Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2017
Text Block [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 14: Commitments and Contingencies The following commitments and contingencies provide an update of those discussed in “Note 21: Commitments and Contingencies” in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016, and should be read in conjunction with the complete descriptions provided in the aforementioned Form 10-K. Litigation MBIA Insurance Corp. v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, et al.; Index No. 603751/2009 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. County) Expert discovery concluded in March of 2016. On March 31, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part MBIA’s summary judgment motion. The parties have each filed cross-appeals from the court’s March 31, 2017 decision and order. MBIA Insurance Corp. v. J.P. Morgan Securities LLC (f/k/a Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.); Index No. 64676/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., County of Westchester) On June 6, 2016, the court denied J.P. Morgan’s motion for summary judgment. J.P. Morgan filed a notice of appeal of that ruling on July 6, 2016. On November 2, 2016, the Second Department of the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court (the “Second Department”) issued a decision on J.P. Morgan’s separate appeal, and MBIA Corp.’s cross appeal, from the trial court’s Order of September 18, 2014, which had granted MBIA’s motion for leave to amend its complaint to assert a cause of action for fraudulent concealment, and denied its motion to amend its complaint to assert cause of action alleging material misrepresentation in the procurement of an insurance contract brought under common law as informed by NYIL Section 3105. The Second Department decision affirmed the Order as it pertained to allowing the assertion of the fraudulent concealment claim, and reversed it as to the denial of the motion to add the claim of material misrepresentation in the procurement of an insurance contract. On April 3, 2017, MBIA voluntarily dismissed its claim for material misrepresentation in the procurement of an insurance contract as informed by NYIL Section 3105. A trial date has been set for October 10, 2017. Ambac Bond Insurance Coverage Cases, Coordinated Proceeding Case No. JCCP 4555 (Super. Ct. of Cal., County of San Francisco) Following an appeal of the dismissal of the plaintiff’s anti-trust claim under California’s Cartwright Act, the California Court of Appeal reinstated those claims against the bond insurer defendants on February 18, 2016. On April 8, 2016, Judge Mary E. Wiss recused and disqualified herself from further proceedings in the matter. On April 14, 2016, Judge Curtis E. A. Karnow was assigned to sit as the Coordination Trial Judge. On June 24, 2016, the defendants, including the MBIA parties, filed their answers to the complaints. Lynn Tilton and Patriarch Partners XV, LLC v. MBIA Inc. and MBIA Insurance Corp. v.; Index No.68880/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., County of Westchester) On November 2, 2015, Lynn Tilton and Patriarch Partners XV, LLC filed a complaint in New York State Supreme Court, Westchester County, against MBIA Inc. and MBIA Corp., alleging fraudulent inducement and related claims arising from purported promises made in connection with insurance policies issued by MBIA Corp. on certain collateralized loan obligations managed by Ms. Tilton and affiliated Patriarch entities, and seeking damages. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on January 15, 2016. On December 27, 2016, Justice Alan D. Scheinkman granted in part and denied in part MBIA’s motion to dismiss. On January 17, 2017, MBIA filed its answer. A scheduling order was entered on January 6, 2017 setting a Trial Readiness Conference for October 19, 2017. National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation v. Padilla, Civ. No. 16-cv-2101 (D.P.R. June 15, 2016) (Besosa, J.) On June 15, 2016, National filed a complaint in federal court in Puerto Rico challenging the Puerto Rico Emergency Moratorium and Financial Rehabilitation Act (Law 21-2016 or the “Moratorium Act”) as unconstitutional under the United States Constitution. On June 22, 2016, National filed a motion for partial summary judgment on its claim that the Moratorium Act is preempted by the federal Bankruptcy Code. On July 7, 2016, the Puerto Rico defendants filed a motion to stay the case pursuant to the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management and Economic Stability Act (“PROMESA”), which was granted by the Court in August of 2016. The defendants filed their answer to the complaint on July 26, 2016. On November 15, 2016, the District Court denied National’s motion to lift the litigation stay granted pursuant to PROMESA and on January 30, 2017, the District Court denied National’s partial motion for a summary judgement without prejudice. On January 11, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the denial of a separate plaintiff’s motion to lift the PROMESA stay in related action challenging the Moratorium Act. Accordingly, the case remained stayed through May 1, 2017, at which time the PROMESA stay expired. However, on May 3, 2017, Puerto Rico filed a Title III petition under PROMESA, thereby staying this dispute under Section 405(e) of PROMESA. Assured Guaranty Corp. et al. v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Case No. 3:17-cv-01578 (D.P.R. May 3, 2017) (Swain, J.) On May 3, 2017, the Financial Oversight and Management Board filed a petition under Title III of PROMESA to adjust the debts of Puerto Rico. On the same day, National, together with Assured Guaranty Corp. and Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp., filed an adversary complaint in the case commenced by the Title III filing, alleging that the Fiscal Plan and the Fiscal Plan Compliance Act, signed into law by the Governor of Puerto Rico on April 29, 2017, violate PROMESA and the United States Constitution. For those aforementioned actions in which it is a defendant, the Company is defending against those actions and expects ultimately to prevail on the merits. There is no assurance, however, that the Company will prevail in these actions. Adverse rulings in these actions could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s ability to implement its strategy and on its business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition. At this stage of the litigation, there has not been a determination as to the amount, if any, of damages. Accordingly, the Company is not able to estimate any amount of loss or range of loss. The Company similarly can provide no assurance that it will be successful in those actions in which it is a plaintiff. There are no other material lawsuits pending or, to the knowledge of the Company, threatened, to which the Company or any of its subsidiaries is a party. Lease Commitments The Company has a lease agreement for its headquarters in Purchase, New York as well as other immaterial leases for offices in New York, New York, San Francisco, California and London, England. The Purchase, New York initial lease term expires in 2030 with the option to terminate the lease in 2025 upon the payment of a termination amount. This lease agreement included an incentive amount to fund certain leasehold improvements, renewal options, escalation clauses and a free rent period. This lease agreement has been classified as an operating lease, and operating rent expense has been recognized on a straight-line basis since the second quarter of 2014. As of March 31, 2017, total future minimum lease payments remaining on this lease were $38 million.

Note 14: Commitments and Contingencies

The following commitments and contingencies provide an update of those discussed in “Note 21: Commitments and Contingencies” in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016, and should be read in conjunction with the complete descriptions provided in the aforementioned Form 10-K.

Litigation

MBIA Insurance Corp. v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, et al.; Index No. 603751/2009 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. County)

Expert discovery concluded in March of 2016. On March 31, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part MBIA’s summary judgment motion. The parties have each filed cross-appeals from the court’s March 31, 2017 decision and order.

MBIA Insurance Corp. v. J.P. Morgan Securities LLC (f/k/a Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.); Index No. 64676/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., County of Westchester)

On June 6, 2016, the court denied J.P. Morgan’s motion for summary judgment. J.P. Morgan filed a notice of appeal of that ruling on July 6, 2016. On November 2, 2016, the Second Department of the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court (the “Second Department”) issued a decision on J.P. Morgan’s separate appeal, and MBIA Corp.’s cross appeal, from the trial court’s Order of September 18, 2014, which had granted MBIA’s motion for leave to amend its complaint to assert a cause of action for fraudulent concealment, and denied its motion to amend its complaint to assert cause of action alleging material misrepresentation in the procurement of an insurance contract brought under common law as informed by NYIL Section 3105. The Second Department decision affirmed the Order as it pertained to allowing the assertion of the fraudulent concealment claim, and reversed it as to the denial of the motion to add the claim of material misrepresentation in the procurement of an insurance contract. On April 3, 2017, MBIA voluntarily dismissed its claim for material misrepresentation in the procurement of an insurance contract as informed by NYIL Section 3105. A trial date has been set for October 10, 2017.

Ambac Bond Insurance Coverage Cases, Coordinated Proceeding Case No. JCCP 4555 (Super. Ct. of Cal., County of San Francisco)

Following an appeal of the dismissal of the plaintiff’s anti-trust claim under California’s Cartwright Act, the California Court of Appeal reinstated those claims against the bond insurer defendants on February 18, 2016. On April 8, 2016, Judge Mary E. Wiss recused and disqualified herself from further proceedings in the matter. On April 14, 2016, Judge Curtis E. A. Karnow was assigned to sit as the Coordination Trial Judge. On June 24, 2016, the defendants, including the MBIA parties, filed their answers to the complaints.

Lynn Tilton and Patriarch Partners XV, LLC v. MBIA Inc. and MBIA Insurance Corp. v.; Index No.68880/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., County of Westchester)

On November 2, 2015, Lynn Tilton and Patriarch Partners XV, LLC filed a complaint in New York State Supreme Court, Westchester County, against MBIA Inc. and MBIA Corp., alleging fraudulent inducement and related claims arising from purported promises made in connection with insurance policies issued by MBIA Corp. on certain collateralized loan obligations managed by Ms. Tilton and affiliated Patriarch entities, and seeking damages. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on January 15, 2016. On December 27, 2016, Justice Alan D. Scheinkman granted in part and denied in part MBIA’s motion to dismiss. On January 17, 2017, MBIA filed its answer. A scheduling order was entered on January 6, 2017 setting a Trial Readiness Conference for October 19, 2017.

National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation v. Padilla, Civ. No. 16-cv-2101 (D.P.R. June 15, 2016) (Besosa, J.)

On June 15, 2016, National filed a complaint in federal court in Puerto Rico challenging the Puerto Rico Emergency Moratorium and Financial Rehabilitation Act (Law 21-2016 or the “Moratorium Act”) as unconstitutional under the United States Constitution. On June 22, 2016, National filed a motion for partial summary judgment on its claim that the Moratorium Act is preempted by the federal Bankruptcy Code. On July 7, 2016, the Puerto Rico defendants filed a motion to stay the case pursuant to the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management and Economic Stability Act (“PROMESA”), which was granted by the Court in August of 2016. The defendants filed their answer to the complaint on July 26, 2016. On November 15, 2016, the District Court denied National’s motion to lift the litigation stay granted pursuant to PROMESA and on January 30, 2017, the District Court denied National’s partial motion for a summary judgement without prejudice. On January 11, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the denial of a separate plaintiff’s motion to lift the PROMESA stay in related action challenging the Moratorium Act. Accordingly, the case remained stayed through May 1, 2017, at which time the PROMESA stay expired. However, on May 3, 2017, Puerto Rico filed a Title III petition under PROMESA, thereby staying this dispute under Section 405(e) of PROMESA.

Assured Guaranty Corp. et al. v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Case No. 3:17-cv-01578 (D.P.R. May 3, 2017) (Swain, J.)

On May 3, 2017, the Financial Oversight and Management Board filed a petition under Title III of PROMESA to adjust the debts of Puerto Rico. On the same day, National, together with Assured Guaranty Corp. and Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp., filed an adversary complaint in the case commenced by the Title III filing, alleging that the Fiscal Plan and the Fiscal Plan Compliance Act, signed into law by the Governor of Puerto Rico on April 29, 2017, violate PROMESA and the United States Constitution.

For those aforementioned actions in which it is a defendant, the Company is defending against those actions and expects ultimately to prevail on the merits. There is no assurance, however, that the Company will prevail in these actions. Adverse rulings in these actions could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s ability to implement its strategy and on its business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition. At this stage of the litigation, there has not been a determination as to the amount, if any, of damages. Accordingly, the Company is not able to estimate any amount of loss or range of loss. The Company similarly can provide no assurance that it will be successful in those actions in which it is a plaintiff.

There are no other material lawsuits pending or, to the knowledge of the Company, threatened, to which the Company or any of its subsidiaries is a party.

Lease Commitments

The Company has a lease agreement for its headquarters in Purchase, New York as well as other immaterial leases for offices in New York, New York, San Francisco, California and London, England. The Purchase, New York initial lease term expires in 2030 with the option to terminate the lease in 2025 upon the payment of a termination amount. This lease agreement included an incentive amount to fund certain leasehold improvements, renewal options, escalation clauses and a free rent period. This lease agreement has been classified as an operating lease, and operating rent expense has been recognized on a straight-line basis since the second quarter of 2014. As of March 31, 2017, total future minimum lease payments remaining on this lease were $38 million.