EXPLANATORY NOTE

This Amendment No. 1 to the Protective Life Insurance Company (the “Company”) Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 is being filed for the purpose of including the signatures of the Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm in Part II, Item 8, The Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm, and in Part IV, Item 15, Exhibit 23, Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm, which were inadvertently omitted from the original filing.  For convenience, the entire Annual Report on Form 10-K, as amended, is being re-filed.  Any reference to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 shall refer to this amended Annual Report.

No other revisions or amendments have been made to the Annual Report. This Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report does not otherwise update information in the Annual Report to reflect facts or events occurring subsequent to the original filing of the Annual Report.

2

Table of Contents

PROTECTIVE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K

FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

Table of Contents

PART I

Item 1.   Business

Protective Life Insurance Company (the “Company”), a stock life insurance company, was founded in 1907. The Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Protective Life Corporation (“PLC”), an insurance holding company whose common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange (symbol: PL). The Company provides financial services primarily in the United States through the production, distribution, and administration of insurance and investment products. Unless the context otherwise requires, the “Company,” “we,” “us,” or “our” refers to the consolidated group of Protective Life Insurance Company and its subsidiaries.

The Company operates several operating segments, each having a strategic focus. An operating segment is distinguished by products, channels of distribution, and/or other strategic distinctions. The Company’s operating segments are Life Marketing, Acquisitions, Annuities, Stable Value Products, and Asset Protection. The Company has an additional segment referred to as Corporate and Other which consists of net investment income not assigned to the segments above (including the impact of carrying liquidity) and expenses not attributable to the segments above. This segment also includes earnings from several non-strategic or runoff lines of business, various investment-related transactions, the operations of several small subsidiaries, and the repurchase of non-recourse funding obligations. The Company periodically evaluates operating segments, as prescribed in the Accounting Standard Codification (“ASC” or “Codification”) Segment Reporting Topic, and makes adjustments to its segment reporting as needed.

Additional information concerning the Company’s operating segments may be found in Item 7, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and Note 24, Operating Segments to consolidated financial statements included herein.

In the following paragraphs, the Company reports sales and other statistical information. These statistics are used to measure the relative progress of its marketing and acquisition efforts, but may or may not have an immediate impact on reported segment operating income. Sales data for traditional life insurance is based on annualized premiums, while universal life sales are based on annualized planned premiums, or “target” premiums if lesser, plus 6% of amounts received in excess of target premiums and 10% of single premiums. “Target” premiums for universal life are those premiums upon which full first year commissions are paid. Sales of annuities are measured based on the amount of purchase payments received less surrenders occurring within twelve months of the purchase payments. Stable value contract sales are measured at the time that the funding commitment is made based on the amount of purchase payments to be received. Sales within the Asset Protection segment are based on the amount of single premiums and fees received.

These statistics are derived from various sales tracking and administrative systems and are not derived from the Company’s financial reporting systems or financial statements. These statistics attempt to measure only some of the many factors that may affect future profitability, and therefore, are not intended to be predictive of future profitability.

Life Marketing

The Life Marketing segment markets universal life (“UL”), variable universal life (“VUL”), bank-owned life insurance (“BOLI”), and level premium term insurance (“traditional”) products on a national basis, primarily through networks of independent insurance agents and brokers, stockbrokers, and independent marketing organizations.

3

Table of Contents

The following table presents the Life Marketing segment’s sales measured by new premium:

Acquisitions

The Acquisitions segment focuses on acquiring, converting, and servicing policies from other insurance companies. The segment’s primary focus is on life insurance policies and annuity products that were sold to individuals. The level of the segment’s acquisition activity is predicated upon many factors, including available capital, operating capacity, potential return on capital, and market dynamics. The Company expects acquisition opportunities to continue to be available; however, the Company believes it may face increased competition and evolving capital requirements that may affect the environment and the form of future acquisitions.

Most acquisitions completed by the Acquisitions segment have not included the acquisition of an active sales force, thus policies acquired through the segment are typically blocks of business where no new policies are being marketed. Therefore earnings and account values are expected to decline as the result of lapses, deaths, and other terminations of coverage, unless new acquisitions are made. The segment’s revenues and earnings may fluctuate from year to year depending upon the level of acquisition activity. In transactions where some marketing activity was included, the Company may cease future marketing efforts, redirect those efforts to another segment of the Company, or elect to continue marketing new policies as a component of other segments.

The Company believes that its focused and disciplined approach to the acquisition process and its experience in the assimilation, conservation, and servicing of acquired policies provide a significant competitive advantage.

On occasion, the Company’s other operating segments have acquired companies and/or blocks of policies. The results of these acquisitions are included in the respective segment’s financials.

On October 1, 2013 the Company completed the acquisition contemplated by the master agreement (the “Master Agreement”) dated April 10, 2013, by and among the Company, AXA Financial, Inc. (“AXA”) and AXA Equitable Financial Services, LLC (“AEFS”). Pursuant to the Master Agreement, the Company acquired the stock of MONY Life Insurance Company (���(“MONY”) from AEFS and entered into a reinsurance agreement (the “Reinsurance Agreement”) pursuant to which it reinsured on a 100% indemnity reinsurance basis certain business (the “MLOA Business”) of MONY Life Insurance Company of America (“MLOA”). The aggregate purchase price of MONY was $686 million. The ceding commission for the reinsurance of the MLOA Business was $370 million. Together, the purchase of MONY and reinsurance of the MLOA Business are referred to herein as the “MONY acquisition”. The MONY acquisition allowed the Company to invest its capital and increase the scale of its Acquisitions segment. The MONY acquisition business is comprised of traditional and universal life insurance policies and fixed and variable annuities, most of which were written prior to 2004. See Note 3, Significant Acquisitions for additional information.

4

Table of Contents

Annuities

The Annuities segment markets fixed and variable annuity (“VA”) products. These products are primarily sold through broker-dealers, financial institutions, and independent agents and brokers.

The Company’s fixed annuities include modified guaranteed annuities which guarantee an interest rate for a fixed period. Contract values for these annuities are “market-value adjusted” upon surrender prior to maturity. In certain interest rate environments, these products afford the Company with a measure of protection from the effects of changes in interest rates. The Company’s fixed annuities also include single premium deferred annuities, single premium immediate annuities, and indexed annuities. The Company’s variable annuities offer the policyholder the opportunity to invest in various investment accounts and offer optional features that guarantee the death and withdrawal benefits of the underlying annuity.

The demand for annuity products is related to the general level of interest rates, performance of the equity markets, and perceived risk of insurance companies. The following table presents fixed and VA sales:

Stable Value Products

The Stable Value Products segment sells fixed and floating rate funding agreements directly to the trustees of municipal bond proceeds, money market funds, bank trust departments, and other institutional investors. The segment also issues funding agreements to the Federal Home Loan Bank (“FHLB”), and markets guaranteed investment contracts (“GICs”) to 401(k) and other qualified retirement savings plans. GICs are contracts which specify a return on funds for a specified period and often provide flexibility for withdrawals at book value in keeping with the benefits provided by the plan. The demand for GICs is related to the relative attractiveness of the “fixed rate” investment option in a 401(k) plan compared to the equity-based investment options available to plan participants.  Additionally, the Company has contracts outstanding pursuant to a funding agreement-backed notes program registered with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) which offers notes to both institutional and retail investors.

The segment’s products complement the Company’s overall asset/liability management in that the terms may be tailored to the needs of the Company as the seller of the contracts. The Company’s emphasis is on a consistent and disciplined approach to product pricing and asset/liability management, careful underwriting of early withdrawal risks, and maintaining low distribution and administration costs.  Most GICs and funding agreements written by the Company have maturities of one to ten years.

5

Table of Contents

The following table presents Stable Value Products sales:

Asset Protection

The Asset Protection segment markets extended service contracts and credit life and disability insurance to protect consumers’ investments in automobiles and recreational vehicles (“RV”). In addition, the segment markets a guaranteed asset protection (“GAP”) product. GAP coverage covers the difference between the loan pay-off amount and an asset’s actual cash value in the case of a total loss. The segment’s products are primarily marketed through a national network of approximately 8,000 automobile and RV dealers. A network of direct employee sales representatives and general agents distribute these products to the dealer market.

The following table presents the insurance and related product sales measured by new revenue:

In 2013, approximately 98% of the segment’s sales were through the automobile and RV dealer distribution channel and approximately 77% of the segment’s sales were extended service contracts. A portion of the sales and resulting premiums are reinsured with producer-affiliated reinsurers.

Corporate and Other

The Corporate and Other segment primarily consists of net investment income not assigned to the segments above (including the impact of carrying liquidity) and expenses not attributable to the segments above. This segment includes earnings from several non-strategic or runoff lines of business, various investment-related transactions, the operations of several small subsidiaries, and the repurchase of non-recourse funding obligations. The earnings of this segment may fluctuate from year to year.

Investments

As of December 31, 2013, the Company’s investment portfolio was approximately $43.6 billion. The types of assets in which the Company may invest are influenced by various state insurance laws which prescribe qualified investment assets. Within the parameters of these laws, the Company invests in assets giving consideration to such factors as liquidity and capital needs, investment quality, investment return, matching of assets and liabilities, and the overall composition of the investment portfolio by asset type and credit exposure. For further information regarding the Company’s investments, the maturity of and the concentration of risk among the Company’s invested assets, derivative financial instruments, and liquidity, see Note 2, Summary of Significant Accounting Policies, Note 5, Investment

6

Table of Contents

The ratio of voluntary terminations of individual life insurance to mean individual life insurance in-force, which is determined by dividing the amount of insurance terminated due to lapses during the year by the mean of the insurance in-force at the beginning and end of the year, adjusted for the timing of major acquisitions is as follows:

Investment Products In-Force

The amount of investment products in-force is measured by account balances. The following table includes the stable value products and fixed and variable annuity account balances. A majority of the VA account balances are reported in the Company’s financial statements as liabilities related to separate accounts.

Underwriting

The underwriting policies of the Company and its insurance subsidiaries are established by management. With respect to individual insurance, the Company and its subsidiaries use information from the application and, in some cases, inspection reports, attending physician statements, and/or medical examinations to determine whether a policy should be issued as applied for, other than applied for, or rejected. Medical examinations of applicants are required for individual life insurance in excess of certain prescribed amounts (which vary based on the type of insurance) and for most individual insurance applied for by applicants over age 50. In the case of “simplified issue” policies, which are issued primarily through the Asset Protection segment, coverage is rejected if the responses to certain health questions contained in the application indicate adverse health of the applicant. For other than “simplified issue” policies, medical examinations are requested of any applicant, regardless of age and amount of requested coverage, if an examination is deemed necessary to underwrite the risk. Substandard risks may be referred to reinsurers for evaluation.

The Company and its insurance subsidiaries generally require blood samples to be drawn with individual insurance applications above certain face amounts based on the applicant’s age, except in the worksite and BOLI markets where limited blood testing is required. Blood samples are tested for a wide range of chemical values and are screened for antibodies to certain viruses. Applications also contain questions permitted by law regarding certain viruses which must be answered by the proposed insureds.

The Company utilizes an advanced underwriting system, TeleLife®, for certain segments of its life business. TeleLife® streamlines the application process through a telephonic interview of the applicant, schedules medical exams, accelerates the underwriting process and the ultimate issuance of a policy mostly through electronic means, and reduces the number of attending physician statements.

9

Table of Contents

The Company’s maximum retention limit on directly issued business is $2,000,000 for any one life on certain of its traditional life and universal life products.

Reinsurance Ceded

The Company and its insurance subsidiaries cede life insurance to other insurance companies. The ceding insurance company remains liable with respect to ceded insurance should any reinsurer fail to meet the obligations assumed by it.  The Company has also reinsured guaranteed minimum death benefit (“GMDB”) claims relative to certain of its VA contracts.

For approximately 10 years prior to mid-2005, the Company entered into reinsurance contracts in which the Company ceded a significant percentage, approximately 90%, of its newly written traditional life insurance business on a first dollar quota share basis under coinsurance contracts. In mid-2005, the Company substantially discontinued coinsuring its newly written traditional life insurance and moved to yearly renewable term (“YRT”) reinsurance. The amount of insurance retained by the Company on any one life on traditional life insurance was $500,000 in years prior to mid-2005. In 2005, this retention was increased to amounts up to $1,000,000 for certain policies, and during 2008, was increased to $2,000,000 for certain policies.

For approximately 15 years prior to 2012, the Company reinsured 90% of the mortality risk on the majority of its newly written universal life insurance on a YRT basis. During 2012, the Company moved to reinsure only amounts in excess of its $2,000,000 retention for the majority of its newly written universal life insurance.

Policy Liabilities and Accruals

The applicable insurance laws under which the Company and its insurance subsidiaries operate require that each insurance company report policy liabilities to meet future obligations on the outstanding policies. These liabilities are the amounts which, with the additional premiums to be received and interest thereon compounded annually at certain assumed rates, are calculated in accordance with applicable law to be sufficient to meet the various policy and contract obligations as they mature. These laws specify that the liabilities shall not be less than liabilities calculated using certain named mortality tables and interest rates.

The policy liabilities and accruals carried in the Company’s financial reports presented on the basis of accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) differ from those specified by the laws of the various states and carried in the insurance subsidiaries’ statutory financial statements (presented on the basis of statutory accounting principles mandated by state insurance regulations). For policy liabilities other than those for universal life policies, annuity contracts, GICs, and funding agreements, these differences arise from the use of mortality and morbidity tables and interest rate assumptions which are deemed to be more appropriate for financial reporting purposes than those required for statutory accounting purposes, from the introduction of lapse assumptions into the calculation, and from the use of the net level premium method on all business. Policy liabilities for universal life policies, annuity contracts, GICs, and funding agreements are generally carried in the Company’s financial reports at the account value of the policy or contract plus accrued interest.

Federal Taxes

Existing laws and regulations affect the taxation of the Company’s products. Income taxes that would otherwise be payable by policyholders on investment income that is earned inside certain types of insurance and annuity policies are deferred during these products’ accumulation period. This favorable tax treatment gives certain of the Company’s products a competitive advantage over non-insurance products. If the individual income tax is revised such that there is an elimination or scale-back of the tax-deferred status of these insurance products, or competing non-insurance products are granted a tax-deferred status, then the relative attractiveness of the Company’s products may be reduced or eliminated.

Life insurance products are often used to fund estate tax obligations. Since 2001, the estate tax has changed significantly. From 2000 to 2009, its highest marginal rate graded down from 55 percent to 45 percent, and there were significant changes in its key provisions. In 2010, the estate tax was completely eliminated. It was reinstated in 2011, but at lower rates and significantly-changed terms from what existed prior to 2001. In early 2013, The American Tax

10

Table of Contents

Regulation

The Company is subject to government regulation in each of the states in which it conducts business. In many instances, the regulatory models emanate from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (“NAIC”). Such regulation is vested in state agencies having broad administrative and in some instances discretionary power dealing with many aspects of the Company’s business, which may include, among other things, premium rates and increases thereto, underwriting practices, reserve requirements, marketing practices, advertising, privacy, policy forms, reinsurance reserve requirements, insurer use of captive reinsurance companies, acquisitions, mergers, capital adequacy, claims practices and the remittance of unclaimed property. In addition, some state insurance departments may enact rules or regulations with extra-territorial application, effectively extending their jurisdiction to areas such as permitted insurance company investments that are normally the province of an insurance company’s domiciliary state regulator.

The Company and its insurance subsidiaries are required to file periodic reports with the regulatory agencies in each of the jurisdictions in which they do business, and their business and accounts are subject to examination by such agencies at any time. Under the rules of the NAIC, insurance companies are examined periodically (generally every three to five years) by one or more of the regulatory agencies on behalf of the states in which they do business. At any given time, a number of financial and/or market conduct examinations of the Company and its subsidiaries may be ongoing. From time to time, regulators raise issues during examinations or audits for the Company and its subsidiaries that could, if determined adversely, have a material impact on the Company. To date, no such insurance department examinations have produced any significant adverse findings regarding any of the Company or its insurance company subsidiaries.

Under insurance guaranty fund laws, in most states insurance companies doing business therein can be assessed up to prescribed limits for policyholder losses incurred by insolvent companies. From time to time, companies may be asked to contribute amounts beyond prescribed limits. Although the Company cannot predict the amount of any future assessments, most insurance guaranty fund laws currently provide that an assessment may be excused or deferred if it would threaten an insurer’s own financial strength.

In addition, many states, including the states in which the Company and its insurance subsidiaries are domiciled, have enacted legislation or adopted regulations regarding insurance holding company systems. These laws require registration of and periodic reporting by insurance companies domiciled within the jurisdiction which control or are controlled by other corporations or persons so as to constitute an insurance holding company system. These laws also affect the acquisition of control of insurance companies as well as transactions between insurance companies and companies controlling them. Most states, including Tennessee, where the Company is domiciled, require administrative approval of the acquisition of control of an insurance company domiciled in the state or the acquisition of control of an insurance holding company whose insurance subsidiary is incorporated in the state. In Tennessee, the acquisition of 10% of the voting securities of an entity is deemed to be the acquisition of control for the purpose of the insurance holding company statute and requires not only the filing of detailed information concerning the acquiring parties and the plan of acquisition, but also administrative approval prior to the acquisition. Recently, new holding company legislation has been adopted in certain states where the Company and its insurance subsidiaries are domiciled, which subjects such companies to increased reporting requirements. Holding company legislation has been proposed in additional states, which, if adopted, will subject any domiciled subsidiaries to additional reporting requirements.

The states in which the Company and its insurance subsidiaries are domiciled also impose certain restrictions on their ability to pay dividends. These restrictions are based in part on the prior year’s statutory income and surplus. In general, dividends up to specified levels are considered ordinary and may be paid without prior approval. Dividends in larger amounts are subject to approval by the insurance commissioner of the state of domicile. The maximum amount that would qualify as ordinary dividends to the Company by its insurance subsidiaries in 2014 is estimated to be $117.8 million. No assurance can be given that more stringent restrictions will not be adopted from time to time by states in which the Company and its insurance subsidiaries are domiciled; such restrictions could have the effect, under certain circumstances, of significantly reducing dividends or other amounts payable to the Company by such subsidiaries without affirmative prior approval by state regulatory authorities.

12

Table of Contents

directed to: Shareowner Relations, Protective Life Corporation, P. O. Box 2606, Birmingham, Alabama 35202, Telephone (205) 268-3573, Fax (205) 268-5547.

The Company has adopted a Code of Business Conduct, which applies to all directors, officers and employees of the Company and its wholly owned subsidiaries. The Code of Business Conduct incorporates a code of ethics that applies to the principal executive officer and all financial officers (including the Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer) of the Company and its subsidiaries. The Code of Conduct is available on the Company’s website, www.protective.com.

Item 1A.  Risk Factors and Cautionary Factors that may Affect Future Results

The operating results of companies in the insurance industry have historically been subject to significant fluctuations. The factors which could affect the Company’s future results include, but are not limited to, general economic conditions and known trends and uncertainties which are discussed more fully below.

The Company is exposed to the risks of natural and man-made disasters and catastrophes, pandemics, malicious acts, terrorist acts and climate change, which could adversely affect the Company’s operations and results.

While the Company has obtained insurance, implemented risk management and contingency plans, and taken preventive measures and other precautions, no predictions of specific scenarios can be made nor can assurance be given that there are not scenarios that could have an adverse effect on the Company. A natural or man-made disaster or catastrophe, including a severe weather or geological event such as a storm, tornado, fire, flood, or earthquake, pandemic, malicious act, terrorist act, or the occurrence of climate change, could cause the Company’s workforce to be unable to engage in operations at one or more of its facilities or result in short or long-term interruptions in the Company’s business operations, any of which could be material to the Company’s operating results for a particular period. In addition, such events could adversely affect the mortality, morbidity, or other experience of the Company or its reinsurers and have a significant negative impact on the Company. In addition, claims arising from the occurrence of such events or conditions could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition and results of operations. Such events or conditions could also have an adverse effect on lapses and surrenders of existing policies, as well as sales of new policies. The Company’s risk management efforts and other precautionary plans and activities may not adequately predict the impact on the Company from such events.

In addition, such events or conditions could result in a decrease or halt in economic activity in large geographic areas, adversely affecting the marketing or administration of the Company’s business within such geographic areas and/or the general economic climate, which in turn could have an adverse effect on the Company. Such events or conditions could also result in additional regulation or restrictions on the Company in the conduct of its business. The possible macroeconomic effects of such events or conditions could also adversely affect the Company’s asset portfolio, as well as many other aspects of the Company’s business, financial condition, and results of operations.

A disruption affecting the electronic systems of the Company or those on whom the Company relies could adversely affect the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

In conducting its business, the Company relies extensively on various electronic systems, including computer systems, networks, data processing and administrative systems, and communication systems. The Company’s business partners, counter parties, service providers and distributors also rely on such systems, as do securities exchanges and financial markets that are important to the Company’s ability to conduct its business. These systems could be disrupted, damaged or destroyed by intentional or unintentional acts or events such as cyber-attacks, viruses, sabotage, acts of war or terrorism, human error, system failures, failures of power or water supply, and the loss or malfunction of other utilities or services. They may also be disrupted, damaged or destroyed by natural events such as storms, tornadoes, fires, floods or earthquakes.   While the Company and others on whom it depends try to identify threats and implement measures to protect their systems, such protective measures may not be sufficient. Disruption, damage or destruction of any of these systems could cause the Company or others on whom the Company relies to be unable to conduct business for an extended period of time, which could materially adversely impact the Company’s business and its financial condition and results of operations.

15

Table of Contents

Confidential information maintained in the Company’s systems could be compromised or misappropriated, damaging the Company’s business and reputation and adversely affecting its financial condition and results of operations.

In the course of conducting its business, the Company retains confidential information, including information about its customers and proprietary business information. The Company retains confidential information in various electronic systems, including computer systems, data processing and administrative systems, and communication systems. The Company maintains physical, administrative, and technical safeguards to protect the information and it relies on commercial technologies to maintain the security of its systems and to maintain the security of its transmission of such information to other parties, including its business partners, counter parties and service providers. An intentional or unintentional breach or compromise of the Company’s security measures could result in the disclosure, misappropriation, misuse, alteration or destruction of the confidential information retained by the Company, which could damage the Company’s business and reputation, and adversely affect its financial condition and results of operations by, among other things, causing harm to the Company’s customers, deterring customers and others from doing business with the Company, subjecting the Company to significant regulatory, civil, and criminal liability, and requiring the Company to incur significant legal and other expenses. As cyber threats continue to evolve, the Company may be required to expend significant additional resources to continue to modify or enhance our protective measures or to investigate and remediate any information security vulnerabilities. Although to date the Company has not experienced any material losses relating to cyber-attacks or other information security breaches at the Company or its counterparties, there can be no assurance that the Company will not suffer such losses in the future.

The Company’s results and financial condition may be negatively affected should actual experience differ from management’s assumptions and estimates.

In the conduct of business, the Company makes certain assumptions regarding mortality, morbidity, persistency, expenses, interest rates, equity market volatility, tax liability, business mix, frequency and severity of claims, contingent liabilities, investment performance, and other factors appropriate to the type of business it expects to experience in future periods. These assumptions are also used to estimate the amounts of deferred policy acquisition costs, policy liabilities and accruals, future earnings, and various components of the Company’s balance sheet. These assumptions are used in the operation of the Company’s business in making decisions crucial to the success of the Company, including the pricing of products and expense structures relating to products. The Company’s actual experience, as well as changes in estimates, is used to prepare the Company’s financial statements. To the extent the Company’s actual experience and changes in estimates differ from original estimates, the Company’s financial condition may be affected.

Mortality, morbidity, and casualty expectations incorporate assumptions about many factors, including for example, how a product is distributed, for what purpose the product is purchased, the mix of customers purchasing the products, persistency and lapses, future progress in the fields of health and medicine, and the projected level of used vehicle values. Actual mortality, morbidity, and/or casualty experience may differ from expectations. In addition, continued activity in the viatical, stranger-owned, and/or life settlement industry could cause the Company’s level of lapses to differ from its assumptions about persistency and lapses, which could negatively impact the Company’s performance.

The calculations the Company uses to estimate various components of its balance sheet and statements of income are necessarily complex and involve analyzing and interpreting large quantities of data. The Company currently employs various techniques for such calculations. From time to time it develops and implements more sophisticated administrative systems and procedures capable of facilitating the calculation of more precise estimates.

Assumptions and estimates involve judgment, and by their nature are imprecise and subject to changes and revisions over time. Accordingly, the Company’s results may be affected, positively or negatively, from time to time, by actual results differing from assumptions, by changes in estimates, and by changes resulting from implementing more sophisticated administrative systems and procedures that facilitate the calculation of more precise estimates.

16

Table of Contents

which are provided and/or maintained by other parties. Any of the other parties upon which the Company depends may default on their obligations to the Company due to bankruptcy, insolvency, lack of liquidity, adverse economic conditions, operational failure, fraud, or other reasons. Such defaults could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition and results of operations.

Certain of these other parties may act on behalf of the Company or represent the Company in various capacities. Consequently, the Company may be held responsible for obligations that arise from the acts or omissions of these other parties.

As with all financial services companies, the Company’s ability to conduct business is dependent upon consumer confidence in the industry and its products. Actions of competitors and financial difficulties of other companies in the industry could undermine consumer confidence and adversely affect retention of existing business and future sales of the Company’s insurance and investment products.

The Company’s risk management policies, practices, and procedures could leave it exposed to unidentified or unanticipated risks, which could negatively affect its business or result in losses.

The Company has developed risk management policies and procedures and expects to continue to enhance these in the future. Nonetheless, the Company’s policies and procedures to identify, monitor, and manage both internal and external risks may not predict future exposures, which could be different or significantly greater than expected.

These identified risks may not be the only risks facing the Company. Additional risks and uncertainties not currently known to the Company, or that it currently deems to be immaterial, may adversely affect its business, financial condition and/or operating results.

The Company’s strategies for mitigating risks arising from its day-to-day operations may prove ineffective resulting in a material adverse effect on its results of operations and financial condition.

The Company’s performance is highly dependent on its ability to manage risks that arise from a large number of its day-to-day business activities, including: policy pricing, reserving and valuation; underwriting; claims processing; policy administration and servicing; execution of its investment and hedging strategy; financial and tax reporting; and other activities, many of which are very complex. The Company also may rely on third parties for such activities. The Company seeks to monitor and control its exposure to risks arising out of or related to these activities through a variety of internal controls, management review processes, and other mechanisms. However, the occurrence of unforeseen or uncontemplated risks, or the occurrence of risks of a greater magnitude than expected, including those arising from a failure in processes, procedures or systems implemented by the Company or a failure on the part of employees or third parties upon which the Company relies in this regard, may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.

Interest rate fluctuations and sustained periods of low interest rates could negatively affect the Company’s interest earnings and spread income, or otherwise impact its business.

Significant changes in interest rates expose the Company to the risk of not earning anticipated interest on products without significant account balances, or not realizing anticipated spreads between the interest rate earned on investments and the credited interest rates paid on in-force policies and contracts that have significant account balances. Both rising and declining interest rates as well as sustained periods of low interest rates can negatively affect the Company’s interest earnings and spread income.

Lower interest rates may also result in lower sales of certain of the Company’s life insurance and annuity products. Additionally, during periods of declining or low interest rates, certain previously issued life insurance and annuity products may be relatively more attractive investments to consumers, resulting in increased premium payments on products with flexible premium features, repayment of policy loans and increased persistency, or a higher percentage of insurance policies remaining in force from year to year during a period when the Company’s investments earn lower returns. Certain of the Company’s life insurance and annuity products guarantee a minimum credited interest rate, and the Company could become unable to earn its spread income or may earn less interest on its investments than it is required to credit to policy holders should interest rates decrease significantly and/or remain low for sustained periods.

18

Table of Contents

Additionally, the profitability of certain of the Company’s life insurance products that do not have significant account balances could be reduced should interest rates decrease significantly and/or remain low for sustained periods.

The Company’s expectation for future interest earnings and spreads is an important component in amortization of deferred acquisition costs (“DAC”) and value of business acquired (“VOBA”), and significantly lower interest earnings or spreads may cause it to accelerate amortization, thereby reducing net income in the affected reporting period. Sustained periods of low interest rates could also result in an increase in the valuation of the future policy benefit or policyholder account balance liabilities associated with the Company’s products.

Higher interest rates may create a less favorable environment for the origination of mortgage loans and decrease the investment income the Company receives in the form of prepayment fees, make-whole payments, and mortgage participation income. Higher interest rates would also adversely affect the market value of fixed income securities within the Company’s investment portfolio. Higher interest rates may also increase the cost of debt and other obligations of the Company having floating rate or rate reset provisions and may result in fluctuations in sales of annuity products. During periods of increasing market interest rates, the Company may offer higher crediting rates on interest-sensitive products, such as universal life insurance and fixed annuities, and it may increase crediting rates on in-force products to keep these products competitive. In addition, rapidly rising interest rates may cause increased policy surrenders, withdrawals from life insurance policies and annuity contracts, and requests for policy loans as policyholders and contract holders shift assets into higher yielding investments. Increases in crediting rates, as well as surrenders and withdrawals, could have an adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition and results of operations, including earnings, equity (including AOCI), and statutory risk based capital ratios.

Additionally, the Company’s asset/liability management programs and procedures incorporate assumptions about the relationship between short-term and long-term interest rates (i.e., the slope of the yield curve) and relationships between risk-adjusted and risk-free interest rates, market liquidity, and other factors. The effectiveness of the Company’s asset/liability management programs and procedures may be negatively affected whenever actual results differ from these assumptions. In general, the Company’s results are improved when the yield curve is positively sloped (i.e., when long-term interest rates are higher than short-term interest rates), and will be adversely affected by a flat or negatively sloped curve.

The Company’s investments are subject to market and credit risks. These risks could be heightened during periods of extreme volatility or disruption in financial and credit markets.

The Company’s invested assets and derivative financial instruments are subject to risks of credit defaults and changes in market values. These risks could be heightened during periods of extreme volatility or disruption in the financial and credit markets. A widening of credit spreads will increase the unrealized losses in the Company’s investment portfolio. The factors affecting the financial and credit markets could lead to other-than-temporary impairments of assets in the Company’s investment portfolio.

The value of the Company’s commercial mortgage loan portfolio depends in part on the financial condition of the tenants occupying the properties that the Company has financed. The value of the Company’s investment portfolio, including its portfolio of government debt obligations, debt obligations of those entities with an express or implied governmental guarantee and debt obligations of other issuers holding a large amount of such obligations, depends in part on the ability of the issuers or guarantors of such debt to maintain their credit ratings and meet their contractual obligations. Factors that may affect the overall default rate on, and market value of, the Company’s invested assets, derivative financial instruments, and mortgage loans include interest rate levels, financial market performance, and general economic conditions as well as particular circumstances affecting the individual tenants, borrowers, issuers and guarantors.

Significant continued financial and credit market volatility, changes in interest rates and credit spreads, credit defaults, real estate values, market illiquidity, declines in equity prices, acts of corporate malfeasance, ratings downgrades of the issuers or guarantors of these investments, and declines in general economic conditions, either alone or in combination, could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows through realized losses, impairments, changes in unrealized loss positions, and increased demands on capital, including obligations to post additional capital and collateral. In addition, market volatility can make it difficult for the Company to value certain of its assets, especially if trading becomes less frequent. Valuations may include

19

Table of Contents

assumptions or estimates that may have significant period-to-period changes that could have an adverse impact on the Company’s results of operations or financial condition.

Equity market volatility could negatively impact the Company’s business.

Volatility in equity markets may discourage prospective purchasers of variable separate account products, such as variable annuities, that have returns linked to the performance of equity markets and may cause some existing customers to withdraw cash values or reduce investments in those products. The amount of policy fees received from variable products is affected by the performance of the equity markets, increasing or decreasing as markets rise or fall.

Equity market volatility can also affect the profitability of variable products in other ways, in particular as a result of death benefit and withdrawal benefit guarantees in these products. The estimated cost of providing guaranteed minimum death benefits (“GMDB”) and guaranteed minimum withdrawal benefits (“GMWB”) incorporates various assumptions about the overall performance of equity markets over certain time periods. Periods of significant and sustained downturns in equity markets or increased equity market volatility could result in an increase in the valuation of the future policy benefit or policyholder account balance liabilities associated with such products, resulting in a reduction to net income and an adverse impact to the statutory capital and risk-based capital ratios of the Company and its insurance subsidiaries.

The amortization of DAC relating to variable products and the estimated cost of providing GMDB and GMWB incorporate various assumptions about the overall performance of equity markets over certain time periods. The rate of amortization of DAC and the cost of providing GMDB and GMWB could increase if equity market performance is worse than assumed.

The Company’s use of derivative financial instruments within its risk management strategy may not be effective or sufficient.

The Company uses derivative financial instruments within its risk management strategy to mitigate risks to which it is exposed, including the adverse effects of domestic and/or international credit and/or equity market and/or interest rate levels or volatility on its fixed indexed annuity and variable annuity products with guaranteed benefit features. These derivative financial instruments may not effectively offset the changes in the carrying value of the guarantees due to, among other things, the time lag between changes in the value of such guarantees and the changes in the value of the derivative financial instruments purchased by the Company, extreme credit and/or equity market and/or interest rate levels or volatility, contract holder behavior that differs from the Company’s expectations, and divergence between the performance of the underlying funds of such variable annuity products with guaranteed benefit features and the indices utilized by the Company in estimating its exposure to such guarantees.

The Company may also use derivative financial instruments within its risk management strategy to mitigate risks arising from its exposure to individual issuers or sectors of issuers and to mitigate the adverse effects of distressed domestic and/or international credit and/or equity markets and/or interest rate levels or volatility on its overall financial condition or results of operations.

The use of derivative financial instruments by the Company may have an adverse impact on the level of statutory capital and the risk based capital ratios of the Company and its insurance subsidiaries. The Company employs strategies in the use of derivative financial instruments that are intended to mitigate such adverse impacts, but the Company’s strategies may not be effective.

The Company may also choose not to hedge, in whole or in part, these or other risks that it has identified, due to, for example, the availability and/or cost of a suitable derivative financial instrument or, in reaction to extreme credit, equity market and/or interest rate levels or volatility. Additionally, the Company’s estimates and assumptions made in connection with its use of any derivative financial instrument may fail to reflect or correspond to its actual long-term exposure in respect to identified risks. Derivative financial instruments held or purchased by the Company may also otherwise be insufficient to hedge the risks in relation to the Company’s obligations. In addition, the Company may fail to identify risks, or the magnitude thereof, to which it is exposed. The Company is also exposed to the risk that its use of derivative financial instruments within its risk management strategy may not be properly designed and/or may not be properly implemented as designed.

20

Table of Contents

The Company is also subject to the risk that its derivative counterparties or clearinghouse may fail or refuse to meet their obligations to the Company under derivative financial instruments. If the Company’s derivative counterparties or clearinghouse fail or refuse to meet their obligations to the Company in this regard, the Company’s efforts to mitigate risks to which it is subject through the use of such derivative financial instruments may prove to be ineffective or inefficient.

The above factors, either alone or in combination, may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition and results of operations.

Credit market volatility or disruption could adversely impact the Company’s financial condition or results from operations.

Significant volatility or disruption in credit markets could have an adverse impact in several ways on either the Company’s financial condition or results from operations. Changes in interest rates and credit spreads could cause market price and cash flow variability in the fixed income instruments in the Company’s investment portfolio. Significant volatility and lack of liquidity in the credit markets could cause issuers of the fixed-income securities in the Company’s investment portfolio to default on either principal or interest payments on these securities. Additionally, market price valuations may not accurately reflect the underlying expected cash flows of securities within the Company’s investment portfolio.

The Company’s statutory surplus is also impacted by widening credit spreads as a result of the accounting for the assets and liabilities on its fixed market value adjusted (“MVA”) annuities. Statutory separate account assets supporting the fixed MVA annuities are recorded at fair value. In determining the statutory reserve for the fixed MVA annuities, the Company is required to use current crediting rates based on U.S. Treasuries. In many capital market scenarios, current crediting rates based on U.S. Treasuries are highly correlated with market rates implicit in the fair value of statutory separate account assets. As a result, the change in the statutory reserve from period to period will likely substantially offset the change in the fair value of the statutory separate account assets. However, in periods of volatile credit markets, actual credit spreads on investment assets may increase sharply for certain sub-sectors of the overall credit market, resulting in statutory separate account asset market value losses. Credit spreads are not consistently fully reflected in crediting rates based on U.S. Treasuries, and the calculation of statutory reserves will not substantially offset the change in fair value of the statutory separate account assets resulting in reductions in statutory surplus. This situation would result in the need to devote significant additional capital to support fixed MVA annuity products.

Volatility or disruption in the credit markets could also impact the Company’s ability to efficiently access financial solutions for purposes of issuing long-term debt for financing purposes, its ability to obtain financial solutions for purposes of supporting certain traditional and universal life insurance products for capital management purposes, or result in an increase in the cost of existing securitization structures.

The ability of the Company to implement financing solutions designed to fund a portion of statutory reserves on both the traditional and universal life blocks of business is dependent upon factors such as the ratings of the Company, the size of the blocks of business affected, the mortality experience of the Company, the credit markets, and other factors. The Company cannot predict the continued availability of such solutions or the form that the market may dictate. To the extent that such financing solutions were desired but are not available, the Company’s financial position could be adversely affected through impacts including, but not limited to, higher borrowing costs, surplus strain, lower sales capacity, and possible reduced earnings expectations.

The Company’s ability to grow depends in large part upon the continued availability of capital.

The Company deploys significant amounts of capital to support its sales and acquisitions efforts. Although the Company believes it has sufficient capital to fund its immediate capital needs, the amount of capital available can vary significantly from period to period due to a variety of circumstances, some of which are not predictable, foreseeable, or within the Company’s control. A lack of sufficient capital could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial condition and results of operations.

21

Table of Contents

A ratings downgrade or other negative action by a ratings organization could adversely affect the Company.

Various Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations (“rating organizations”) review the financial performance and condition of insurers, including the Company and its insurance subsidiaries, and publish their financial strength ratings as indicators of an insurer’s ability to meet policyholder and contract holder obligations. While financial strength ratings are not a recommendation to buy the Company’s securities or products, these ratings are important to maintaining public confidence in the Company, its products, its ability to market its products, and its competitive position. A downgrade or other negative action by a ratings organization with respect to the financial strength ratings of the Company or its insurance subsidiaries could adversely affect the Company in many ways, including the following: reducing new sales of insurance and investment products; adversely affecting relationships with distributors and sales agents; increasing the number or amount of policy surrenders and withdrawals of funds; requiring a reduction in prices for the Company’s insurance products and services in order to remain competitive; and adversely affecting the Company’s ability to obtain reinsurance at a reasonable price, on reasonable terms or at all. A downgrade of sufficient magnitude could result in the Company, its insurance subsidiaries, or both being required to collateralize reserves, balances or obligations under reinsurance, funding, swap, and securitization agreements. A downgrade of sufficient magnitude could also result in the termination of certain funding and swap agreements.

Rating organizations also publish credit ratings for issuers of debt securities, including the Company and PLC. Credit ratings are indicators of a debt issuer’s ability to meet the terms of debt obligations in a timely manner. These ratings are important to the Company’s and PLC’s overall ability to access credit markets and other types of liquidity. Credit ratings are not recommendations to buy the securities or products of the Company, PLC or their insurance subsidiaries. Downgrades of the Company’s or PLC’s credit ratings, or an announced potential downgrade or other negative action, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial conditions and results of operations in many ways, including, but not limited to, the following: limiting the Company’s access to capital markets; increasing the cost of debt; impairing its ability to raise capital to refinance maturing debt obligations; limiting its capacity to support the growth of the Company or its insurance subsidiaries; requiring it to pay higher amounts in connection with certain existing or future financing arrangements or transactions; and making it more difficult to maintain or improve its current financial strength rating or those of its insurance subsidiaries. A downgrade of sufficient magnitude, in combination with other factors, could require the Company to post collateral pursuant to certain contractual obligations.

Rating organizations assign ratings based upon several factors. While most of the factors relate to the rated company, some of the factors relate to the views of the rating organization, general economic conditions, and circumstances outside the rated company’s control.  Factors identified by rating agencies that could lead to negative rating actions with respect to the Company or its insurance subsidiaries include, but are not limited to, weak growth in earnings, a deterioration of earnings (including deterioration due to spread compression in interest-sensitive lines of business), significant impairments in investment portfolios, heightened financial leverage, lower interest coverage ratios, risk-based capital ratios falling below ratings thresholds, a material reinsurance loss, and underperformance of an acquisition.  In addition, rating organizations use various models and formulas to assess the strength of a rated company, and from time to time rating organizations have, in their discretion, altered the models. Changes to the models could impact the rating organizations’ judgment of the rating to be assigned to the rated company. The Company cannot predict what actions the rating organizations may take, or what actions the Company may take in response to the actions of the rating organizations, which could adversely affect the Company.

The Company could be forced to sell investments at a loss to cover policyholder withdrawals.

Many of the products offered by the Company allow policyholders and contract holders to withdraw their funds under defined circumstances. The Company manages its liabilities and configures its investment portfolios so as to provide and maintain sufficient liquidity to support expected withdrawal demands and contract benefits and maturities. While the Company owns a significant amount of liquid assets, a certain portion of its assets are relatively illiquid. If the Company experiences unexpected withdrawal or surrender activity, it could exhaust its liquid assets and be forced to liquidate other assets, perhaps at a loss or on other unfavorable terms. If the Company is forced to dispose of assets at a loss or on unfavorable terms, it could have an adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition. The degree of the adverse effect could vary in relation to the magnitude of the unexpected surrender or withdrawal activity.

22

Table of Contents

Disruption of the capital and credit markets could negatively affect the Company’s ability to meet its liquidity and financing needs.

The Company needs liquidity to meet its obligations to its policyholders and its debt holders, and to pay its operating expenses. The Company’s sources of liquidity include insurance premiums, annuity considerations, deposit funds, cash flow from investments and assets, and other income from its operations. In normal credit and capital market conditions, the Company’s sources of liquidity also include a variety of short and long-term borrowing arrangements, including issuing debt securities, as well as raising capital by issuing a variety of equity securities.

The Company’s business is dependent on the capital and credit markets, including confidence in such markets. When the credit and capital markets are disrupted and confidence is eroded the Company may not be able to borrow or raise equity capital, or the cost of borrowing or raising equity capital may be prohibitively high. If the Company’s internal sources of liquidity are inadequate during such periods, the Company could suffer negative effects from not being able to borrow or raise capital, or from having to do so on unfavorable terms. The negative effects could include being forced to sell assets at a loss, a lowering of the Company’s credit ratings and the financial strength ratings of the Company and its insurance subsidiaries, and the possibility that customers, lenders, shareholders, ratings agencies, or regulators develop a negative perception of the Company’s financial prospects, which could lead to further adverse effects on the Company.

Difficult general economic conditions could materially adversely affect the Company’s business and results of operations.

The Company’s business and results of operations could be materially affected by difficult general economic conditions. Stressed economic conditions and volatility and disruptions in capital markets, particular markets or financial asset classes can have an adverse effect on the Company due to the size of the Company’s investment portfolio and the sensitive nature of insurance liabilities to changing market factors. Disruptions in one market or asset class can also spread to other markets or asset classes. Volatility in financial markets can also affect the Company’s business by adversely impacting general levels of economic activity, employment and customer behavior.

Like other financial institutions, and particularly life insurers, the Company may be adversely affected by these conditions. The presence of these conditions could have an adverse impact on the Company by, among other things, exerting downward pressure on the price of the Company’s stock, decreasing demand for its insurance and investment products, and increasing the level of lapses and surrenders of its policies. The Company and its subsidiaries could also experience additional ratings downgrades from ratings agencies, unrealized losses, significant realized losses, impairments in its investment portfolio, and charges incurred as a result of mark-to-market and fair value accounting principles. If general economic conditions become more difficult, the Company’s ability to access sources of capital and liquidity may be limited.

Economic trends may worsen in 2014, thus contributing to increased volatility and diminished expectations for the economy, markets, and financial asset classes. The Company cannot predict the occurrence of economic trends or the likelihood or timing of improvement in such trends.

The Company may be required to establish a valuation allowance against its deferred tax assets, which could materially adversely affect the Company’s results of operations, financial condition, and capital position.

Deferred tax assets refer to assets that are attributable to differences between the financial statement carrying amounts of existing assets and liabilities and their respective tax bases. Deferred tax assets in essence represent future savings of taxes that would otherwise be paid in cash. The realization of the deferred tax assets is dependent upon the generation of sufficient future taxable income, including capital gains. If it is determined that the deferred tax assets cannot be realized, a deferred tax valuation allowance must be established, with a corresponding charge to net income.

Based on the Company’s current assessment of future taxable income, including available tax planning opportunities, the Company anticipates that it is more likely than not that it will generate sufficient taxable income to realize its material deferred tax assets. If future events differ from the Company’s current forecasts, a valuation allowance may need to be established, which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, financial condition, and capital position.

23

Table of Contents

The Company could be adversely affected by an inability to access its credit facility.

The Company relies on its credit facility as a potential source of liquidity. The availability of these funds could be critical to the Company’s credit and financial strength ratings and its ability to meet obligations, particularly when alternative sources of credit are either difficult to access or costly. The availability of the Company’s credit facility is dependent in part on the ability of the lenders to provide funds under the facility. The Company’s credit facility contains various affirmative and negative covenants and events of default, including covenants requiring the Company to maintain a specified minimum consolidated net worth. The Company’s right to make borrowings under the facility is subject to the fulfillment of certain conditions, including its compliance with all covenants. The Company’s failure to comply with the covenants in the credit facility could restrict its ability to access this credit facility when needed. The Company’s inability to access some or all of the line of credit under the credit facility could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition and results of operations.

The Company could be adversely affected by an inability to access FHLB lending.

During the fourth quarter of 2010, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”) issued an Announced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“ANPR”). The purpose of the ANPR is to seek comment on several possible changes to the requirements applicable to members of the Federal Home Loan Bank (“FHLB”). Any changes to such requirements that eliminate the Company’s eligibility for continued FHLB membership or limit the Company’s borrowing capacity pursuant to its FHLB membership could have a material adverse effect on the Company. The Company can give no assurance as to the outcome of the ANPR. The FHFA also released an advisory bulletin on the particular risks associated with lending to insurance companies as opposed to federally-backed banks, which includes standards for evaluating FHLB’s lending to an insurance company member. These standards are broad and raise concerns about the state regulatory framework and of FHLB creditor status in the event of insurer insolvency.  In March 2013, the FHFA issued a report entitled “FHFA Can Enhance Its Oversight of FHLBank Advances to Insurance Companies by Improving Communication with State Insurance Regulators and Industry Groups,” which proposes the FHFA coordinate with state regulators to obtain confidential supervisory information about insurers and interact with NAIC working groups to receive “early warning” information about failing members, so the FHFA can participate in the rehabilitation and perhaps increase FHLB creditor status.  Any standards or events that result in stricter regulation of, or a reduced incidence of FHLB-insurer lending could have a material adverse effect on the Company.

The Company’s financial condition or results of operations could be adversely impacted if the Company’s assumptions regarding the fair value and future performance of its investments differ from actual experience.

The Company makes assumptions regarding the fair value and expected future performance of its investments. Expectations that the Company’s investments in mortgage-backed and asset-backed securities will continue to perform in accordance with their contractual terms are based on assumptions a market participant would use in determining the current fair value and consider the performance of the underlying assets. It is reasonably possible that the underlying collateral of these investments will perform worse than current market expectations and that such reduced performance may lead to adverse changes in the cash flows on the Company’s holdings of these types of securities. This could lead to potential future write-downs within the Company’s portfolio of mortgage-backed and asset-backed securities. In addition, expectations that the Company’s investments in corporate securities and/or debt obligations will continue to perform in accordance with their contractual terms are based on evidence gathered through its normal credit surveillance process. It is possible that issuers of the Company’s investments in corporate securities and/or debt obligations will perform worse than current expectations. Such events may lead the Company to recognize potential future write-downs within its portfolio of corporate securities and/or debt obligations. It is also possible that such unanticipated events would lead the Company to dispose of such investments and recognize the effects of any market movements in its financial statements.

The Company also makes certain assumptions when utilizing internal models to value certain of its investments. It is possible that actual results will differ from the Company’s assumptions. Such events could result in a material change in the value of the Company’s investments.

24

Table of Contents

The amount of statutory capital that the Company has and the amount of statutory capital that it must hold to maintain its financial strength and credit ratings and meet other requirements can vary significantly from time to time and is sensitive to a number of factors outside of the Company’s control.

The Company conducts business directly and through licensed insurance company subsidiaries. Insurance regulators have established regulations that provide minimum capitalization requirements based on risk-based capital (“RBC”) formulas for life and property and casualty companies. The RBC formula for life insurance companies establishes capital requirements relating to insurance, business, asset, interest rate, and certain other risks.

In any particular year, statutory surplus amounts and RBC ratios may increase or decrease depending on a variety of factors including the following: the amount of statutory income or losses generated by the Company and its  insurance subsidiaries (which are sensitive to equity market and credit market conditions); the amount of additional capital that the Company and its insurance subsidiaries must hold to support business growth; changes in reserve requirements; the Company’s ability to secure capital market solutions to provide reserve relief; changes in equity market levels; the value of certain fixed-income and equity securities in its investment portfolio; the credit ratings of investments held in its portfolio, including those issued by, or explicitly or implicitly guaranteed by, a government; the value of certain derivative instruments; changes in interest rates and foreign currency exchange rates; credit market volatility; changes in consumer behavior; and changes to the NAIC RBC formula. Most of these factors are outside of the Company’s control. The Company’s financial strength and credit ratings are significantly influenced by the statutory surplus amounts and RBC ratios of the Company and its insurance company subsidiaries. Rating agencies may implement changes to their internal models that have the effect of increasing or decreasing the amount of statutory capital the Company must hold in order to maintain its current ratings. In addition, rating agencies may downgrade the investments held in the Company’s portfolio, which could result in a reduction of the Company’s capital and surplus and/or its RBC ratio.

In scenarios of equity market declines, the amount of additional statutory reserves the Company is required to hold for its variable product guarantees may increase at a rate greater than the rate of change of the markets. Increases in reserves could result in a reduction to the Company’s capital, surplus, and/or RBC ratio. Also, in environments where there is not a correlative relationship between interest rates and spreads, the Company’s market value adjusted annuity product can have a material adverse effect on the Company’s statutory surplus position.

The business of the Company is highly regulated and is subject to routine audits, examinations and actions by regulators, law enforcement agencies and self-regulatory organizations.

The Company is subject to government regulation in each of the states in which it conducts business. In many instances, the regulatory models emanate from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (“NAIC”). Such regulation is vested in state agencies having broad administrative and in some instances discretionary power dealing with many aspects of the Company’s business, which may include, among other things, premium rates and increases thereto, underwriting practices, reserve requirements, marketing practices, advertising, privacy, policy forms, reinsurance reserve requirements, insurer use of captive reinsurance companies, acquisitions, mergers, capital adequacy, claims practices and the remittance of unclaimed property. In addition, some state insurance departments may enact rules or regulations with extra-territorial application, effectively extending their jurisdiction to areas such as permitted insurance company investments that are normally the province of an insurance company’s domiciliary state regulator.

At any given time, a number of financial, market conduct, or other examinations or audits of the Company and its insurance subsidiaries may be ongoing. It is possible that any examination or audit may result in payments of fines and penalties, payments to customers, or both, as well as changes in systems or procedures, any of which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.

The Company and its insurance subsidiaries are required to obtain state regulatory approval for rate increases for certain health insurance products. The Company’s profits may be adversely affected if the requested rate increases are not approved in full by regulators in a timely fashion.

State insurance regulators and the NAIC regularly re-examine existing laws and regulations applicable to insurance companies and their products. Changes in these laws and regulations, or in interpretations thereof, are often

25

Table of Contents

made for the benefit of the consumer and may lead to additional expense for the insurer and, thus, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition and results of operations. The NAIC may also be influenced by the initiatives and regulatory structures or schemes of international regulatory bodies, and those initiatives or regulatory structures or schemes may not translate readily into the regulatory structures or schemes or the legal system (including the interpretation or application of standards by juries) under which U.S. insurers must operate. In August 2013, the Financial Stability Board (“FSB”) released a report encouraging the U.S. to move toward a federal regulatory system for insurance. The International Association of Insurance Supervisors (“IAIS”) also announced an intention to develop a global capital standard for insurers. These are only a few examples of international developments impacting the global insurance market. At this time, FSB reports, IAIS Insurance Core Principles, and other international work products are not directly binding on the U.S. or any U.S. insurer. However, there is increasing pressure to conform to international standards due to the globalization of the business of insurance and the recent financial crisis. Any international reports or mandates that directly impact, or indirectly influence, the nature of U.S. regulation or industry operations could impact the Company.

Although some NAIC pronouncements, particularly as they affect accounting and reserving issues, may take effect automatically without affirmative action taken by the states, the NAIC is not a governmental entity and its processes and procedures do not comport with those to which governmental entities typically adhere. Therefore, it is possible that actions could be taken by the NAIC that become effective without the procedural safeguards that would be present if governmental action was required. In addition, with respect to some financial regulations and guidelines, states sometimes defer to the interpretation of the insurance department of a non-domiciliary state. Neither the action of the domiciliary state nor the action of the NAIC is binding on a state. Accordingly, a state could choose to follow a different interpretation. The Company is also subject to the risk that compliance with any particular regulator’s interpretation of a legal, accounting or actuarial issue may result in non-compliance with another regulator’s interpretation of the same issue, particularly when compliance is judged in hindsight. There is an additional risk that any particular regulator’s interpretation of a legal, accounting or actuarial issue may change over time to the Company’s detriment, or that changes to the overall legal or market environment may cause the Company to change its practices in ways that may, in some cases, limit its growth or profitability. Statutes, regulations, and interpretations may be applied with retroactive impact, particularly in areas such as accounting and reserve requirements. Also, regulatory actions with prospective impact can potentially have a significant impact on currently sold products.

The NAIC has announced more focused inquiries on certain matters that could have an impact on the Company’s financial condition and results of operations. Such inquiries concern, for example, examination of statutory accounting disclosures for separate accounts, insurer use of captive reinsurance companies, certain aspects of insurance holding company reporting and disclosure, reserving for universal life products with secondary guarantees, and reinsurance. In addition, the NAIC continues to consider various initiatives to change and modernize its financial and solvency requirements and regulations. It is considering changing to, or has considered and passed, a principles-based reserving method for life insurance and annuity reserves, changes to the accounting and risk-based capital regulations, changes to the governance practices of insurers, and other items. Some of these proposed changes, including implementing a principles-based reserving methodology, would require the approval of state legislatures. The Company cannot provide any estimate as to what impact these more focused inquiries or proposed changes, if they occur, will have on its product mix, product profitability, reserve and capital requirements, financial condition or results of operations.

With respect to reserving requirements for universal life policies with secondary guarantees (“ULSG”), in 2012 the NAIC adopted revisions to Actuarial Guideline XXXVIII (“AG38”) addressing those requirements. Some of the regulatory participants in the AG38 revision process appeared to believe that one of the purposes of the revisions was to calculate reserves for ULSG similarly to reserves for guaranteed level term life insurance contracts with the same guarantee period. The effect of the revisions was to increase the level of reserves that must be held by insurers on ULSG with certain product designs that are issued on and after January 1, 2013, and to cause insurers to test the adequacy of reserves, and possibly increase the reserves, on ULSG with certain product designs that were issued before January 1, 2013. The increased reserves on ULSG issued on and after January 1, 2013 may make certain product designs, including some of those offered by the Company and its subsidiaries before January 1, 2013, unprofitable to the Company if issued after 2012 unless prices are increased. The Company has developed and introduced a new ULSG product for sales in 2013. The Company cannot predict future regulatory actions that could negatively impact the Company’s ability to market its new product. Such regulatory reactions could include, for example, withdrawal of state approvals of the new product, or adoption of further changes to AG38 or other adverse action including retroactive

26

Table of Contents

insurers, however, have entered into settlement or consent agreements with state insurance regulators under which the life insurers agreed to implement systems and procedures for periodically comparing their life insurance and annuity contracts and retained asset accounts against a Death Database, treating confirmed deaths as giving rise to a death benefit under their policies, locating beneficiaries and paying them the benefits and interest, and escheating the benefits and interest to the state if the beneficiary could not be found. It has been publicly reported that the life insurers have paid substantial administrative and/or examination fees to the insurance regulators in connection with the settlement or consent agreements.

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries, as well as certain other insurance companies from whom the Company has coinsured blocks of life insurance and annuity policies, are subject to unclaimed property audits and/or targeted multistate examinations by insurance regulators similar to those described above. It is possible that the audits, examinations and/or the enactment of state laws similar to the Unclaimed Benefits Act could result in additional payments to beneficiaries, additional escheatment of funds deemed abandoned under state laws, payment of administrative penalties and/or examination fees to state authorities, and changes to the Company’s procedures for identifying unreported deaths and escheatment of abandoned property. It is possible any such additional payments and any costs related to changes in Company procedures could materially impact the Company’s financial results from operations. It is also possible that life insurers, including the Company, may be subject to claims, regulatory actions, law enforcement actions, and civil litigation arising from their prior business practices. Any resulting liabilities, payments or costs, including initial and ongoing costs of changes to the Company’s procedures or systems, could be significant and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.

During December 2012, the West Virginia Treasurer filed actions against the Company and its subsidiary West Coast Life Insurance Company in West Virginia state court (State of West Virginia ex rel. John D. Perdue vs. Protective Life Insurance Company, State of West Virginia ex rel. John D. Perdue vs. West Coast Life Insurance Company; Defendant’s Motions to Dismiss granted on December 27, 2013; Notice of Appeal filed on January 27, 2014). The actions, which also name numerous other life insurance companies, allege that the companies violated the West Virginia Uniform Unclaimed Property Act, seek to compel compliance with the Act, and seek payment of unclaimed property, interest, and penalties. While the legal theory or theories that may give rise to liability in the West Virginia Treasurer litigation are uncertain, it is possible that other jurisdictions may pursue similar actions. The Company does not currently believe that losses, if any, arising from the West Virginia Treasurer litigation will be material. The Company cannot, however, predict whether other jurisdictions will pursue similar actions or, if they do, whether such actions will have a material impact on the Company’s financial results from operations.  Additionally, the California Controller has recently sued several insurance carriers for alleged failure to comply with audit requests from an appointed third party auditor. The Company cannot predict whether California might pursue a similar action against the Company and further cannot predict whether other jurisdictions might pursue similar actions.  The Company does not believe however that any such action would have a material impact on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.

Under insurance guaranty fund laws in most states, insurance companies doing business therein can be assessed up to prescribed limits for policyholder losses incurred by insolvent companies. From time to time, companies may be asked to contribute amounts beyond prescribed limits. The Company cannot predict the amount or timing of any future assessments.

The purchase of life insurance products is limited by state insurable interest laws, which in most jurisdictions require that the purchaser of life insurance name a beneficiary that has some interest in the sustained life of the insured. To some extent, the insurable interest laws present a barrier to the life settlement, or “stranger-owned” industry, in which a financial entity acquires an interest in life insurance proceeds, and efforts have been made in some states to liberalize the insurable interest laws. To the extent these laws are relaxed, the Company’s lapse assumptions may prove to be incorrect.

At the federal level, bills are routinely introduced in both chambers of the United States Congress (“Congress”) that could affect life insurers. In the past, Congress has considered legislation that would impact insurance companies in numerous ways, such as providing for an optional federal charter or a federal presence for insurance, preempting state law in certain respects regarding the regulation of reinsurance, increasing federal oversight in areas such as consumer protection and other matters. The Company cannot predict whether or in what form legislation will be enacted and, if

28

Table of Contents

so, whether the enacted legislation will positively or negatively affect the Company or whether any effects will be material.

The Company is subject to various conditions and requirements of the Healthcare Act. The Healthcare Act makes significant changes to the regulation of health insurance and may affect the Company in various ways. The Healthcare Act may affect the small blocks of business the Company has offered or acquired over the years that are, or are deemed to constitute, health insurance. The Healthcare Act may also affect the benefit plans the Company sponsors for employees or retirees and their dependents, the Company’s expense to provide such benefits, the tax liabilities of the Company in connection with the provision of such benefits, and the Company’s ability to attract or retain employees. In addition, the Company may be subject to regulations, guidance or determinations emanating from the various regulatory authorities authorized under the Healthcare Act. The Company cannot predict the effect that the Healthcare Act, or any regulatory pronouncement made thereunder, will have on its results of operations or financial condition.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”) enacted in July 2010 made sweeping changes to the regulation of financial services entities, products and markets. Certain provisions of Dodd-Frank are or may become applicable to the Company, its competitors or those entities with which the Company does business. Such provisions include, but are not limited to the following: the establishment of the Federal Insurance Office, changes to the regulation and standards applicable to broker-dealers and investment advisors, changes to the regulation of reinsurance, changes to regulations affecting the rights of shareholders, and the imposition of additional regulation over credit rating agencies.

Dodd-Frank also created the Financial Stability Oversight Council (the “FSOC”), which has issued a final rule and interpretive guidance setting forth the methodology by which it will determine whether a non-bank financial company is a systemically important financial institution (“SIFI”). A non-bank financial company, such as the Company, that is designated as a SIFI by the FSOC will become subject to supervision by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Federal Reserve”). The Company is not currently supervised by the Federal Reserve. Such supervision could impact the Company’s requirements relating to capital, liquidity, stress testing, limits on counterparty credit exposure, compliance and governance, early remediation in the event of financial weakness and other prudential matters, and in other ways the Company currently cannot anticipate.  FSOC-designated non-bank financial companies will also be required to prepare resolution plans, so-called “living wills,” that set out how they could most efficiently be liquidated if they endangered the U.S. financial system or the broader economy. The FSOC has made its initial SIFI designations, and the Company was not designated as such.  However, the Company could be considered and designated at any time.  Because the process is in its initial stages, the Company is at this time, unable to predict the impact on an entity that is supervised as a SIFI by the Federal Reserve Board.  The Company is not able to predict whether the capital requirements or other requirements imposed on SIFIs may impact the requirements applicable to the Company even if it is not designated as a SIFI.  The uncertainty about regulatory requirements could influence the Company’s product line or other business decisions with respect to some product lines.  There is a similarly uncertain international designation process. The Financial Stability Board, appointed by the G-20 Summit, recently designated nine insurers as “G-SII’s,” or globally systemic insurance institutions. As with the designation of SIFI’s, it is unclear at this time whether additional capital and other requirements may be imposed and what the overall impact of G-SII designation on industry will be. The insurers designated as G-SIIs to date represent organizations larger than the Company, but the possibility remains that the Company could be so designated.

Additionally, Dodd-Frank created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), an independent division of the Department of Treasury with jurisdiction over credit, savings, payment, and other consumer financial products and services, other than investment products already regulated by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) or the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission. CFPB has issued a rule to bring under its supervisory authority certain nonbanks whose activities or products it determines pose risks to consumers.  It is unclear at this time which activities or products will be covered by this rule.  Certain of the Company’s subsidiaries sell products that may be regulated by the CFPB.  CFPB continues to bring enforcement actions involving a growing number of issues, including actions using state Attorney’s General, which could directly or indirectly affect the Company or any of its subsidiaries.  Additionally, the CFPB is exploring the possibility of helping Americans manage their retirement savings and is considering the extent of its authority in that area.  The Company is unable at this time, to predict the impact of these activities on the Company.

29

Table of Contents

Dodd-Frank includes a new framework of regulation of over-the-counter (“OTC”) derivatives markets which requires clearing of certain types of transactions which have been or are currently traded OTC by the Company. The types of transactions to be cleared are expected to increase in the future.  The new framework could potentially impose additional costs, including increased margin requirements and additional regulation on the Company. Increased margin requirements on the Company’s part, combined with restrictions on securities that will qualify as eligible collateral, could continue to reduce its liquidity and require an increase in its holdings of cash and government securities with lower yields causing a reduction in income. The Company uses derivative financial instruments to mitigate a wide range of risks in connection with its businesses, including those arising from its variable annuity products with guaranteed benefit features. The derivative clearing requirements of Dodd-Frank could continue to increase the cost of the Company’s risk mitigation and expose it to the risk of a default by a clearinghouse with respect to the Company’s cleared derivative transactions.

Numerous provisions of Dodd-Frank require the adoption of implementing rules and/or regulations. The process of adopting such implementing rules and/or regulations have in some instances been delayed beyond the timeframes imposed by Dodd-Frank. Until the various final regulations are promulgated pursuant to Dodd-Frank, the full impact of the regulations on the Company will remain unclear. In addition, Dodd-Frank mandates multiple studies, which could result in additional legislation or regulation applicable to the insurance industry, the Company, its competitors or the entities with which the Company does business. Legislative or regulatory requirements imposed by or promulgated in connection with Dodd-Frank may impact the Company in many ways, including but not limited to the following: placing the Company at a competitive disadvantage relative to its competition or other financial services entities, changing the competitive landscape of the financial services sector and/or the insurance industry, making it more expensive for the Company to conduct its business, requiring the reallocation of significant company resources to government affairs, legal and compliance-related activities, causing historical market behavior or statistics utilized by the Company in connection with its efforts to manage risk and exposure to no longer be predictive of future risk and exposure or otherwise have a material adverse effect on the overall business climate as well as the Company’s financial condition and results of operations.

The Company may be subject to regulation by the United States Department of Labor when providing a variety of products and services to employee benefit plans and individual investors that are governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). The Department of Labor is currently in the process of re-proposing a rule that would change the circumstances under which one who works with employee benefit plans and Individual Retirement Accounts would be considered a fiduciary under ERISA. Severe penalties are imposed for breach of duties under ERISA and the Company cannot predict the impact that the Department of Labor’s re-proposed rule may have on its operations.

Certain life insurance policies, contracts, and annuities offered by the Company and its subsidiaries are subject to regulation under the federal securities laws administered by the SEC. The federal securities laws contain regulatory restrictions and criminal, administrative, and private remedial provisions. From time to time, the SEC and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) examine or investigate the activities of broker-dealers and investment advisors, including the Company’s affiliated broker-dealers and investment advisors. These examinations or investigations often focus on the activities of the registered representatives and registered investment advisors doing business through such entities and the entities’ supervision of those persons. It is possible that any examination or investigation could lead to enforcement action by the regulator and/or may result in payments of fines and penalties, payments to customers, or both, as well as changes in systems or procedures of such entities, any of which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.

In addition, the SEC is reviewing the standard of conduct applicable to brokers, dealers, and investment advisers when those entities provide personalized investment advice about securities to retail customers. FINRA has also issued a report addressing how its member firms might identify and address conflicts of interest including conflicts related to the introduction of new products and services and the compensation of the member firms’ associated persons. These regulatory initiatives could have an impact on Company operations and the manner in which broker-dealers and investment advisers distribute the Company’s products.

In August 2013, the Financial Stability Board (“FSB”) released a report encouraging the U.S. to move toward a federal regulatory system for insurance.  The International Association of Insurance Supervisors (“IAIS”) also announced an intention to develop a global capital standard for insurers.  These are only a few examples of international

30

Table of Contents

developments impacting the global insurance market.  At this time, FSB reports, IAIS Insurance Core Principles, and other international work products are not directly binding on the U.S. or any other U.S. insurer.  However, there is increasing pressure to conform to international standards due to the globalization of the business of insurance and the recent financial crisis.  Any international reports or mandates that directly impact, or indirectly influence, the nature of U.S. regulation or industry operations could impact the Company.

The Company may also be subject to regulation by governments of the countries in which it currently does, or may in the future, do, business, as well as regulation by the U.S. Government with respect to its operations in foreign countries, such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Penalties for violating the various laws governing the Company’s business in other countries may include restrictions upon business operations, fines and imprisonment, both within the U.S. and abroad. U.S. enforcement of anti-corruption laws continues to increase in magnitude, and penalties may be substantial.

Other types of regulation that could affect the Company and its subsidiaries include insurance company investment laws and regulations, state statutory accounting and reserving practices, anti-trust laws, minimum solvency requirements, state securities laws, federal privacy laws, insurable interest laws, federal anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism laws, employment and immigration laws (including a law in Alabama where over half of the Company’s employees are located), and because the Company owns and operates real property, state, federal, and local environmental laws. Under some circumstances, severe penalties may be imposed for breach of these laws.

The Company cannot predict what form any future changes to laws and/or regulations affecting participants in the financial services sector and/or insurance industry, including the Company and its competitors or those entities with which it does business, may take, or what effect, if any, such changes may have.

Changes to tax law or interpretations of existing tax law could adversely affect the Company and its ability to compete with non-insurance products or reduce the demand for certain insurance products.

Under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), income taxes payable by policyholders on investment earnings is deferred during the accumulation period of most life insurance and annuity products. This favorable tax treatment provides some of the Company’s products with a competitive advantage over products offered by non-insurance companies. To the extent that the Code is revised to either reduce the tax-deferred status of life insurance and annuity products, or to establish the tax-deferred status of new or competing products, then all life insurance companies, including the Company and its subsidiaries, would be adversely affected with respect to their ability to sell such products. Furthermore, depending upon grandfathering provisions, such changes could cause increased surrenders of existing life insurance and annuity products. For example, new legislation that further restricts the deductibility of interest on funds borrowed to purchase corporate-owned life insurance products could result in increased surrenders of these products.

The Company is subject to the federal corporate income tax. Certain tax provisions, such as the dividends-received deduction, the deferral of current taxation on certain types of derivatives and securities, economic income, and the deduction for future policy benefits and claims, are beneficial to the Company. The Obama Administration and Congress have separately made proposals that either materially change or eliminate these benefits. Most of the foregoing proposals would cause the Company to pay higher current taxes, offset by a reduction in its deferred taxes. However, the proposal regarding the dividends-received deduction would cause the Company’s net income and earnings per share to decrease. Whether these proposals will be enacted, and if so, whether they will be enacted as described above, is uncertain.

The Company’s mid-2005 transition from relying on reinsurance for newly-written traditional life products to reinsuring some of these products’ reserves into its captive insurance companies resulted in a net reduction in its current taxes, offset by an increase in its deferred taxes. The resulting benefit of reduced current taxes is attributed to the applicable life products and is an important component of the profitability of these products. The profitability and competitive position of these products is dependent on the continuation of current tax law and the ability to generate taxable income.

31

Table of Contents

There is general uncertainty regarding the taxes to which the Company and its products will be subject in the future. The Company cannot predict what changes to tax law or interpretations of existing tax law may ultimately be enacted or adopted, or whether such changes will adversely affect the Company.

Financial services companies are frequently the targets of legal proceedings, including class action litigation, which could result in substantial judgments.

A number of judgments have been returned against insurers, broker-dealers, and other providers of financial services involving, among other things, sales, underwriting practices, product design, product disclosure, product administration, denial or delay of benefits, charging excessive or impermissible fees, recommending unsuitable products to customers, breaching fiduciary or other duties to customers, refund or claims practices, alleged agent misconduct, failure to properly supervise representatives, relationships with agents or other persons with whom the company does business, payment of sales or other contingent commissions, and other matters. Often these legal proceedings have resulted in the award of substantial judgments that are disproportionate to the actual damages, including material amounts of punitive non-economic compensatory damages. In some states, juries, judges, and arbitrators have substantial discretion in awarding punitive and non-economic compensatory damages, which creates the potential for unpredictable material adverse judgments or awards in any given legal proceeding. Arbitration awards are subject to very limited appellate review. In addition, in some legal proceedings, companies have made material settlement payments. In some instances, substantial judgments may be the result of a party’s perceived ability to satisfy such judgments as opposed to the facts and circumstances regarding the claims.

Group health coverage issued through associations and credit insurance coverages have received some negative publicity in the media as well as increased regulatory consideration and review and litigation. The Company has a small closed block of group health insurance coverage that was issued to members of an association; a purported class action lawsuit is currently pending against the Company in connection with this business.

A number of lawsuits and investigations regarding the method of paying claims have been initiated against life insurers. The Company offers payment methods that may be similar to those that have been the subject of such lawsuits and investigations.

The Company, like other financial services companies in the ordinary course of business, is involved in legal proceedings and regulatory actions. The occurrence of such matters may become more frequent and/or severe when general economic conditions have deteriorated. The Company may be unable to predict the outcome of such matters and may be unable to provide a reasonable range of potential losses. Given the inherent difficulty in predicting the outcome of such matters, it is possible that an adverse outcome in certain such matters could be material to the Company’s results for any particular reporting period.

Companies in the financial services industry are sometimes the target of law enforcement investigations and the focus of increased regulatory scrutiny.

Companies in the financial services and insurance industries are sometimes the target of law enforcement and regulatory investigations relating to the numerous laws and regulations that govern such companies. Some companies have been the subject of law enforcement or other actions resulting from such investigations. Resulting publicity about one company may generate inquiries into or litigation against other financial service providers, even those who do not engage in the business lines or practices at issue in the original action. It is impossible to predict the outcome of such investigations or actions, whether they will expand into other areas not yet contemplated, whether they will result in changes in regulation, whether activities currently thought to be lawful will be characterized as unlawful, or the impact, if any, of such scrutiny on the financial services and insurance industry or the Company. From time to time, the Company receives subpoenas, requests, or other inquires and responds to them in the ordinary course of business.

New accounting rules, changes to existing accounting rules, or the grant of permitted accounting practices to competitors could negatively impact the Company.

The Company is required to comply with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“GAAP”). A number of organizations are instrumental in the development and interpretation of GAAP such as the SEC, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”), and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants

32

Table of Contents

(“AICPA”). GAAP is subject to constant review by these organizations and others in an effort to address emerging accounting rules and issue interpretative accounting guidance on a continual basis. The Company can give no assurance that future changes to GAAP will not have a negative impact on the Company. GAAP includes the requirement to carry certain investments and insurance liabilities at fair value. These fair values are sensitive to various factors including, but not limited to, interest rate movements, credit spreads, and various other factors. Because of this, changes in these fair values may cause increased levels of volatility in the Company’s financial statements.

The FASB is working on several projects in conjunction with the International Accounting Standards Board, which could result in significant changes as GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”) attempt to converge. Furthermore, the SEC is considering whether and how to incorporate IFRS into the U.S. financial reporting system. The changes to GAAP and potential incorporation of IFRS into the U.S. financial reporting system will impose special demands on issuers in the areas of governance, employee training, internal controls, contract fulfillment and disclosure and will likely affect how we manage our business, as it will likely affect other business processes such as design of compensation plans, product design, etc. The Company is unable to predict whether, and if so, when these projects and ultimately convergence with IFRS will be adopted and/or implemented.

In addition, the Company and its insurance subsidiaries are required to comply with statutory accounting principles (“SAP”). SAP and various components of SAP (such as actuarial reserving methodology) are subject to constant review by the NAIC and its task forces and committees as well as state insurance departments in an effort to address emerging issues and otherwise improve or alter financial reporting. Various proposals either are currently or have previously been pending before committees and task forces of the NAIC, some of which, if enacted, would negatively affect the Company. The NAIC is also currently working to reform model regulation in various areas, including comprehensive reforms relating to life insurance reserves and the accounting for such reserves. The Company cannot predict whether or in what form reforms will be enacted by state legislatures and, if so, whether the enacted reforms will positively or negatively affect the Company. In addition, the NAIC Accounting Practices and Procedures manual provides that state insurance departments may permit insurance companies domiciled therein to depart from SAP by granting them permitted accounting practices. The Company cannot predict whether or when the insurance departments of the states of domicile of its competitors may permit them to utilize advantageous accounting practices that depart from SAP, the use of which is not permitted by the insurance departments of the states of domicile of the Company and its insurance subsidiaries. With respect to regulations and guidelines, states sometimes defer to the interpretation of the insurance department of the state of domicile. Neither the action of the domiciliary state nor action of the NAIC is binding on a state. Accordingly, a state could choose to follow a different interpretation. The Company can give no assurance that future changes to SAP or components of SAP or the grant of permitted accounting practices to its competitors will not have a negative impact on the Company. For additional information regarding pending NAIC reforms, please see Item 7, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

The use of reinsurance introduces variability in the Company’s statements of income.

The timing of premium payments to and receipt of expense allowances from reinsurers differs from the Company’s receipt of customer premium payments and incurrence of expenses. These timing differences introduce variability in certain components of the Company’s statements of income and may also introduce variability in the Company’s quarterly financial results.

The Company’s reinsurers could fail to meet assumed obligations, increase rates, terminate agreements or be subject to adverse developments that could affect the Company.

The Company and its insurance subsidiaries cede material amounts of insurance and transfer related assets to other insurance companies through reinsurance. However, notwithstanding the transfer of related assets or other issues, the Company remains liable with respect to ceded insurance should any reinsurer fail to meet the assumed obligations. Therefore, the failure, insolvency, or inability or unwillingness to pay under the terms of the reinsurance agreement with the Company of one or more of the Company’s reinsurers could negatively impact the Company’s earnings and financial position.

The Company’s results and its ability to compete are affected by the availability and cost of reinsurance. Premium rates charged by the Company are based, in part, on the assumption that reinsurance will be available at a certain cost. Under certain reinsurance agreements, a reinsurer may increase the rate it charges the Company for the

33

Table of Contents

reinsurance, including rates for new policies the Company is issuing and rates related to policies that the Company has already issued. The Company may not be able to increase the premium rates it charges for policies it has already issued, and for competitive reasons it may not be able to raise the premium rates it charges for new policies to offset the increase in rates charged by reinsurers. If the cost of reinsurance were to increase, if reinsurance were to become unavailable, if alternatives to reinsurance were not available to the Company, or if a reinsurer should fail to meet its obligations, the Company could be adversely affected.

In recent years, the number of life reinsurers has decreased as the reinsurance industry has consolidated. The decreased number of participants in the life reinsurance market results in increased concentration of risk for insurers, including the Company. If the reinsurance market further contracts, the Company’s ability to continue to offer its products on terms favorable to it could be adversely impacted.

In addition, reinsurers are facing many challenges regarding illiquid credit and/or capital markets, investment downgrades, rating agency downgrades, deterioration of general economic conditions, and other factors negatively impacting the financial services industry. Concerns over the potential default on the sovereign debt of several European Union member states, and its impact on the European financial sector have increased liquidity concerns, particularly for those reinsurers with significant exposure to European capital and/or credit markets. If such events cause a reinsurer to fail to meet its obligations, the Company would be adversely impacted.

The Company has implemented a reinsurance program through the use of captive reinsurers. Under these arrangements, an insurer owned by the Company serves as the reinsurer, and the consolidated books and tax returns of the Company reflects a liability consisting of the full reserve amount attributable to the reinsured business. The success of the Company’s captive reinsurance program is dependent on a number of factors outside the control of the Company, including continued access to financial solutions, a favorable regulatory environment, and the overall tax position of the Company. If the captive reinsurance program is not successful, the Company could be adversely impacted.

The Company’s policy claims fluctuate from period to period resulting in earnings volatility.

The Company’s results may fluctuate from period to period due to fluctuations in the amount of policy claims received. In addition, certain of the Company’s lines of business may experience higher claims if the economy is growing slowly or in recession, or if equity markets decline. Also, insofar as the Company continues to retain a larger percentage of the risk of newly written life insurance products than it has in the past, its financial results may have greater variability due to fluctuations in mortality results.

The Company operates in a mature, highly competitive industry, which could limit its ability to gain or maintain its position in the industry and negatively affect profitability.

The insurance industry is a mature and highly competitive industry. In recent years, the industry has experienced reduced growth in life insurance sales. The Company encounters significant competition in all lines of business from other insurance companies, many of which have greater financial resources and higher ratings than the Company and which may have a greater market share, offer a broader range of products, services or features, assume a greater level of risk, have lower operating or financing costs, or have different profitability expectations than the Company. The Company also faces competition from other providers of financial services. Competition could result in, among other things, lower sales or higher lapses of existing products. Consolidation and expansion among banks, insurance companies, distributors, and other financial service companies with which the Company does business could also have an adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition and results of operations if such companies require more favorable terms than previously offered to the Company or if such companies elect not to continue to do business with the Company following consolidation or expansion.

The Company’s ability to compete is dependent upon, among other things, its ability to attract and retain distribution channels to market its insurance and investment products, its ability to develop competitive and profitable products, its ability to maintain low unit costs, and its maintenance of adequate ratings from rating agencies.

As technology evolves, comparison of a particular product of any company for a particular customer with competing products for that customer is more readily available, which could lead to increased competition as well as agent or customer behavior, including persistency that differs from past behavior.

34

Table of Contents

The Company’s ability to maintain competitive unit costs is dependent upon the level of new sales and persistency of existing business.

The Company’s ability to maintain competitive unit costs is dependent upon a number of factors, such as the level of new sales, persistency of existing business, and expense management. A decrease in sales or persistency without a corresponding reduction in expenses may result in higher unit costs.

Additionally, a decrease in persistency of existing business may result in higher or more rapid amortization of deferred policy acquisition costs and thus higher unit costs and lower reported earnings. Although many of the Company’s products contain surrender charges, the charges decrease over time and may not be sufficient to cover the unamortized deferred policy acquisition costs with respect to the insurance policy or annuity contract being surrendered. Some of the Company’s products do not contain surrender charge features and such products can be surrendered or exchanged without penalty. A decrease in persistency may also result in higher claims.

The Company may not be able to protect its intellectual property and may be subject to infringement claims.

The Company relies on a combination of contractual rights and copyright, trademark, patent, and trade secret laws to establish and protect its intellectual property. Although the Company uses a broad range of measures to protect its intellectual property rights, third parties may infringe or misappropriate its intellectual property. The Company may have to litigate to enforce and protect its copyrights, trademarks, patents, trade secrets, and know-how or to determine their scope, validity, or enforceability, which represents a diversion of resources that may be significant in amount and may not prove successful. The loss of intellectual property protection or the inability to secure or enforce the protection of the Company’s intellectual property assets could have a material adverse effect on its business and ability to compete.

The Company also may be subject to costly litigation in the event that another party alleges its operations or activities infringe upon that party’s intellectual property rights. Third parties may have, or may eventually be issued, patents that could be infringed by the Company’s products, methods, processes, or services. Any party that holds such a patent could make a claim of infringement against the Company. The Company may also be subject to claims by third parties for breach of copyright, trademark, trade secret, or license usage rights. Any such claims and any resulting litigation could result in significant liability for damages. If the Company were found to have infringed third party patent or other intellectual property rights, it could incur substantial liability, and in some circumstances could be enjoined from providing certain products or services to its customers or utilizing and benefiting from certain methods, processes, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, or licenses, or alternatively could be required to enter into costly licensing arrangements with third parties, all of which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, and financial condition.

Item 1B.  Unresolved Staff Comments

None.

Item 2.   Properties

The Company’s home office is located at 2801 Highway 280 South, Birmingham, Alabama. The Company owns two buildings consisting of 310,000 square feet constructed in two phases. The first building was constructed in 1974 and the second building was constructed in 1982. Additionally, PLC leases a third 310,000 square-foot building constructed in 2004. Parking is provided for approximately 2,594 vehicles.

The Company leases administrative and marketing office space in 19 cities, including 24,090 square feet in Birmingham (excluding the home office building), with most leases being for periods of three to ten years. The aggregate annualized rent is approximately $7.0 million.

The Company believes its properties are adequate and suitable for the Company’s business as currently conducted and are adequately maintained. The above properties do not include properties the Company owns for investment only.

35

Table of Contents

Item 3.   Legal Proceedings

To the knowledge and in the opinion of management, there are no material pending legal proceedings, other than ordinary routine litigation incidental to the business of the Company, to which the Company or any of its subsidiaries is a party or of which any of our properties is the subject. For additional information regarding legal proceedings see Item 1A, Risk Factors and Cautionary Factors that may Affect Future Results and Note 12, Commitments and Contingencies of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements, each included herein.

Item 4.   Mine Safety Disclosure — Not Applicable

36

Table of Contents

Item 6.  Selected Financial Data

38

Table of Contents

The Company could be adversely affected by an inability to access its credit facility.

The Company relies on its credit facility as a potential source of liquidity. The availability of these funds could be critical to the Company’s credit and financial strength ratings and its ability to meet obligations, particularly when alternative sources of credit are either difficult to access or costly. The availability of the Company’s credit facility is dependent in part on the ability of the lenders to provide funds under the facility. The Company’s credit facility contains various affirmative and negative covenants and events of default, including covenants requiring the Company to maintain a specified minimum consolidated net worth. The Company’s right to make borrowings under the facility is subject to the fulfillment of certain conditions, including its compliance with all covenants. The Company’s failure to comply with the covenants in the credit facility could restrict its ability to access this credit facility when needed. The Company’s inability to access some or all of the line of credit under the credit facility could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition and results of operations.

The Company could be adversely affected by an inability to access FHLB lending.

During the fourth quarter of 2010, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”) issued an Announced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“ANPR”). The purpose of the ANPR is to seek comment on several possible changes to the requirements applicable to members of the Federal Home Loan Bank (“FHLB”). Any changes to such requirements that eliminate the Company’s eligibility for continued FHLB membership or limit the Company’s borrowing capacity pursuant to its FHLB membership could have a material adverse effect on the Company. The Company can give no assurance as to the outcome of the ANPR. The FHFA also released an advisory bulletin on the particular risks associated with lending to insurance companies as opposed to federally-backed banks, which includes standards for evaluating FHLB’s lending to an insurance company member. These standards are broad and raise concerns about the state regulatory framework and of FHLB creditor status in the event of insurer insolvency.  In March 2013, the FHFA issued a report entitled “FHFA Can Enhance Its Oversight of FHLBank Advances to Insurance Companies by Improving Communication with State Insurance Regulators and Industry Groups,” which proposes the FHFA coordinate with state regulators to obtain confidential supervisory information about insurers and interact with NAIC working groups to receive “early warning” information about failing members, so the FHFA can participate in the rehabilitation and perhaps increase FHLB creditor status.  Any standards or events that result in stricter regulation of, or a reduced incidence of FHLB-insurer lending could have a material adverse effect on the Company.

The Company’s financial condition or results of operations could be adversely impacted if the Company’s assumptions regarding the fair value and future performance of its investments differ from actual experience.

The Company makes assumptions regarding the fair value and expected future performance of its investments. Expectations that the Company’s investments in mortgage-backed and asset-backed securities will continue to perform in accordance with their contractual terms are based on assumptions a market participant would use in determining the current fair value and consider the performance of the underlying assets. It is reasonably possible that the underlying collateral of these investments will perform worse than current market expectations and that such reduced performance may lead to adverse changes in the cash flows on the Company’s holdings of these types of securities. This could lead to potential future write-downs within the Company’s portfolio of mortgage-backed and asset-backed securities. In addition, expectations that the Company’s investments in corporate securities and/or debt obligations will continue to perform in accordance with their contractual terms are based on evidence gathered through its normal credit surveillance process. It is possible that issuers of the Company’s investments in corporate securities and/or debt obligations will perform worse than current expectations. Such events may lead the Company to recognize potential future write-downs within its portfolio of corporate securities and/or debt obligations. It is also possible that such unanticipated events would lead the Company to dispose of such investments and recognize the effects of any market movements in its financial statements.

The Company also makes certain assumptions when utilizing internal models to value certain of its investments. It is possible that actual results will differ from the Company’s assumptions. Such events could result in a material change in the value of the Company’s investments.

24

Table of Contents

The amount of statutory capital that the Company has and the amount of statutory capital that it must hold to maintain its financial strength and credit ratings and meet other requirements can vary significantly from time to time and is sensitive to a number of factors outside of the Company’s control.

The Company conducts business directly and through licensed insurance company subsidiaries. Insurance regulators have established regulations that provide minimum capitalization requirements based on risk-based capital (“RBC”) formulas for life and property and casualty companies. The RBC formula for life insurance companies establishes capital requirements relating to insurance, business, asset, interest rate, and certain other risks.

In any particular year, statutory surplus amounts and RBC ratios may increase or decrease depending on a variety of factors including the following: the amount of statutory income or losses generated by the Company and its  insurance subsidiaries (which are sensitive to equity market and credit market conditions); the amount of additional capital that the Company and its insurance subsidiaries must hold to support business growth; changes in reserve requirements; the Company’s ability to secure capital market solutions to provide reserve relief; changes in equity market levels; the value of certain fixed-income and equity securities in its investment portfolio; the credit ratings of investments held in its portfolio, including those issued by, or explicitly or implicitly guaranteed by, a government; the value of certain derivative instruments; changes in interest rates and foreign currency exchange rates; credit market volatility; changes in consumer behavior; and changes to the NAIC RBC formula. Most of these factors are outside of the Company’s control. The Company’s financial strength and credit ratings are significantly influenced by the statutory surplus amounts and RBC ratios of the Company and its insurance company subsidiaries. Rating agencies may implement changes to their internal models that have the effect of increasing or decreasing the amount of statutory capital the Company must hold in order to maintain its current ratings. In addition, rating agencies may downgrade the investments held in the Company’s portfolio, which could result in a reduction of the Company’s capital and surplus and/or its RBC ratio.

In scenarios of equity market declines, the amount of additional statutory reserves the Company is required to hold for its variable product guarantees may increase at a rate greater than the rate of change of the markets. Increases in reserves could result in a reduction to the Company’s capital, surplus, and/or RBC ratio. Also, in environments where there is not a correlative relationship between interest rates and spreads, the Company’s market value adjusted annuity product can have a material adverse effect on the Company’s statutory surplus position.

The business of the Company is highly regulated and is subject to routine audits, examinations and actions by regulators, law enforcement agencies and self-regulatory organizations.

The Company is subject to government regulation in each of the states in which it conducts business. In many instances, the regulatory models emanate from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (“NAIC”). Such regulation is vested in state agencies having broad administrative and in some instances discretionary power dealing with many aspects of the Company’s business, which may include, among other things, premium rates and increases thereto, underwriting practices, reserve requirements, marketing practices, advertising, privacy, policy forms, reinsurance reserve requirements, insurer use of captive reinsurance companies, acquisitions, mergers, capital adequacy, claims practices and the remittance of unclaimed property. In addition, some state insurance departments may enact rules or regulations with extra-territorial application, effectively extending their jurisdiction to areas such as permitted insurance company investments that are normally the province of an insurance company’s domiciliary state regulator.

At any given time, a number of financial, market conduct, or other examinations or audits of the Company and its insurance subsidiaries may be ongoing. It is possible that any examination or audit may result in payments of fines and penalties, payments to customers, or both, as well as changes in systems or procedures, any of which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.

The Company and its insurance subsidiaries are required to obtain state regulatory approval for rate increases for certain health insurance products. The Company’s profits may be adversely affected if the requested rate increases are not approved in full by regulators in a timely fashion.

State insurance regulators and the NAIC regularly re-examine existing laws and regulations applicable to insurance companies and their products. Changes in these laws and regulations, or in interpretations thereof, are often

25

Table of Contents

made for the benefit of the consumer and may lead to additional expense for the insurer and, thus, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition and results of operations. The NAIC may also be influenced by the initiatives and regulatory structures or schemes of international regulatory bodies, and those initiatives or regulatory structures or schemes may not translate readily into the regulatory structures or schemes or the legal system (including the interpretation or application of standards by juries) under which U.S. insurers must operate. In August 2013, the Financial Stability Board (“FSB”) released a report encouraging the U.S. to move toward a federal regulatory system for insurance. The International Association of Insurance Supervisors (“IAIS”) also announced an intention to develop a global capital standard for insurers. These are only a few examples of international developments impacting the global insurance market. At this time, FSB reports, IAIS Insurance Core Principles, and other international work products are not directly binding on the U.S. or any U.S. insurer. However, there is increasing pressure to conform to international standards due to the globalization of the business of insurance and the recent financial crisis. Any international reports or mandates that directly impact, or indirectly influence, the nature of U.S. regulation or industry operations could impact the Company.

Although some NAIC pronouncements, particularly as they affect accounting and reserving issues, may take effect automatically without affirmative action taken by the states, the NAIC is not a governmental entity and its processes and procedures do not comport with those to which governmental entities typically adhere. Therefore, it is possible that actions could be taken by the NAIC that become effective without the procedural safeguards that would be present if governmental action was required. In addition, with respect to some financial regulations and guidelines, states sometimes defer to the interpretation of the insurance department of a non-domiciliary state. Neither the action of the domiciliary state nor the action of the NAIC is binding on a state. Accordingly, a state could choose to follow a different interpretation. The Company is also subject to the risk that compliance with any particular regulator’s interpretation of a legal, accounting or actuarial issue may result in non-compliance with another regulator’s interpretation of the same issue, particularly when compliance is judged in hindsight. There is an additional risk that any particular regulator’s interpretation of a legal, accounting or actuarial issue may change over time to the Company’s detriment, or that changes to the overall legal or market environment may cause the Company to change its practices in ways that may, in some cases, limit its growth or profitability. Statutes, regulations, and interpretations may be applied with retroactive impact, particularly in areas such as accounting and reserve requirements. Also, regulatory actions with prospective impact can potentially have a significant impact on currently sold products.

The NAIC has announced more focused inquiries on certain matters that could have an impact on the Company’s financial condition and results of operations. Such inquiries concern, for example, examination of statutory accounting disclosures for separate accounts, insurer use of captive reinsurance companies, certain aspects of insurance holding company reporting and disclosure, reserving for universal life products with secondary guarantees, and reinsurance. In addition, the NAIC continues to consider various initiatives to change and modernize its financial and solvency requirements and regulations. It is considering changing to, or has considered and passed, a principles-based reserving method for life insurance and annuity reserves, changes to the accounting and risk-based capital regulations, changes to the governance practices of insurers, and other items. Some of these proposed changes, including implementing a principles-based reserving methodology, would require the approval of state legislatures. The Company cannot provide any estimate as to what impact these more focused inquiries or proposed changes, if they occur, will have on its product mix, product profitability, reserve and capital requirements, financial condition or results of operations.

With respect to reserving requirements for universal life policies with secondary guarantees (“ULSG”), in 2012 the NAIC adopted revisions to Actuarial Guideline XXXVIII (“AG38”) addressing those requirements. Some of the regulatory participants in the AG38 revision process appeared to believe that one of the purposes of the revisions was to calculate reserves for ULSG similarly to reserves for guaranteed level term life insurance contracts with the same guarantee period. The effect of the revisions was to increase the level of reserves that must be held by insurers on ULSG with certain product designs that are issued on and after January 1, 2013, and to cause insurers to test the adequacy of reserves, and possibly increase the reserves, on ULSG with certain product designs that were issued before January 1, 2013. The increased reserves on ULSG issued on and after January 1, 2013 may make certain product designs, including some of those offered by the Company and its subsidiaries before January 1, 2013, unprofitable to the Company if issued after 2012 unless prices are increased. The Company has developed and introduced a new ULSG product for sales in 2013. The Company cannot predict future regulatory actions that could negatively impact the Company’s ability to market its new product. Such regulatory reactions could include, for example, withdrawal of state approvals of the new product, or adoption of further changes to AG38 or other adverse action including retroactive

26

Table of Contents

insurers, however, have entered into settlement or consent agreements with state insurance regulators under which the life insurers agreed to implement systems and procedures for periodically comparing their life insurance and annuity contracts and retained asset accounts against a Death Database, treating confirmed deaths as giving rise to a death benefit under their policies, locating beneficiaries and paying them the benefits and interest, and escheating the benefits and interest to the state if the beneficiary could not be found. It has been publicly reported that the life insurers have paid substantial administrative and/or examination fees to the insurance regulators in connection with the settlement or consent agreements.

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries, as well as certain other insurance companies from whom the Company has coinsured blocks of life insurance and annuity policies, are subject to unclaimed property audits and/or targeted multistate examinations by insurance regulators similar to those described above. It is possible that the audits, examinations and/or the enactment of state laws similar to the Unclaimed Benefits Act could result in additional payments to beneficiaries, additional escheatment of funds deemed abandoned under state laws, payment of administrative penalties and/or examination fees to state authorities, and changes to the Company’s procedures for identifying unreported deaths and escheatment of abandoned property. It is possible any such additional payments and any costs related to changes in Company procedures could materially impact the Company’s financial results from operations. It is also possible that life insurers, including the Company, may be subject to claims, regulatory actions, law enforcement actions, and civil litigation arising from their prior business practices. Any resulting liabilities, payments or costs, including initial and ongoing costs of changes to the Company’s procedures or systems, could be significant and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.

During December 2012, the West Virginia Treasurer filed actions against the Company and its subsidiary West Coast Life Insurance Company in West Virginia state court (State of West Virginia ex rel. John D. Perdue vs. Protective Life Insurance Company, State of West Virginia ex rel. John D. Perdue vs. West Coast Life Insurance Company; Defendant’s Motions to Dismiss granted on December 27, 2013; Notice of Appeal filed on January 27, 2014). The actions, which also name numerous other life insurance companies, allege that the companies violated the West Virginia Uniform Unclaimed Property Act, seek to compel compliance with the Act, and seek payment of unclaimed property, interest, and penalties. While the legal theory or theories that may give rise to liability in the West Virginia Treasurer litigation are uncertain, it is possible that other jurisdictions may pursue similar actions. The Company does not currently believe that losses, if any, arising from the West Virginia Treasurer litigation will be material. The Company cannot, however, predict whether other jurisdictions will pursue similar actions or, if they do, whether such actions will have a material impact on the Company’s financial results from operations.  Additionally, the California Controller has recently sued several insurance carriers for alleged failure to comply with audit requests from an appointed third party auditor. The Company cannot predict whether California might pursue a similar action against the Company and further cannot predict whether other jurisdictions might pursue similar actions.  The Company does not believe however that any such action would have a material impact on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.

Under insurance guaranty fund laws in most states, insurance companies doing business therein can be assessed up to prescribed limits for policyholder losses incurred by insolvent companies. From time to time, companies may be asked to contribute amounts beyond prescribed limits. The Company cannot predict the amount or timing of any future assessments.

The purchase of life insurance products is limited by state insurable interest laws, which in most jurisdictions require that the purchaser of life insurance name a beneficiary that has some interest in the sustained life of the insured. To some extent, the insurable interest laws present a barrier to the life settlement, or “stranger-owned” industry, in which a financial entity acquires an interest in life insurance proceeds, and efforts have been made in some states to liberalize the insurable interest laws. To the extent these laws are relaxed, the Company’s lapse assumptions may prove to be incorrect.

At the federal level, bills are routinely introduced in both chambers of the United States Congress (“Congress”) that could affect life insurers. In the past, Congress has considered legislation that would impact insurance companies in numerous ways, such as providing for an optional federal charter or a federal presence for insurance, preempting state law in certain respects regarding the regulation of reinsurance, increasing federal oversight in areas such as consumer protection and other matters. The Company cannot predict whether or in what form legislation will be enacted and, if

28

Table of Contents

so, whether the enacted legislation will positively or negatively affect the Company or whether any effects will be material.

The Company is subject to various conditions and requirements of the Healthcare Act. The Healthcare Act makes significant changes to the regulation of health insurance and may affect the Company in various ways. The Healthcare Act may affect the small blocks of business the Company has offered or acquired over the years that are, or are deemed to constitute, health insurance. The Healthcare Act may also affect the benefit plans the Company sponsors for employees or retirees and their dependents, the Company’s expense to provide such benefits, the tax liabilities of the Company in connection with the provision of such benefits, and the Company’s ability to attract or retain employees. In addition, the Company may be subject to regulations, guidance or determinations emanating from the various regulatory authorities authorized under the Healthcare Act. The Company cannot predict the effect that the Healthcare Act, or any regulatory pronouncement made thereunder, will have on its results of operations or financial condition.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”) enacted in July 2010 made sweeping changes to the regulation of financial services entities, products and markets. Certain provisions of Dodd-Frank are or may become applicable to the Company, its competitors or those entities with which the Company does business. Such provisions include, but are not limited to the following: the establishment of the Federal Insurance Office, changes to the regulation and standards applicable to broker-dealers and investment advisors, changes to the regulation of reinsurance, changes to regulations affecting the rights of shareholders, and the imposition of additional regulation over credit rating agencies.

Dodd-Frank also created the Financial Stability Oversight Council (the “FSOC”), which has issued a final rule and interpretive guidance setting forth the methodology by which it will determine whether a non-bank financial company is a systemically important financial institution (“SIFI”). A non-bank financial company, such as the Company, that is designated as a SIFI by the FSOC will become subject to supervision by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Federal Reserve”). The Company is not currently supervised by the Federal Reserve. Such supervision could impact the Company’s requirements relating to capital, liquidity, stress testing, limits on counterparty credit exposure, compliance and governance, early remediation in the event of financial weakness and other prudential matters, and in other ways the Company currently cannot anticipate.  FSOC-designated non-bank financial companies will also be required to prepare resolution plans, so-called “living wills,” that set out how they could most efficiently be liquidated if they endangered the U.S. financial system or the broader economy. The FSOC has made its initial SIFI designations, and the Company was not designated as such.  However, the Company could be considered and designated at any time.  Because the process is in its initial stages, the Company is at this time, unable to predict the impact on an entity that is supervised as a SIFI by the Federal Reserve Board.  The Company is not able to predict whether the capital requirements or other requirements imposed on SIFIs may impact the requirements applicable to the Company even if it is not designated as a SIFI.  The uncertainty about regulatory requirements could influence the Company’s product line or other business decisions with respect to some product lines.  There is a similarly uncertain international designation process. The Financial Stability Board, appointed by the G-20 Summit, recently designated nine insurers as “G-SII’s,” or globally systemic insurance institutions. As with the designation of SIFI’s, it is unclear at this time whether additional capital and other requirements may be imposed and what the overall impact of G-SII designation on industry will be. The insurers designated as G-SIIs to date represent organizations larger than the Company, but the possibility remains that the Company could be so designated.

Additionally, Dodd-Frank created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), an independent division of the Department of Treasury with jurisdiction over credit, savings, payment, and other consumer financial products and services, other than investment products already regulated by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) or the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission. CFPB has issued a rule to bring under its supervisory authority certain nonbanks whose activities or products it determines pose risks to consumers.  It is unclear at this time which activities or products will be covered by this rule.  Certain of the Company’s subsidiaries sell products that may be regulated by the CFPB.  CFPB continues to bring enforcement actions involving a growing number of issues, including actions using state Attorney’s General, which could directly or indirectly affect the Company or any of its subsidiaries.  Additionally, the CFPB is exploring the possibility of helping Americans manage their retirement savings and is considering the extent of its authority in that area.  The Company is unable at this time, to predict the impact of these activities on the Company.

29

Table of Contents

Dodd-Frank includes a new framework of regulation of over-the-counter (“OTC”) derivatives markets which requires clearing of certain types of transactions which have been or are currently traded OTC by the Company. The types of transactions to be cleared are expected to increase in the future.  The new framework could potentially impose additional costs, including increased margin requirements and additional regulation on the Company. Increased margin requirements on the Company’s part, combined with restrictions on securities that will qualify as eligible collateral, could continue to reduce its liquidity and require an increase in its holdings of cash and government securities with lower yields causing a reduction in income. The Company uses derivative financial instruments to mitigate a wide range of risks in connection with its businesses, including those arising from its variable annuity products with guaranteed benefit features. The derivative clearing requirements of Dodd-Frank could continue to increase the cost of the Company’s risk mitigation and expose it to the risk of a default by a clearinghouse with respect to the Company’s cleared derivative transactions.

Numerous provisions of Dodd-Frank require the adoption of implementing rules and/or regulations. The process of adopting such implementing rules and/or regulations have in some instances been delayed beyond the timeframes imposed by Dodd-Frank. Until the various final regulations are promulgated pursuant to Dodd-Frank, the full impact of the regulations on the Company will remain unclear. In addition, Dodd-Frank mandates multiple studies, which could result in additional legislation or regulation applicable to the insurance industry, the Company, its competitors or the entities with which the Company does business. Legislative or regulatory requirements imposed by or promulgated in connection with Dodd-Frank may impact the Company in many ways, including but not limited to the following: placing the Company at a competitive disadvantage relative to its competition or other financial services entities, changing the competitive landscape of the financial services sector and/or the insurance industry, making it more expensive for the Company to conduct its business, requiring the reallocation of significant company resources to government affairs, legal and compliance-related activities, causing historical market behavior or statistics utilized by the Company in connection with its efforts to manage risk and exposure to no longer be predictive of future risk and exposure or otherwise have a material adverse effect on the overall business climate as well as the Company’s financial condition and results of operations.

The Company may be subject to regulation by the United States Department of Labor when providing a variety of products and services to employee benefit plans and individual investors that are governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). The Department of Labor is currently in the process of re-proposing a rule that would change the circumstances under which one who works with employee benefit plans and Individual Retirement Accounts would be considered a fiduciary under ERISA. Severe penalties are imposed for breach of duties under ERISA and the Company cannot predict the impact that the Department of Labor’s re-proposed rule may have on its operations.

Certain life insurance policies, contracts, and annuities offered by the Company and its subsidiaries are subject to regulation under the federal securities laws administered by the SEC. The federal securities laws contain regulatory restrictions and criminal, administrative, and private remedial provisions. From time to time, the SEC and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) examine or investigate the activities of broker-dealers and investment advisors, including the Company’s affiliated broker-dealers and investment advisors. These examinations or investigations often focus on the activities of the registered representatives and registered investment advisors doing business through such entities and the entities’ supervision of those persons. It is possible that any examination or investigation could lead to enforcement action by the regulator and/or may result in payments of fines and penalties, payments to customers, or both, as well as changes in systems or procedures of such entities, any of which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.

In addition, the SEC is reviewing the standard of conduct applicable to brokers, dealers, and investment advisers when those entities provide personalized investment advice about securities to retail customers. FINRA has also issued a report addressing how its member firms might identify and address conflicts of interest including conflicts related to the introduction of new products and services and the compensation of the member firms’ associated persons. These regulatory initiatives could have an impact on Company operations and the manner in which broker-dealers and investment advisers distribute the Company’s products.

In August 2013, the Financial Stability Board (“FSB”) released a report encouraging the U.S. to move toward a federal regulatory system for insurance.  The International Association of Insurance Supervisors (“IAIS”) also announced an intention to develop a global capital standard for insurers.  These are only a few examples of international

30

Table of Contents

developments impacting the global insurance market.  At this time, FSB reports, IAIS Insurance Core Principles, and other international work products are not directly binding on the U.S. or any other U.S. insurer.  However, there is increasing pressure to conform to international standards due to the globalization of the business of insurance and the recent financial crisis.  Any international reports or mandates that directly impact, or indirectly influence, the nature of U.S. regulation or industry operations could impact the Company.

The Company may also be subject to regulation by governments of the countries in which it currently does, or may in the future, do, business, as well as regulation by the U.S. Government with respect to its operations in foreign countries, such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Penalties for violating the various laws governing the Company’s business in other countries may include restrictions upon business operations, fines and imprisonment, both within the U.S. and abroad. U.S. enforcement of anti-corruption laws continues to increase in magnitude, and penalties may be substantial.

Other types of regulation that could affect the Company and its subsidiaries include insurance company investment laws and regulations, state statutory accounting and reserving practices, anti-trust laws, minimum solvency requirements, state securities laws, federal privacy laws, insurable interest laws, federal anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism laws, employment and immigration laws (including a law in Alabama where over half of the Company’s employees are located), and because the Company owns and operates real property, state, federal, and local environmental laws. Under some circumstances, severe penalties may be imposed for breach of these laws.

The Company cannot predict what form any future changes to laws and/or regulations affecting participants in the financial services sector and/or insurance industry, including the Company and its competitors or those entities with which it does business, may take, or what effect, if any, such changes may have.

Changes to tax law or interpretations of existing tax law could adversely affect the Company and its ability to compete with non-insurance products or reduce the demand for certain insurance products.

Under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), income taxes payable by policyholders on investment earnings is deferred during the accumulation period of most life insurance and annuity products. This favorable tax treatment provides some of the Company’s products with a competitive advantage over products offered by non-insurance companies. To the extent that the Code is revised to either reduce the tax-deferred status of life insurance and annuity products, or to establish the tax-deferred status of new or competing products, then all life insurance companies, including the Company and its subsidiaries, would be adversely affected with respect to their ability to sell such products. Furthermore, depending upon grandfathering provisions, such changes could cause increased surrenders of existing life insurance and annuity products. For example, new legislation that further restricts the deductibility of interest on funds borrowed to purchase corporate-owned life insurance products could result in increased surrenders of these products.

The Company is subject to the federal corporate income tax. Certain tax provisions, such as the dividends-received deduction, the deferral of current taxation on certain types of derivatives and securities, economic income, and the deduction for future policy benefits and claims, are beneficial to the Company. The Obama Administration and Congress have separately made proposals that either materially change or eliminate these benefits. Most of the foregoing proposals would cause the Company to pay higher current taxes, offset by a reduction in its deferred taxes. However, the proposal regarding the dividends-received deduction would cause the Company’s net income and earnings per share to decrease. Whether these proposals will be enacted, and if so, whether they will be enacted as described above, is uncertain.

The Company’s mid-2005 transition from relying on reinsurance for newly-written traditional life products to reinsuring some of these products’ reserves into its captive insurance companies resulted in a net reduction in its current taxes, offset by an increase in its deferred taxes. The resulting benefit of reduced current taxes is attributed to the applicable life products and is an important component of the profitability of these products. The profitability and competitive position of these products is dependent on the continuation of current tax law and the ability to generate taxable income.

31

Table of Contents

There is general uncertainty regarding the taxes to which the Company and its products will be subject in the future. The Company cannot predict what changes to tax law or interpretations of existing tax law may ultimately be enacted or adopted, or whether such changes will adversely affect the Company.

Financial services companies are frequently the targets of legal proceedings, including class action litigation, which could result in substantial judgments.

A number of judgments have been returned against insurers, broker-dealers, and other providers of financial services involving, among other things, sales, underwriting practices, product design, product disclosure, product administration, denial or delay of benefits, charging excessive or impermissible fees, recommending unsuitable products to customers, breaching fiduciary or other duties to customers, refund or claims practices, alleged agent misconduct, failure to properly supervise representatives, relationships with agents or other persons with whom the company does business, payment of sales or other contingent commissions, and other matters. Often these legal proceedings have resulted in the award of substantial judgments that are disproportionate to the actual damages, including material amounts of punitive non-economic compensatory damages. In some states, juries, judges, and arbitrators have substantial discretion in awarding punitive and non-economic compensatory damages, which creates the potential for unpredictable material adverse judgments or awards in any given legal proceeding. Arbitration awards are subject to very limited appellate review. In addition, in some legal proceedings, companies have made material settlement payments. In some instances, substantial judgments may be the result of a party’s perceived ability to satisfy such judgments as opposed to the facts and circumstances regarding the claims.

Group health coverage issued through associations and credit insurance coverages have received some negative publicity in the media as well as increased regulatory consideration and review and litigation. The Company has a small closed block of group health insurance coverage that was issued to members of an association; a purported class action lawsuit is currently pending against the Company in connection with this business.

A number of lawsuits and investigations regarding the method of paying claims have been initiated against life insurers. The Company offers payment methods that may be similar to those that have been the subject of such lawsuits and investigations.

The Company, like other financial services companies in the ordinary course of business, is involved in legal proceedings and regulatory actions. The occurrence of such matters may become more frequent and/or severe when general economic conditions have deteriorated. The Company may be unable to predict the outcome of such matters and may be unable to provide a reasonable range of potential losses. Given the inherent difficulty in predicting the outcome of such matters, it is possible that an adverse outcome in certain such matters could be material to the Company’s results for any particular reporting period.

Companies in the financial services industry are sometimes the target of law enforcement investigations and the focus of increased regulatory scrutiny.

Companies in the financial services and insurance industries are sometimes the target of law enforcement and regulatory investigations relating to the numerous laws and regulations that govern such companies. Some companies have been the subject of law enforcement or other actions resulting from such investigations. Resulting publicity about one company may generate inquiries into or litigation against other financial service providers, even those who do not engage in the business lines or practices at issue in the original action. It is impossible to predict the outcome of such investigations or actions, whether they will expand into other areas not yet contemplated, whether they will result in changes in regulation, whether activities currently thought to be lawful will be characterized as unlawful, or the impact, if any, of such scrutiny on the financial services and insurance industry or the Company. From time to time, the Company receives subpoenas, requests, or other inquires and responds to them in the ordinary course of business.

New accounting rules, changes to existing accounting rules, or the grant of permitted accounting practices to competitors could negatively impact the Company.

The Company is required to comply with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“GAAP”). A number of organizations are instrumental in the development and interpretation of GAAP such as the SEC, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”), and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants

32

Table of Contents

(“AICPA”). GAAP is subject to constant review by these organizations and others in an effort to address emerging accounting rules and issue interpretative accounting guidance on a continual basis. The Company can give no assurance that future changes to GAAP will not have a negative impact on the Company. GAAP includes the requirement to carry certain investments and insurance liabilities at fair value. These fair values are sensitive to various factors including, but not limited to, interest rate movements, credit spreads, and various other factors. Because of this, changes in these fair values may cause increased levels of volatility in the Company’s financial statements.

The FASB is working on several projects in conjunction with the International Accounting Standards Board, which could result in significant changes as GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”) attempt to converge. Furthermore, the SEC is considering whether and how to incorporate IFRS into the U.S. financial reporting system. The changes to GAAP and potential incorporation of IFRS into the U.S. financial reporting system will impose special demands on issuers in the areas of governance, employee training, internal controls, contract fulfillment and disclosure and will likely affect how we manage our business, as it will likely affect other business processes such as design of compensation plans, product design, etc. The Company is unable to predict whether, and if so, when these projects and ultimately convergence with IFRS will be adopted and/or implemented.

In addition, the Company and its insurance subsidiaries are required to comply with statutory accounting principles (“SAP”). SAP and various components of SAP (such as actuarial reserving methodology) are subject to constant review by the NAIC and its task forces and committees as well as state insurance departments in an effort to address emerging issues and otherwise improve or alter financial reporting. Various proposals either are currently or have previously been pending before committees and task forces of the NAIC, some of which, if enacted, would negatively affect the Company. The NAIC is also currently working to reform model regulation in various areas, including comprehensive reforms relating to life insurance reserves and the accounting for such reserves. The Company cannot predict whether or in what form reforms will be enacted by state legislatures and, if so, whether the enacted reforms will positively or negatively affect the Company. In addition, the NAIC Accounting Practices and Procedures manual provides that state insurance departments may permit insurance companies domiciled therein to depart from SAP by granting them permitted accounting practices. The Company cannot predict whether or when the insurance departments of the states of domicile of its competitors may permit them to utilize advantageous accounting practices that depart from SAP, the use of which is not permitted by the insurance departments of the states of domicile of the Company and its insurance subsidiaries. With respect to regulations and guidelines, states sometimes defer to the interpretation of the insurance department of the state of domicile. Neither the action of the domiciliary state nor action of the NAIC is binding on a state. Accordingly, a state could choose to follow a different interpretation. The Company can give no assurance that future changes to SAP or components of SAP or the grant of permitted accounting practices to its competitors will not have a negative impact on the Company. For additional information regarding pending NAIC reforms, please see Item 7, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

The use of reinsurance introduces variability in the Company’s statements of income.

The timing of premium payments to and receipt of expense allowances from reinsurers differs from the Company’s receipt of customer premium payments and incurrence of expenses. These timing differences introduce variability in certain components of the Company’s statements of income and may also introduce variability in the Company’s quarterly financial results.

The Company’s reinsurers could fail to meet assumed obligations, increase rates, terminate agreements or be subject to adverse developments that could affect the Company.

The Company and its insurance subsidiaries cede material amounts of insurance and transfer related assets to other insurance companies through reinsurance. However, notwithstanding the transfer of related assets or other issues, the Company remains liable with respect to ceded insurance should any reinsurer fail to meet the assumed obligations. Therefore, the failure, insolvency, or inability or unwillingness to pay under the terms of the reinsurance agreement with the Company of one or more of the Company’s reinsurers could negatively impact the Company’s earnings and financial position.

The Company’s results and its ability to compete are affected by the availability and cost of reinsurance. Premium rates charged by the Company are based, in part, on the assumption that reinsurance will be available at a certain cost. Under certain reinsurance agreements, a reinsurer may increase the rate it charges the Company for the

33

Table of Contents

reinsurance, including rates for new policies the Company is issuing and rates related to policies that the Company has already issued. The Company may not be able to increase the premium rates it charges for policies it has already issued, and for competitive reasons it may not be able to raise the premium rates it charges for new policies to offset the increase in rates charged by reinsurers. If the cost of reinsurance were to increase, if reinsurance were to become unavailable, if alternatives to reinsurance were not available to the Company, or if a reinsurer should fail to meet its obligations, the Company could be adversely affected.

In recent years, the number of life reinsurers has decreased as the reinsurance industry has consolidated. The decreased number of participants in the life reinsurance market results in increased concentration of risk for insurers, including the Company. If the reinsurance market further contracts, the Company’s ability to continue to offer its products on terms favorable to it could be adversely impacted.

In addition, reinsurers are facing many challenges regarding illiquid credit and/or capital markets, investment downgrades, rating agency downgrades, deterioration of general economic conditions, and other factors negatively impacting the financial services industry. Concerns over the potential default on the sovereign debt of several European Union member states, and its impact on the European financial sector have increased liquidity concerns, particularly for those reinsurers with significant exposure to European capital and/or credit markets. If such events cause a reinsurer to fail to meet its obligations, the Company would be adversely impacted.

The Company has implemented a reinsurance program through the use of captive reinsurers. Under these arrangements, an insurer owned by the Company serves as the reinsurer, and the consolidated books and tax returns of the Company reflects a liability consisting of the full reserve amount attributable to the reinsured business. The success of the Company’s captive reinsurance program is dependent on a number of factors outside the control of the Company, including continued access to financial solutions, a favorable regulatory environment, and the overall tax position of the Company. If the captive reinsurance program is not successful, the Company could be adversely impacted.

The Company’s policy claims fluctuate from period to period resulting in earnings volatility.

The Company’s results may fluctuate from period to period due to fluctuations in the amount of policy claims received. In addition, certain of the Company’s lines of business may experience higher claims if the economy is growing slowly or in recession, or if equity markets decline. Also, insofar as the Company continues to retain a larger percentage of the risk of newly written life insurance products than it has in the past, its financial results may have greater variability due to fluctuations in mortality results.

The Company operates in a mature, highly competitive industry, which could limit its ability to gain or maintain its position in the industry and negatively affect profitability.

The insurance industry is a mature and highly competitive industry. In recent years, the industry has experienced reduced growth in life insurance sales. The Company encounters significant competition in all lines of business from other insurance companies, many of which have greater financial resources and higher ratings than the Company and which may have a greater market share, offer a broader range of products, services or features, assume a greater level of risk, have lower operating or financing costs, or have different profitability expectations than the Company. The Company also faces competition from other providers of financial services. Competition could result in, among other things, lower sales or higher lapses of existing products. Consolidation and expansion among banks, insurance companies, distributors, and other financial service companies with which the Company does business could also have an adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition and results of operations if such companies require more favorable terms than previously offered to the Company or if such companies elect not to continue to do business with the Company following consolidation or expansion.

The Company’s ability to compete is dependent upon, among other things, its ability to attract and retain distribution channels to market its insurance and investment products, its ability to develop competitive and profitable products, its ability to maintain low unit costs, and its maintenance of adequate ratings from rating agencies.

As technology evolves, comparison of a particular product of any company for a particular customer with competing products for that customer is more readily available, which could lead to increased competition as well as agent or customer behavior, including persistency that differs from past behavior.

34

Table of Contents

policy fees, higher investment income due to growth of the block of business and favorable prospective unlocking. These increases were largely offset by less favorable traditional mortality and higher universal life claims due to growth in in-force and an increase in non-deferred expenses resulting from higher sales.

Operating revenues

Total operating revenues for the year ended December 31, 2013, increased $86.9 million, or 7.0%, as compared to the year ended December 31, 2012. This increase was driven by higher premiums and policy fees due to increased sales and higher investment income due to increases in net in-force reserves.

Net premiums and policy fees

Net premiums and policy fees increased by $52.7 million, or 7.1%, for the year ended December 31, 2013, as compared to the year ended December 31, 2012, primarily due to an increase in premium and policy fees associated with increased sales of universal life business, partially offset by decreases in traditional life premiums.

Net investment income

Net investment income in the segment increased $34.8 million, or 7.2%, for the year ended December 31, 2013, as compared to the year ended December 31, 2012. Of the increase in net investment income, $25.1 million was the result of a net increase in universal life reserves. Additionally, traditional life investment income increased $8.8 million due to a net increase in reserves.

Other income

Other income decreased $0.7 million, or 18.2%, for the year ended December 31, 2013, as compared to the year ended December 31, 2012. The decrease relates primarily to fees on variable universal life funds.

Benefits and settlement expenses

Benefits and settlement expenses increased by $88.0 million, or 8.3%, for the year ended December 31, 2013, as compared to the year ended December 31, 2012, due to growth in retained universal life insurance in-force, higher credited interest on universal life products resulting from increases in account values, and higher claims from growth in the universal life block and less favorable mortality in the traditional life block.  Unlocking during 2013 and 2012 increased benefit and settlement expenses by $50.5 million and $51.0 million, respectively.

Amortization of DAC

DAC amortization decreased $20.2 million, or 44.9%, for the year ended December 31, 2013, as compared to the year ended December 31, 2012, primarily due to differing impacts of unlocking. In 2013, universal life and BOLI unlocking decreased amortization $47.6 million, as compared to a decrease of $39.3 million in 2012.

Other operating expenses

Other operating expenses increased $14.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2013, as compared to the year ended December 31, 2012. This increase reflects higher new business acquisition costs associated with higher sales, higher general administrative expenses, and a $4.0 million increase in interest expense associated with reserve financing costs.

Sales

Sales for the segment increased $33.3 million, or 27.4%, for the year ended December 31, 2013, as compared to the year ended December 31, 2012. Universal life sales increased $36.3 million due to more competitive product positioning. BOLI sales decreased by $3.3 million due to less favorable product positioning.

53

Table of Contents

For The Year Ended December 31, 2012 as compared to The Year Ended December 31, 2011

Segment operating income

Operating income was $102.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2012, representing an increase of $6.0 million, or 6.2%, from the year ended December 31, 2011. The increase was primarily due to higher investment income, more favorable traditional life claims, and a less unfavorable change in unlocking. These increases were partially offset by unfavorable universal life and BOLI claims, an increase in reserves resulting from changes in universal life interest rate assumptions, and higher operating expenses.

Operating revenues

Total revenues for the year ended December 31, 2012, increased $39.7 million, or 3.3%, as compared to the year ended December 31, 2011. This increase was driven by higher investment income due to increases in net in-force reserves, partially offset by lower premiums and policy fees.

Net premiums and policy fees

Net premiums and policy fees decreased by $1.5 million, or 0.2%, for the year ended December 31, 2012, as compared to the year ended December 31, 2011, primarily due to decreases in traditional life premiums, largely offset by continued growth in universal life in-force business policy fees.

Net investment income

Net investment income in the segment increased $40.4 million, or 9.0%, for the year ended December 31, 2012, as compared to the year ended December 31, 2011. Increased retained universal life reserves more than offset the loss of investment income due to the securitization of excess reserves leading to increased investment income of $20.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2012, as compared to the year ended December 31, 2011. Increases in BOLI reserves led to higher BOLI investment income of $2.3 million in the same period. Traditional life investment income increased $17.4 million caused by growth in retained reserves and lower reserve financing costs.

Other income

Other income increased $0.8 million, or 26.7%, for the year ended December 31, 2012, as compared to the year ended December 31, 2011. The increase relates primarily to fees on variable universal life funds.

Benefits and settlement expenses

Benefits and settlement expenses increased by $76.5 million, or 7.8%, for the year ended December 31, 2012, as compared to the year ended December 31, 2011, due to growth in retained universal life insurance in-force, an increase in reserves resulting from changes in universal life interest rate assumptions, higher credited interest on universal life products resulting from increases in account values, and higher claims from growth in the universal life block and continued maturing of the traditional life block. In 2012, universal life and BOLI unlocking was largely driven by assumption changes regarding lapses, investment yield and credited interest on fund value. The impact of these changes increased benefits and settlement expenses $51.0 million. In 2011, universal life and BOLI unlocking increased benefit expenses $25.2 million.

Amortization of DAC

DAC amortization decreased $42.4 million, or 48.5%, for the year ended December 31, 2012, as compared to the year ended December 31, 2011, primarily due to differing impacts of unlocking. In 2012, universal life and BOLI unlocking decreased amortization $39.3 million, as compared to a decrease of $7.0 million in 2011.

54

Table of Contents

Other operating expenses

Other operating expenses decreased $0.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2012, as compared to the year ended December 31, 2011. This decrease reflects lower commissions and general administrative expenses, partly offset by a reduction in reinsurance allowances and a $0.6 million increase in interest expense associated with the securitization of excess universal life reserves.

Sales

Sales for the segment decreased $11.7 million, or 8.8%, for the year ended December 31, 2012, as compared to the year ended December 31, 2011. Traditional life sales decreased $2.7 million, or 71.0%, as we focused sales efforts on other lines. Universal life sales decreased $0.8 million, or 0.7%, due to price increases on certain products. BOLI sales, which tend to be subject to large variations, decreased by $8.1 million, or 71.4%.

Reinsurance

Currently, the Life Marketing segment reinsures significant amounts of its life insurance in-force. Pursuant to the underlying reinsurance contracts, reinsurers pay allowances to the segment as a percentage of both first year and renewal premiums. Reinsurance allowances represent the amount the reinsurer is willing to pay for reimbursement of acquisition costs incurred by the direct writer of the business. A portion of reinsurance allowances received is deferred as part of DAC and a portion is recognized immediately as a reduction of other operating expenses. As the non-deferred portion of allowances reduces operating expenses in the period received, these amounts represent a net increase to operating income during that period.

Reinsurance allowances do not affect the methodology used to amortize DAC or the period over which such DAC is amortized. However, they do affect the amounts recognized as DAC amortization. DAC on universal life-type, limited-payment long duration, and investment contracts business is amortized based on the estimated gross profits of the policies in-force. Reinsurance allowances are considered in the determination of estimated gross profits, and therefore, impact DAC amortization on these lines of business. Deferred reinsurance allowances on level term business are recorded as ceded DAC, which is amortized over estimated ceded premiums of the policies in-force. Thus, deferred reinsurance allowances may impact DAC amortization. A more detailed discussion of the components of reinsurance can be found in the Reinsurance section of Note 2, Summary of Significant Accounting Policies to our consolidated financial statements.

55