rosenthal alleges that the Company thereby suffered loss, injury and damage. Among other relief, the action seeks specifically, in favor of the Company: damages sustained by the Company; a direction by the court for the Company to take all necessary actions to reform and improve its corporate governance and internal procedures to comply with all applicable laws and to protect the Company and its shareholders; restitution from the Individual Defendants, and each of them, and an order for the disgorgement of all profits, benefits and other compensation obtained by the Individual Defendants; the costs and disbursements of the action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, accountants’ and experts’ fees, costs and expenses; and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. The Individual Defendants are vigorously defending this matter. Kelly Grink v. Virtua Health and Lincoln National Corporation et al., No. 1:24-cv-09919, is a putative class action filed on October 18, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Plaintiffs Kelly Grink and Diane Trump are participants in Virtua Health’s defined contribution plans. Plaintiffs seek to represent all current and former participants or beneficiaries of Virtua’s 401(k) savings plan and 403(b) retirement program who invested in the plan’s fixed annuity option in the six years prior to the filing of this lawsuit. Lincoln offers a fixed annuity investment option to plan participants through its group annuity contract with the plans. Lincoln also provides recordkeeping and administration services to the plans. Plaintiffs allege that the Virtua defendants acted in breach of their fiduciary duty including by maintaining the plans’ investment in the Lincoln stable value fund when other investment providers are alleged to have provided superior alternatives at substantially lower cost. Plaintiffs allege that Lincoln acted as a fiduciary with respect to the fixed annuity investment option and was a party in interest to a prohibited transaction under ERISA. The action seeks unspecified relief against Lincoln. We are vigorously defending this matter. Tax Assessment Proceeding Lincoln National Life Insurance Company v. Township of Radnor, pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania Civil Division, No. 2022-001894, is a de novo appeal filed by LNL on March 21, 2022, regarding a September 30, 2021, Notice of Tax Assessment issued by the Township of Radnor to LNL for additional business privilege tax (“BPT”) for the years 2014-2019/2020 estimate. The assessment was based on an audit undertaken by a third-party auditor and consultant to the Township of Radnor, following a periodic business review of LNL undertaken by the same individual in 2018. The assessment is comprised of taxes, interest and penalties for the period in question. LNL filed a motion for summary judgment, that was denied by the court. The trial of this matter was held in the fourth quarter of 2024. The court’s ruling remains pending. We are vigorously defending this matter. Reinsurance Disputes Certain reinsurers have in the past sought, and may in the future seek, rate increases on certain yearly renewable term agreements. We may initiate legal proceedings, as necessary, under these agreements in order to protect our contractual rights. Additionally, reinsurers have in the past initiated, and may in the future initiate, legal proceedings against us. State Guaranty Fund Assessments State guaranty associations levy assessments on insurance companies doing business within their jurisdictions to cover policyholder losses from insolvent or impaired insurance companies. Mandatory assessments may be partially recovered through a reduction in future premium taxes in some states. We accrue the cost of future guaranty fund assessments based on estimates of insurance company insolvencies provided by the National Organization of Life & Health Insurance Guaranty Associations and the amount of premiums written in each state. We reported the undiscounted expected state guaranty fund assessment liability within other liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets of $63 million and $32 million as of December 31, 2024 and 2023, respectively. The actual amount of assessments levied against us in connection with insurance company insolvencies may vary from this estimate. Future guaranty fund assessments are expected to be paid based on anticipated funding periods for each guaranty association obligation. In addition, we reported the related receivable for expected future state premium tax recoveries within other assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets of $99 million and $32 million as of December 31, 2024 and 2023, respectively. Premium tax recoveries are expected to be realized based on regulations set forth by the various state taxing authorities. The balance sheet position as of December 31, 2024 and 2023, nets to recoveries of $36 million and assessments of less than $1 million, respectively. Commitments Operating Leases As of December 31, 2024 and 2023, we had operating lease ROU assets of $85 million and $118 million, respectively, and associated lease liabilities of $89 million and $129 million, respectively. The weighted-average discount rate was 4.0% and 4.4%, respectively, and the weighted-average remaining lease term was four years as of December 31, 2024 and 2023. Operating lease expense for the years ended December 31, 2024, 2023 and 2022, was $36 million, $42 million and $45 million, respectively, and reported in commissions and other expenses on the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss). The table below presents cash flow information (in millions) related to operating leases:
| For the Years Ended December 31,
| 2024 |  | 2023 |  | 2022
Supplemental Cash Flow Information |  |  |  |  |
Cash paid for amounts included in the measurement of lease |  |  |  |  |
liabilities | $ | 32 |  |  | $ | 42 |  |  | $ | 47 |
Supplemental Non-Cash Information |  |  |  |  |
ROU assets obtained in exchange for new lease obligations | $ | 4 |  |  | $ | – |  |  | $ | 23 |
Our future minimum lease payments (in millions) for operating leases as of December 31, 2024, were as follows:
2025 | $ | 29 |  |
2026 | 27 |  |
2027 | 23 |  |
2028 | 19 |  |
2029 | 8 |  |
Thereafter | 2 |  |
Total future minimum lease payments | 108 |  |
Less: Amount representing interest | 19 |  |
Present value of minimum lease payments | $ | 89 |  |
As of December 31, 2024, we had one lease that had not yet commenced. Certain Financing Arrangements We periodically enter into sale-leaseback arrangements that do not meet the criteria of a sale for accounting purposes. As such, we account for these transactions as financing arrangements. As of December 31, 2024 and 2023, we had $511 million and $595 million, respectively, of financing obligations reported within other liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Future payments due on certain financing arrangements (in millions) as of December 31, 2024, were as follows:
2025 | $ | 174 |
2026 | 226 |
2027 | 130 |
2028 | 21 |
2029 | 12 |
Thereafter | 8 |
Total future minimum lease payments | 571 |
Less: Amount representing interest | 60 |
Present value of minimum lease payments | $ | 511 |
Vulnerability from Concentrations As of December 31, 2024, we did not have a concentration of: business transactions with a particular customer or lender; sources of supply of labor or services used in the business; or a market or geographic area in which business is conducted that makes us vulnerable to an event that is at least reasonably possible to occur in the near term and which could cause a severe impact to our financial condition. For information on our investment and reinsurance concentrations, see Notes 3 and 7, respectively.

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://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 405 -SubTopic 30 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/405-30/tableOfContent Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/450/tableOfContent Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147478522/954-440-50-1 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 6: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/440/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration