Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and "emerging growth company" in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes ☐ No ☒

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the Act) provides a "safe harbor" to encourage companies to provide prospective information, as long as those statements are identified as forward-looking and are accompanied by meaningful cautionary statements identifying important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those included in the forward-looking statements. Certain information contained in this quarterly report on Form 10-Q (including certain statements in the consolidated financial statements and related notes and Management's Discussion and Analysis), or in any other written or oral statements made by us in communications with the financial community or contained in documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), may be considered forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Act. Forward-looking statements are those not based on historical information, but rather relate to our outlook, future operations, strategies, financial results, or other developments. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date made. We undertake no obligation to update these statements, even if made available on our website or otherwise. These statements may be made directly in this document or may be made part of this document by reference to other documents filed by us with the SEC, a practice which is known as "incorporation by reference." You can find many of these statements by looking for words such as "will," "may," "should," "could," "believes," "expects," "anticipates," "estimates," "plans," "assumes," "intends," "projects," "goals,” "objectives," or similar expressions in this document or in documents incorporated herein.

These forward-looking statements are subject to numerous assumptions, risks, and uncertainties, many of which are beyond our control. We caution readers that the following factors, in addition to other factors mentioned from time to time, may cause actual results to differ materially from those contemplated by the forward-looking statements:

For further discussion of risks and uncertainties which could cause actual results to differ from those contained in the forward-looking statements, see Part 1, Item 1A of our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2020.2021.

All subsequent written and oral forward-looking statements attributable to us or any person acting on our behalf are expressly qualified in their entirety by the cautionary statements contained or referred to in this section.

    

See notes to consolidated financial statements.

See notes to consolidated financial statements.

See notes to consolidated financial statements.

Certain prior year amounts were reclassified to conform to current year presentation. See notes to consolidated financial statements.

The accompanying consolidated financial statements of Unum Group and its subsidiaries (the Company) have been prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and footnotes required by GAAP for complete financial statements. For further information, refer to the consolidated financial statements and footnotes included in our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2020.2021.

In our opinion, all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring accruals) considered necessary for a fair presentation have been included. Interim results are not necessarily indicative of full year performance, particularly when considering the risks and uncertainties associated with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and the impacts it may have on our financial position, results of operations, liquidity and capital resources, and overall business operations.

We report fixed maturity securities, which are classified as available-for-sale securities, derivative financial instruments, and unrestricted equity securities at fair value in our consolidated balance sheets. We report our investments in private equity partnerships at our share of the partnerships' net asset value per share or its equivalent (NAV) as a practical expedient for fair value.

The degree of judgment utilized in measuring the fair value of financial instruments generally correlates to the level of pricing observability. Financial instruments with readily available active quoted prices or for which fair value can be measured from actively quoted prices in active markets generally have more pricing observability and less judgment utilized in measuring fair value. An active market for a financial instrument is a market in which transactions for an asset or a similar asset occur with sufficient frequency and volume to provide pricing information on an ongoing basis. A quoted price in an active market provides the most reliable evidence of fair value and should be used to measure fair value whenever available. Conversely, financial instruments rarely traded or not quoted have less observability and are measured at fair value using valuation techniques that require more judgment. Pricing observability is generally impacted by a number of factors, including the type of financial instrument, whether the financial instrument is new to the market and not yet established, the characteristics specific to the transaction, and overall market conditions.

We classify financial instruments in accordance with a fair value hierarchy consisting of three levels based on the observability of valuation inputs:

Valuation techniques used for assets and liabilities accounted for at fair value are generally categorized into three types. The market approach uses prices and other relevant information from market transactions involving identical or comparable assets or liabilities. The income approach converts future amounts, such as cash flows or earnings, to a single present amount, or a discounted amount. The cost approach is based upon the amount that currently would be required to replace the service capacity of an asset, or the current replacement cost.

We use valuation techniques that are appropriate in the circumstances and for which sufficient data are available that can be obtained without undue cost and effort. In some cases, a single valuation technique will be appropriate (for example, when valuing an asset or liability using quoted prices in an active market for identical assets or liabilities). In other cases, multiple valuation techniques will be appropriate. If we use multiple valuation techniques to measure fair value, we evaluate and weigh the results, as appropriate, considering the reasonableness of the range indicated by those results. A fair value measurement is the point within that range that is most representative of fair value in the circumstances.

The selection of the valuation method(s) to apply considers the definition of an exit price and depends on the nature of the asset or liability being valued. For assets and liabilities accounted for at fair value, we generally use valuation techniques consistent with the market approach, and to a lesser extent, the income approach. We believe the market approach provides more observable data than the income approach, considering the type of investments we hold. Our fair value measurements could differ significantly based on the valuation technique and available inputs. When using a pricing service, we obtain the vendor's pricing documentation to ensure we understand their methodologies. We periodically review and approve the selection of our

pricing vendors to ensure we are in agreement with their current methodologies. When markets are less active, brokers may rely more on models with inputs based on the information available only to the broker. Our internal investment management professionals, which include portfolio managers and analysts, monitor securities priced by brokers and evaluate their prices for reasonableness based on benchmarking to available primary and secondary market information. In weighing a broker quote as an input to fair value, we place less reliance on quotes that do not reflect the result of market transactions. We also consider the nature of the quote, particularly whether it is a bid or market quote. If prices in an inactive market do not reflect current prices for the same or similar assets, adjustments may be necessary to arrive at fair value. When relevant market data is unavailable, which may be the case during periods of market uncertainty, the income approach can, in suitable circumstances, provide a more appropriate fair value. During 2021,2022, we have applied valuation approaches and techniques on a consistent basis to similar assets and liabilities and consistent with those approaches and techniques used at year end 2020.2021.

We use observable and unobservable inputs in measuring the fair value of our fixed maturity and equity securities. For securities categorized as Level 1, fair values equal active Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (TRACE) pricing or unadjusted market maker prices. For securities categorized as Level 2 or Level 3, inputs that may be used in valuing each class of securities at any given time period are disclosed below. Actual inputs used to determine fair values will vary for each reporting period depending on the availability of inputs which may, at times, be affected by the lack of market liquidity.

The management of our investment portfolio includes establishing pricing policy and reviewing the reasonableness of sources and inputs used in developing pricing. We review all prices that vary between multiple pricing vendors by a threshold that is outside a normal market range for the asset type.  In the event we receive a vendor's market price that does not appear reasonable based on our market analysis, we may challenge the price and request further information about the assumptions and methodologies used by the vendor to price the security. We may change the vendor price based on a better data source such as an actual trade. We also review all prices that did not change from the prior month to ensure that these prices are within our expectations. The overall valuation process for determining fair values may include adjustments to valuations obtained from our pricing sources when they do not represent a valid exit price. These adjustments may be made when, in our judgment and considering our knowledge of the financial conditions and industry in which the issuer operates, certain features of the financial instrument require that an adjustment be made to the value originally obtained from our pricing sources. These features may include the complexity of the financial instrument, the market in which the financial instrument is traded, counterparty credit risk, credit structure, concentration, or liquidity. Additionally, an adjustment to the price derived from a model typically reflects our judgment of the inputs that other participants in the market for the financial instrument being measured at fair value would consider in pricing that same financial instrument. In the event an asset is sold, we test the validity of the fair value determined by our valuation techniques by comparing the selling price to the fair value determined for the asset in the immediately preceding month end reporting period.

Certain of our investments do not have readily determinable market prices and/or observable inputs or may at times be affected by the lack of market liquidity. For these securities, we use internally prepared valuations, including valuations based on estimates of future profitability, to estimate the fair value. Additionally, we may obtain prices from independent third-party brokers to aid in establishing valuations for certain of these securities. Key assumptions used by us to determine fair value for

The parameters and inputs used to validate a price on a security may be adjusted for assumptions about risk and current market conditions on a quarter to quarter basis, as certain features may be more significant drivers of valuation at the time of pricing. Changes to inputs in valuations are not changes to valuation methodologies; rather, the inputs are modified to reflect direct or indirect impacts on asset classes from changes in market conditions.

At September 30, 2021,March 31, 2022, approximately 23.620.7 percent of our fixed maturity securities were valued using active trades from TRACE pricing or broker market maker prices for which there was current market activity in that specific security (comparable to receiving one binding quote).  The prices obtained were not adjusted, and the assets were classified as Level 1.

The remaining 76.479.3 percent of our fixed maturity securities were valued based on non-binding quotes or other observable and unobservable inputs, as discussed below:

Fair values for derivatives other than embedded derivatives in modified coinsurance arrangements are based on market quotes or pricing models and represent the net amount of cash we would have paid or received if the contracts had been settled or closed as of the last day of the period. We analyze credit default swap spreads relativeCredit risk related to the average credit spread embedded withincounterparty and the LIBOR-setting syndicateCompany is considered in determining the effectfair values of these derivatives. However, since the Company has collateralization agreements in place with each counterparty which limit the Company’s exposure, any credit risk on our derivatives' fair values.  If net counterpartyis immaterial. Therefore, the Company determined that no adjustments for credit risk for a derivative asset is determined to be material and is not adequately reflected in the LIBOR-based fair value obtained from our pricing sources, we adjust the valuations obtained from our pricing sources. For purposeswere required as of valuing net counterparty risk, we measure the fair value of a group of financial assets and financial liabilities on the basis of the price that would be received to sell a net long positionMarch 31, 2022 or transfer a net short position for a particular risk exposure in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date under current market conditions. In regard to our own credit risk component, we adjust the valuation of derivative liabilities wherein the counterparty is exposed to our credit risk when the LIBOR-based valuation of our derivatives obtained from pricing sources does not effectively include an adequate credit component for our own credit risk.December 31, 2021.

Fair values for our embedded derivative in a modified coinsurance arrangement are estimated using internal pricing models and represent the hypothetical value of the duration mismatch of assets and liabilities, interest rate risk, and third party credit risk embedded in the modified coinsurance arrangement.

We consider transactions in inactive markets to be less representative of fair value. We use all available observable inputs when measuring fair value, but when significant unobservable inputs are used, we classify these assets or liabilities as Level 3.

Our private equity partnerships represent funds that are primarily invested in private credit, private equity, and real assets, as described below. Distributions received from the funds arise from income generated by the underlying investments as well as the liquidation of the underlying investments. There is generally not a public market for these investments.

The following tables present additional information about our private equity partnerships, including commitments for additional investments which may or may not be funded: